Is Bernard Scott worth rostering? (1 Viewer)

[Mookie Blaylock]

Redraft?

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

ACF?

 

[footballnerd]

Maybe pick him up for week 11 through 13 if Benson gets hurt. Brian Leonard is the only other RB since Dorsey got released.

 

[EBF]

Well we know that Cedric Benson sucks, so I guess Scott can't be any worse.

Benson got 20+ carries against a piss poor Broncos team and did absolutely nothing. His only long run came when there was a huge hole. It wasn't a good run. He didn't make anyone miss and was tackled by the first defender who attempted to bring him down.

If the Bengals get sick of him and his 3.4 YPC routine then we could see Scott get a chance. Brian Leonard certainly isn't the answer.

 

[pollardsvision]

Well we know that Cedric Benson sucks, so I guess Scott can't be any worse. Benson got 20+ carries against a piss poor Broncos team and did absolutely nothing. His only long run came when there was a huge hole. It wasn't a good run. He didn't make anyone miss and was tackled by the first defender who attempted to bring him down. If the Bengals get sick of him and his 3.4 YPC routine then we could see Scott get a chance. Brian Leonard certainly isn't the answer.

This is why I'm hanging on a bit longer. I'm certainly not excited about it, but I feel like he'll get his shot. When he does, he just needs to be better than Cedric Benson.

 

[baconisgood]

Well we know that Cedric Benson sucks, so I guess Scott can't be any worse. Benson got 20+ carries against a piss poor Broncos team and did absolutely nothing. His only long run came when there was a huge hole. It wasn't a good run. He didn't make anyone miss and was tackled by the first defender who attempted to bring him down. If the Bengals get sick of him and his 3.4 YPC routine then we could see Scott get a chance. Brian Leonard certainly isn't the answer.

This is why I'm hanging on a bit longer. I'm certainly not excited about it, but I feel like he'll get his shot. When he does, he just needs to be better than Cedric Benson.

I cut him yesterday as 1 carry in a game screams the coach doesn't trust him yet. Most likely his blitz pickup will keep him from being on the field- they could have used a spark Sunday and he was firmly planted on the bench.

 

[Football Jones]

It's only a matter of time before Bernard Scott gets his chance. Benson is an average NFL RB. Scott is much more talented & has big-time potential, IMO (especially in PPR leagues).

That said, it's no surprise the Bengals are bringing Scott along slowly. At the same time, he could have a breakout game any week. And Scott will keep the job once they make the change. I expect that to happen sometime this season.

 

[zamboni]

I would hold on, if only due to Benson possibly regressing as the season goes on. If Marvin is still around when the Bengals fall out of contention, they may want to see what Scott can do for the future.

 

[Banger]

There are a couple reasons why you might want to hang onto him as has been mentioned....Benson just isn't good...I know their line isn't good but if that's the case you need a guy that has some explosion and can get yards on his own. Benson may have done well as a Rudi Johnson type back when they had a better line but put him back there behind that awful line and his weekly stat line is going to be 18-46 which means a lot of 3rd and longs for the offense and a lot of 3 and outs.

Scott is raw and the staff has said as much during camp but despite that he became the #2 back and put Leonard/Dorsey on the bubble.

Benson also seems to take hard hits with his running style and fumbles a good amount so there's chance either by injury or his play that Scott get some time. The problem is if you cut him and they insert Scott and he has a nice game there's a good chance you won't get him back unless you're at the top of the WW.

He's a project and a risk no doubt but he could be a decent gamble if things break right. It just may take a few weeks.

 

[zamboni]

FWIW, I did read that the Bengals cut DeDe Dorsey. Not that it's a big move, but may show that the team has increasing confidence in Scott. Now only Leonard and Scott are behind Benson.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

The absolute only reason to keep Scott in a redraft is injury. If you are holding out for him to take over for Benson anytime in the near future, you are in denial. Cincinnati hasn't and won't use a RBBC. Benson will get 80-90% of the RB carries.

He will have his 18-46 games. They will likely come against Pittsburgh (2), Baltimore (2), and Minnesota. Other than that, his schedule looks good. He will have a lot more games like last week than the 18-46 type games.

