ONNTTEERRRIIIOOOOOOO! (1 Viewer)

[BlueOnion]

Switz, ditz, whatever.I stopped discussing it because, it's hopeless.Everything in this and all other threads that have been posted have said the same thing over and over again, especially from you Switz. You been saying it from last year, "Onterrio is gonna take over", "Pick up Onterrio", "Onterrio is the better back"If someone keeps saying "It's gonna rain" long enough, if and when it does, they're the first to yell, "See, I told you"!!!Bennett is the starter, Just let it die, already.There, you got another fish.

The nice thing about message boards is if you don't want to read about something, you don't have to click on the thread.Thats why I don't come into a lot of the Onterrio\Bennett\Moe\ threads any more. But as a die-hard Viking fan, I check in once and a while but I honestly think Onterrio is the better running back and will take over sooner rather than later.

 

[switz]

Everything in this and all other threads that have been posted have said the same thing over and over again, especially from you Switz. You been saying it from last year, "Onterrio is gonna take over", "Pick up Onterrio", "Onterrio is the better back"

That's fine... but each thread is started for a different reason. Are you saying that 139 yards of offense, plus a TD, and a solid running game that let Minnesota run out the lead has no bearing whatsoever on the MIN RB situation?Do you think if Onterrio really stunk it up, NOBODY would have posted... "see Bennett is really needed"The fact that Bennett could play this week and is being held out, to me speaks volumes about what Tice thinks about Smith now. He must have earned some confidence. And it does bear on FF.The fact that some in here were talking about O being available on the WW shows the merits of the discussion, whether it has impact on you or not.

 

[Raiders Fan]

Switz has always been a hard pimper. He will beat you to death with it.. Lets see how much pimping he does after Smith serves his 4 game and Bennett has locked up the starting job.. Even though Tice still says Bennett is the starting RB..

 

[Da Masses]

The nice thing about message boards is if you don't want to read about something, you don't have to click on the thread.Thats why I don't come into a lot of the Onterrio\Bennett\Moe\ threads any more. But as a die-hard Viking fan, I check in once and a while but I honestly think Onterrio is the better running back and will take over sooner rather than later.

The only reason that I even glance at the Vikings threads is for the latest info since I own Bennett. Every time I check it's the same old song. The latest I've heard is that Bennett is ready to go, but Tice is holding him out. Smith gets the start.

 

[Deadzone21]

You guys forgot one thing...we're talking FF here. O.Smith is facing a 4-game suspension (for me during my other RB's bye week). Is he still worth a roster spot?

 

[packersfan]

You guys forgot one thing...we're talking FF here. O.Smith is facing a 4-game suspension (for me during my other RB's bye week). Is he still worth a roster spot?

Unless you're absolutely stacked at RB, you should absolutely keep him even when his suspension occurs. He's a talented RB and the backup RB on one of the most explosive offenses in the NFL behind a talented RB who has durability issues. I see no reason why you wouldn't want to hang onto him.

 

[jurb26]

...I honestly think Onterrio is the better running back and will take over sooner rather than later.

See this is exactly what I don't understand. I keep hearing this over and over and over again. Smith is the better RB. Well OK, fine I will believe all of you if that is what makes you happy. But if what you say is true, then why even when Bennett was hurt and less effective than Smith (who was healthy) does Minn and the coaches still want to go with Bennett? Are they just bad or stupid coaches? This goes against logic, does it not. Here are the facts:*Minn is a great O with a great Oline and will be able to run the ball even if you put a man in a wheel chair back there. This O is simply too good to not be effective.*Both Bennett and Smith are talented RBs. Neither is a top 5 or top 10 talent in the NFL, but both are still good.*Bennett is the RB of choice. Even after missing time due to injury now 2 years in a row, the vastly more talented Smith (by Smith supporters) could not wrestle away this starting job.Now, given these facts. Why must Smith still be pimped on a weekly if not daily basis? We all know were they stand right now and we all know we can say "I was right" no matter what happens at this point. Where is this overridding evidence that Smith will take over? Seems to me that if it was going to happen, it would have by now. There have already been 2 windows of opportunity for this. Last year and now this year. Yet we still see the Minn coaches stand firm on supporting Bennett as their guy. Something does not add up here. If Smith was so much more tallented than why would this process be taking so long?Now I own both Bennett and Smith, so I think I am fairly nonbiased on this topic. I could really care less who wins out or starts. I see very similar numbers for the starting Minn RB regardless of weather it is Bennett or Smith. I actually pickup up the 2 because of thier situation, not ability. For now, Smith is the guy and that is great. When he goes on suspension though and Bennett comes back, guess what then Bennet will be the guy and be putting up very similar numbers and maybe better. There is really no way to slice this and not get a solid FF RB, so who really cares if you have both?