And why are people so confident Scott isn't worse than Benson? So what if he played well in the preseason against guys who are now looking for UFL jobs. So what if he tore it up against Divison II guys who are now working at Hardees. He has 1 carry for (-6) yards in the NFL. And, that is worse than Benson.

And when did Benson develop a fumbling problem? Last year, he fumbled at a rate of 0.93%. For his career, it's 0.92%. Last year, the top 50 RBs fumbled at a rate of 1.25%.

Again, keeping Scott because of injury has some merit. But most of the other reasons given in this thread just don't make sense. It seems people are just refusing to recognize the obvious - the Bengals are going to run Benson almost exclusively, just like they have done in the past with other RBs.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

FWIW, I did read that the Bengals cut DeDe Dorsey. Not that it's a big move, but may show that the team has increasing confidence in Scott. Now only Leonard and Scott are behind Benson.

That would be one way of looking at it. The other would be that they will rarely be using anyone else but Benson, just like in game 1, and they needed the roster spot for Andre Smith.

 

[Football Jones]

The absolute only reason to keep Scott in a redraft is injury. If you are holding out for him to take over for Benson anytime in the near future, you are in denial. Cincinnati hasn't and won't use a RBBC. Benson will get 80-90% of the RB carries.He will have his 18-46 games. They will likely come against Pittsburgh (2), Baltimore (2), and Minnesota. Other than that, his schedule looks good. He will have a lot more games like last week than the 18-46 type games.And why are people so confident Scott isn't worse than Benson? So what if he played well in the preseason against guys who are now looking for UFL jobs. So what if he tore it up against Divison II guys who are now working at Hardees. He has 1 carry for (-6) yards in the NFL. And, that is worse than Benson.And when did Benson develop a fumbling problem? Last year, he fumbled at a rate of 0.93%. For his career, it's 0.92%. Last year, the top 50 RBs fumbled at a rate of 1.25%.Again, keeping Scott because of injury has some merit. But most of the other reasons given in this thread just don't make sense. It seems people are just refusing to recognize the obvious - the Bengals are going to run Benson almost exclusively, just like they have done in the past with other RBs.

I'm not talking about a RBBC, I'm talking about Scott taking over as their feature back. Not saying Benson wouldn't get touches, but he's proven to be an average NFL RB. Scott is their future, IMO. This kid is legit. Don't let his draft status fool you. Scott has day-1 talent. If Scott behaves, & by all accounts he's done that (so far), he'll pass Benson absolutely no later than 2010 (& I'm predicting sometime this season). They may very well be patient with him, tho.

 

[Shaun]

Redraft?

No, I actually just cut him after week 1's non-performance...

 

[Grahamburn]

The absolute only reason to keep Scott in a redraft is injury. If you are holding out for him to take over for Benson anytime in the near future, you are in denial. Cincinnati hasn't and won't use a RBBC. Benson will get 80-90% of the RB carries.He will have his 18-46 games. They will likely come against Pittsburgh (2), Baltimore (2), and Minnesota. Other than that, his schedule looks good. He will have a lot more games like last week than the 18-46 type games.And why are people so confident Scott isn't worse than Benson? So what if he played well in the preseason against guys who are now looking for UFL jobs. So what if he tore it up against Divison II guys who are now working at Hardees. He has 1 carry for (-6) yards in the NFL. And, that is worse than Benson.And when did Benson develop a fumbling problem? Last year, he fumbled at a rate of 0.93%. For his career, it's 0.92%. Last year, the top 50 RBs fumbled at a rate of 1.25%.Again, keeping Scott because of injury has some merit. But most of the other reasons given in this thread just don't make sense. It seems people are just refusing to recognize the obvious - the Bengals are going to run Benson almost exclusively, just like they have done in the past with other RBs.

I don't understand all the Benson bashing. The guy just had over 100 total yards and a TD in the first game of the season. I don't care who the opponent was. Those are good numbers. We don't know yet how good the Denver D is in 2009. They didn't look all that awful to me. If he's that effective against a "bad" defense I see no reason for him to lose his job, and I doubt he's going to be benched for subpar outings against Pitt, Balt, or Minn. The Bengals aren't going to be effective running the ball in those matchups with any RB.He caught the ball well out of the backfield, blocked effectively, had some decent runs, and had 25 touches against Denver, which is exactly why I targeted him in my drafts. The guy is going to get the ball.Benson got a two year contract in the offseason to be the starter and it's pretty obvious that the Bengals are going to use him that way. Some of you may think "he sucks," but apparently the coaches disagree with you.

 

[baconisgood]

I don't understand all the Benson bashing. The guy just had over 100 total yards and a TD in the first game of the season. I don't care who the opponent was. Those are good numbers.

Hahahahaha. Ha. I guess Jamal Lewis didn't suck last year because he got 84 yards and a TD against the Broncos- or Sammy Morris was a god with 134 + 1, Justin Fargas put up 115 and 109 yards. ####ty Ds give up chunks of yardage to mediocre running backs all the time.

 

[Riffraff]

I can't recall the last time an older rookie with multiple personal issues, who's been kicked off both high school and college football teams, has had such a long line of ducklings following his tail end.

Is he really a swan or a bird of another feather?

 

[EBF]

The absolute only reason to keep Scott in a redraft is injury. If you are holding out for him to take over for Benson anytime in the near future, you are in denial. Cincinnati hasn't and won't use a RBBC. Benson will get 80-90% of the RB carries.He will have his 18-46 games. They will likely come against Pittsburgh (2), Baltimore (2), and Minnesota. Other than that, his schedule looks good. He will have a lot more games like last week than the 18-46 type games.And why are people so confident Scott isn't worse than Benson? So what if he played well in the preseason against guys who are now looking for UFL jobs. So what if he tore it up against Divison II guys who are now working at Hardees. He has 1 carry for (-6) yards in the NFL. And, that is worse than Benson.And when did Benson develop a fumbling problem? Last year, he fumbled at a rate of 0.93%. For his career, it's 0.92%. Last year, the top 50 RBs fumbled at a rate of 1.25%.Again, keeping Scott because of injury has some merit. But most of the other reasons given in this thread just don't make sense. It seems people are just refusing to recognize the obvious - the Bengals are going to run Benson almost exclusively, just like they have done in the past with other RBs.

:X I don't understand all the Benson bashing. The guy just had over 100 total yards and a TD in the first game of the season. I don't care who the opponent was. Those are good numbers. We don't know yet how good the Denver D is in 2009. They didn't look all that awful to me. If he's that effective against a "bad" defense I see no reason for him to lose his job, and I doubt he's going to be benched for subpar outings against Pitt, Balt, or Minn. The Bengals aren't going to be effective running the ball in those matchups with any RB.He caught the ball well out of the backfield, blocked effectively, had some decent runs, and had 25 touches against Denver, which is exactly why I targeted him in my drafts. The guy is going to get the ball.Benson got a two year contract in the offseason to be the starter and it's pretty obvious that the Bengals are going to use him that way. Some of you may think "he sucks," but apparently the coaches disagree with you.

He's horrible. The question is whether Scott is any better. I don't know the answer.

 

[G-Money]

Well we know that Cedric Benson sucks, so I guess Scott can't be any worse. Benson got 20+ carries against a piss poor Broncos team and did absolutely nothing. His only long run came when there was a huge hole. It wasn't a good run. He didn't make anyone miss and was tackled by the first defender who attempted to bring him down. If the Bengals get sick of him and his 3.4 YPC routine then we could see Scott get a chance. Brian Leonard certainly isn't the answer.

This is why I'm hanging on a bit longer. I'm certainly not excited about it, but I feel like he'll get his shot. When he does, he just needs to be better than Cedric Benson.

Ditto

 

[Rushmore]

The absolute only reason to keep Scott in a redraft is injury. If you are holding out for him to take over for Benson anytime in the near future, you are in denial. Cincinnati hasn't and won't use a RBBC. Benson will get 80-90% of the RB carries.He will have his 18-46 games. They will likely come against Pittsburgh (2), Baltimore (2), and Minnesota. Other than that, his schedule looks good. He will have a lot more games like last week than the 18-46 type games.And why are people so confident Scott isn't worse than Benson? So what if he played well in the preseason against guys who are now looking for UFL jobs. So what if he tore it up against Divison II guys who are now working at Hardees. He has 1 carry for (-6) yards in the NFL. And, that is worse than Benson.And when did Benson develop a fumbling problem? Last year, he fumbled at a rate of 0.93%. For his career, it's 0.92%. Last year, the top 50 RBs fumbled at a rate of 1.25%.Again, keeping Scott because of injury has some merit. But most of the other reasons given in this thread just don't make sense. It seems people are just refusing to recognize the obvious - the Bengals are going to run Benson almost exclusively, just like they have done in the past with other RBs.

I don't understand all the Benson bashing. The guy just had over 100 total yards and a TD in the first game of the season. I don't care who the opponent was. Those are good numbers. We don't know yet how good the Denver D is in 2009. They didn't look all that awful to me. If he's that effective against a "bad" defense I see no reason for him to lose his job, and I doubt he's going to be benched for subpar outings against Pitt, Balt, or Minn. The Bengals aren't going to be effective running the ball in those matchups with any RB.He caught the ball well out of the backfield, blocked effectively, had some decent runs, and had 25 touches against Denver, which is exactly why I targeted him in my drafts. The guy is going to get the ball.Benson got a two year contract in the offseason to be the starter and it's pretty obvious that the Bengals are going to use him that way. Some of you may think "he sucks," but apparently the coaches disagree with you.

Agree to an extent. Benson may not be a stud by most people's definitions, but he is not as bad as many like to claim. The line pass blocked decent on Sunday, but Benson was not getting holes opened up for the running game. Along with that, I thought he caught the ball suprisingly well and seemed a bit more agile than what he's usually given credit for. I'm not some huge Ced fan or anything, but he gets more criticism than deserved.

 

[Grahamburn]

I don't understand all the Benson bashing. The guy just had over 100 total yards and a TD in the first game of the season. I don't care who the opponent was. Those are good numbers.

Hahahahaha. Ha. I guess Jamal Lewis didn't suck last year because he got 84 yards and a TD against the Broncos- or Sammy Morris was a god with 134 + 1, Justin Fargas put up 115 and 109 yards. ####ty Ds give up chunks of yardage to mediocre running backs all the time.

No one said the guy wasn't mediocre. I said he had a good game, he did. In reference to this thread I think it's pretty relevant to Bernard Scott's value if Benson can have over 100 yards and score TDs against good matchups.Expect Benson to continue to get the ball making Scott worthless or continue with the "ha" routine. I don't care.

 

[Kenny Powers]

BUMP

Anyone think its time to handcuff Scott if you have Benson??

I had an extra TE and K on my roster this week after needing bye week fill-ins, and our rosters are big at 22 players so the WW is extremely thin.

Bernard Scott seemed like a guy worth holding for now while I have the extra roster space so I picked him up and I'd say if you have Benson you should definitely get this guy while you can in case Benson goes down

 

[zamboni]

I've had Scott as a handcuff since the beginning of the season, and plan to hold on.

However, I was hoping that Scott would take the job outright - totally didn't expect Benson to play this well. Now it'll be injury or nothing for Scott to get on the field for any stretch.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I've had Scott as a handcuff since the beginning of the season, and plan to hold on.However, I was hoping that Scott would take the job outright - totally didn't expect Benson to play this well. Now it'll be injury or nothing for Scott to get on the field for any stretch.

I cut him for better depth at bye week times. Benson would have to get hurt to give scott any value (in a redraft, and prolly in a keeper too- as the price to pay for him would be about what you keep him for, i'd say his value is still good in dynastys)

 

[Novice2]

i drafted Scott in the last round thinking i was super smart and Benson wouldn't do much and at worst Scott would get 50% of the carries and be a good bye week filler / trade bait.

 

[Farmer Fran]

I just added Scott as my #6 running back. I see him as having value given the heavy work load and production Benson is getting. If Benson goes down you could see similar production from Scott if he becomes the go to guy. The big question in my mind is if we would see RBBC if Benson gets hurt or would Scott become the man

 

[JKL]

I just added Scott as my #6 running back. I see him as having value given the heavy work load and production Benson is getting. If Benson goes down you could see similar production from Scott if he becomes the go to guy. The big question in my mind is if we would see RBBC if Benson gets hurt or would Scott become the man

I think he's worth a short-term add in a deep league, particularly if you have a bad waiver position and won't get a player after an injury. Lewis has shown a willingness to ride one back in a game, whether it be Rudi, or even Kenny Watson, or now Benson, so if something happened to Benson, I think Scott would become a solid start.Benson is an increased injury risk. He leads the league in rush attempts right now, and is coming off a 27 carry, 2 reception game in a close win over Baltimore. Backs that have high carry games in wins are at higher risk of injury right after. For example, of the 55 other backs who have had exactly 27 carries and 2 receptions in a win since 1978, 12 of them (21.8%) suffered an injury within the next 50 touches after that game. That's about twice as high as a back with an average workload game. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/PGiOg Included on that list are serious injuries to Deuce McAllister, Fred Taylor, Ricky Williams and Robert Smith.

Odds are that Benson does not get hurt, but a 20% chance that you get a starting running back in Cincinnati in the next two weeks is worth the back end of a roster spot, when the pickup is free right now.

 

[The Redbeard]

I just added Scott as my #6 running back. I see him as having value given the heavy work load and production Benson is getting. If Benson goes down you could see similar production from Scott if he becomes the go to guy. The big question in my mind is if we would see RBBC if Benson gets hurt or would Scott become the man

I think he's worth a short-term add in a deep league, particularly if you have a bad waiver position and won't get a player after an injury. Lewis has shown a willingness to ride one back in a game, whether it be Rudi, or even Kenny Watson, or now Benson, so if something happened to Benson, I think Scott would become a solid start.Benson is an increased injury risk. He leads the league in rush attempts right now, and is coming off a 27 carry, 2 reception game in a close win over Baltimore. Backs that have high carry games in wins are at higher risk of injury right after. For example, of the 55 other backs who have had exactly 27 carries and 2 receptions in a win since 1978, 12 of them (21.8%) suffered an injury within the next 50 touches after that game. That's about twice as high as a back with an average workload game. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/PGiOg Included on that list are serious injuries to Deuce McAllister, Fred Taylor, Ricky Williams and Robert Smith.

Odds are that Benson does not get hurt, but a 20% chance that you get a starting running back in Cincinnati in the next two weeks is worth the back end of a roster spot, when the pickup is free right now.

Thank you for beginning to replenish my faith in the Shark Pool. This kind of analysis is what makes a question about Bernard Scott not an ACF question.

 

[robertd52]

Tell you what, reading through the replies back in this thread from September are pretty freakin funny!!!

Then again, I just traded Benson (started him twice in 5 weeks), and 2 guys that will never see my starting line up for Welker, so maybe I sold to early too!!!

All Benson owners should have Scott, period.

Otherwise, if your in a deep league, and there isnt other talent that could produce without an injury in the fa pool, Scott is obviously worth holding onto with a team that likes to run the ball and not in a RBBC format.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I just added Scott as my #6 running back. I see him as having value given the heavy work load and production Benson is getting. If Benson goes down you could see similar production from Scott if he becomes the go to guy. The big question in my mind is if we would see RBBC if Benson gets hurt or would Scott become the man

I think he's worth a short-term add in a deep league, particularly if you have a bad waiver position and won't get a player after an injury. Lewis has shown a willingness to ride one back in a game, whether it be Rudi, or even Kenny Watson, or now Benson, so if something happened to Benson, I think Scott would become a solid start.Benson is an increased injury risk. He leads the league in rush attempts right now, and is coming off a 27 carry, 2 reception game in a close win over Baltimore. Backs that have high carry games in wins are at higher risk of injury right after. For example, of the 55 other backs who have had exactly 27 carries and 2 receptions in a win since 1978, 12 of them (21.8%) suffered an injury within the next 50 touches after that game. That's about twice as high as a back with an average workload game. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/PGiOg Included on that list are serious injuries to Deuce McAllister, Fred Taylor, Ricky Williams and Robert Smith.

Odds are that Benson does not get hurt, but a 20% chance that you get a starting running back in Cincinnati in the next two weeks is worth the back end of a roster spot, when the pickup is free right now.

Thank you for beginning to replenish my faith in the Shark Pool. This kind of analysis is what makes a question about Bernard Scott not an ACF question.

You guys have got to be kidding.

 

[djmich]

I just added Scott as my #6 running back. I see him as having value given the heavy work load and production Benson is getting. If Benson goes down you could see similar production from Scott if he becomes the go to guy. The big question in my mind is if we would see RBBC if Benson gets hurt or would Scott become the man

I think he's worth a short-term add in a deep league, particularly if you have a bad waiver position and won't get a player after an injury. Lewis has shown a willingness to ride one back in a game, whether it be Rudi, or even Kenny Watson, or now Benson, so if something happened to Benson, I think Scott would become a solid start.Benson is an increased injury risk. He leads the league in rush attempts right now, and is coming off a 27 carry, 2 reception game in a close win over Baltimore. Backs that have high carry games in wins are at higher risk of injury right after. For example, of the 55 other backs who have had exactly 27 carries and 2 receptions in a win since 1978, 12 of them (21.8%) suffered an injury within the next 50 touches after that game. That's about twice as high as a back with an average workload game. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/PGiOg Included on that list are serious injuries to Deuce McAllister, Fred Taylor, Ricky Williams and Robert Smith.

Odds are that Benson does not get hurt, but a 20% chance that you get a starting running back in Cincinnati in the next two weeks is worth the back end of a roster spot, when the pickup is free right now.

Can you update this for a 37 carry effort after the 27 carry.

 

[Ryan_21]

I just added Scott as my #6 running back. I see him as having value given the heavy work load and production Benson is getting. If Benson goes down you could see similar production from Scott if he becomes the go to guy. The big question in my mind is if we would see RBBC if Benson gets hurt or would Scott become the man

I think he's worth a short-term add in a deep league, particularly if you have a bad waiver position and won't get a player after an injury. Lewis has shown a willingness to ride one back in a game, whether it be Rudi, or even Kenny Watson, or now Benson, so if something happened to Benson, I think Scott would become a solid start.Benson is an increased injury risk. He leads the league in rush attempts right now, and is coming off a 27 carry, 2 reception game in a close win over Baltimore. Backs that have high carry games in wins are at higher risk of injury right after. For example, of the 55 other backs who have had exactly 27 carries and 2 receptions in a win since 1978, 12 of them (21.8%) suffered an injury within the next 50 touches after that game. That's about twice as high as a back with an average workload game. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/PGiOg Included on that list are serious injuries to Deuce McAllister, Fred Taylor, Ricky Williams and Robert Smith.

Odds are that Benson does not get hurt, but a 20% chance that you get a starting running back in Cincinnati in the next two weeks is worth the back end of a roster spot, when the pickup is free right now.

Can you update this for a 37 carry effort after the 27 carry.

Update: Benson is a BEAST

 

[JKL]

I just added Scott as my #6 running back. I see him as having value given the heavy work load and production Benson is getting. If Benson goes down you could see similar production from Scott if he becomes the go to guy. The big question in my mind is if we would see RBBC if Benson gets hurt or would Scott become the man

I think he's worth a short-term add in a deep league, particularly if you have a bad waiver position and won't get a player after an injury. Lewis has shown a willingness to ride one back in a game, whether it be Rudi, or even Kenny Watson, or now Benson, so if something happened to Benson, I think Scott would become a solid start.Benson is an increased injury risk. He leads the league in rush attempts right now, and is coming off a 27 carry, 2 reception game in a close win over Baltimore. Backs that have high carry games in wins are at higher risk of injury right after. For example, of the 55 other backs who have had exactly 27 carries and 2 receptions in a win since 1978, 12 of them (21.8%) suffered an injury within the next 50 touches after that game. That's about twice as high as a back with an average workload game. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/PGiOg Included on that list are serious injuries to Deuce McAllister, Fred Taylor, Ricky Williams and Robert Smith.

Odds are that Benson does not get hurt, but a 20% chance that you get a starting running back in Cincinnati in the next two weeks is worth the back end of a roster spot, when the pickup is free right now.

Can you update this for a 37 carry effort after the 27 carry.

Update: Benson is a BEAST

Sure, there are alot fewer guys with 37 carries. Since 1978, it's 18. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/XTVy64 of the 15 that did so in a win got hurt within 50 touches thereafter--Davis, Okoye, Taylor, and Cadillac. 0 of 2 that did so in a loss got hurt within 50 (though Means got hurt just outside that, season ending injury in the 10th game), and Zeroue (the lone tie) did not miss any games thereafter. Overall 4 of 18 (22.2%). Again, more likely that Benson keeps rolling, and if he does, he looks like a guy that's going to keep getting alot of carries. I think I would probably handcuff at this point.

 

[Ryan_21]

I just added Scott as my #6 running back. I see him as having value given the heavy work load and production Benson is getting. If Benson goes down you could see similar production from Scott if he becomes the go to guy. The big question in my mind is if we would see RBBC if Benson gets hurt or would Scott become the man

I think he's worth a short-term add in a deep league, particularly if you have a bad waiver position and won't get a player after an injury. Lewis has shown a willingness to ride one back in a game, whether it be Rudi, or even Kenny Watson, or now Benson, so if something happened to Benson, I think Scott would become a solid start.Benson is an increased injury risk. He leads the league in rush attempts right now, and is coming off a 27 carry, 2 reception game in a close win over Baltimore. Backs that have high carry games in wins are at higher risk of injury right after. For example, of the 55 other backs who have had exactly 27 carries and 2 receptions in a win since 1978, 12 of them (21.8%) suffered an injury within the next 50 touches after that game. That's about twice as high as a back with an average workload game. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/PGiOg Included on that list are serious injuries to Deuce McAllister, Fred Taylor, Ricky Williams and Robert Smith.

Odds are that Benson does not get hurt, but a 20% chance that you get a starting running back in Cincinnati in the next two weeks is worth the back end of a roster spot, when the pickup is free right now.

Can you update this for a 37 carry effort after the 27 carry.

Update: Benson is a BEAST

Sure, there are alot fewer guys with 37 carries. Since 1978, it's 18. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/XTVy64 of the 15 that did so in a win got hurt within 50 touches thereafter--Davis, Okoye, Taylor, and Cadillac. 0 of 2 that did so in a loss got hurt within 50 (though Means got hurt just outside that, season ending injury in the 10th game), and Zeroue (the lone tie) did not miss any games thereafter. Overall 4 of 18 (22.2%). Again, more likely that Benson keeps rolling, and if he does, he looks like a guy that's going to keep getting alot of carries. I think I would probably handcuff at this point.

Does this take into account that Benson has a bye, week 8? And two weeks to rest up? Benson had 38 carries in a game last year. This guy is a WORKHORSE!EDIT: "NFL Network reports, Benson's 189 yards are the most any back has gone for against his former team since at least 1950, when they first started keeping that record."

Thats one pissed off indivdual!!!

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I just added Scott as my #6 running back. I see him as having value given the heavy work load and production Benson is getting. If Benson goes down you could see similar production from Scott if he becomes the go to guy. The big question in my mind is if we would see RBBC if Benson gets hurt or would Scott become the man

I think he's worth a short-term add in a deep league, particularly if you have a bad waiver position and won't get a player after an injury. Lewis has shown a willingness to ride one back in a game, whether it be Rudi, or even Kenny Watson, or now Benson, so if something happened to Benson, I think Scott would become a solid start.Benson is an increased injury risk. He leads the league in rush attempts right now, and is coming off a 27 carry, 2 reception game in a close win over Baltimore. Backs that have high carry games in wins are at higher risk of injury right after. For example, of the 55 other backs who have had exactly 27 carries and 2 receptions in a win since 1978, 12 of them (21.8%) suffered an injury within the next 50 touches after that game. That's about twice as high as a back with an average workload game. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/PGiOg Included on that list are serious injuries to Deuce McAllister, Fred Taylor, Ricky Williams and Robert Smith.

Odds are that Benson does not get hurt, but a 20% chance that you get a starting running back in Cincinnati in the next two weeks is worth the back end of a roster spot, when the pickup is free right now.

Can you update this for a 37 carry effort after the 27 carry.

Update: Benson is a BEAST

Sure, there are alot fewer guys with 37 carries. Since 1978, it's 18. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/XTVy64 of the 15 that did so in a win got hurt within 50 touches thereafter--Davis, Okoye, Taylor, and Cadillac. 0 of 2 that did so in a loss got hurt within 50 (though Means got hurt just outside that, season ending injury in the 10th game), and Zeroue (the lone tie) did not miss any games thereafter. Overall 4 of 18 (22.2%). Again, more likely that Benson keeps rolling, and if he does, he looks like a guy that's going to keep getting alot of carries. I think I would probably handcuff at this point.

I think you can do even better. I'm pretty sure he wants to see the injury risk of the guys who had 37 carries exactly two weeks following a 27 carry game.