 

[Da Masses]

...I honestly think Onterrio is the better running back and will take over sooner rather than later.

See this is exactly what I don't understand. I keep hearing this over and over and over again. Smith is the better RB. Well OK, fine I will believe all of you if that is what makes you happy. But if what you say is true, then why even when Bennett was hurt and less effective than Smith (who was healthy) does Minn and the coaches still want to go with Bennett? Are they just bad or stupid coaches? This goes against logic, does it not. Here are the facts:*Minn is a great O with a great Oline and will be able to run the ball even if you put a man in a wheel chair back there. This O is simply too good to not be effective.*Both Bennett and Smith are talented RBs. Neither is a top 5 or top 10 talent in the NFL, but both are still good.*Bennett is the RB of choice. Even after missing time due to injury now 2 years in a row, the vastly more talented Smith (by Smith supporters) could not wrestle away this starting job.Now, given these facts. Why must Smith still be pimped on a weekly if not daily basis? We all know were they stand right now and we all know we can say "I was right" no matter what happens at this point. Where is this overridding evidence that Smith will take over? Seems to me that if it was going to happen, it would have by now. There have already been 2 windows of opportunity for this. Last year and now this year. Yet we still see the Minn coaches stand firm on supporting Bennett as their guy. Something does not add up here. If Smith was so much more tallented than why would this process be taking so long?Now I own both Bennett and Smith, so I think I am fairly nonbiased on this topic. I could really care less who wins out or starts. I see very similar numbers for the starting Minn RB regardless of weather it is Bennett or Smith. I actually pickup up the 2 because of thier situation, not ability. For now, Smith is the guy and that is great. When he goes on suspension though and Bennett comes back, guess what then Bennet will be the guy and be putting up very similar numbers and maybe better. There is really no way to slice this and not get a solid FF RB, so who really cares if you have both?

and thank you

 

[BlueOnion]

See this is exactly what I don't understand.

I think this is the concept I was posting about. I was not trying to make a case for Onterrio being better, I was just making a case that there are people other than Switz who believe Onterrio is the better running back. Everything in here is rehashed opinions and I was trying to make the point that, 'if I did not want to enter a thread and rehash opinions, I would not come into Onterrio\Bennett threads. I could give you my opinion (much like Switz does), but it is not going to change somebody else's opinion.I believe the reason Bennett gets pimped more by Tice and the coaching staff is that Bennett has great 'character' and Bennett also has more 'pontential' because of his speed.But the bottom line is, 'character' and 'potential' does not break tackles or score touchdowns. But again, these are my opinions...

 

[jurb26]

See this is exactly what I don't understand.

I think this is the concept I was posting about. I was not trying to make a case for Onterrio being better, I was just making a case that there are people other than Switz who believe Onterrio is the better running back. Everything in here is rehashed opinions and I was trying to make the point that, 'if I did not want to enter a thread and rehash opinions, I would not come into Onterrio\Bennett threads. I could give you my opinion (much like Switz does), but it is not going to change somebody else's opinion.I believe the reason Bennett gets pimped more by Tice and the coaching staff is that Bennett has great 'character' and Bennett also has more 'pontential' because of his speed.But the bottom line is, 'character' and 'potential' does not break tackles or score touchdowns. But again, these are my opinions...

I was not directing this toward you or anyone inparticular, so sorry if it appears that way. It was really just directed to the arguement/myth that Smith is far more talented. Both guys have talent and the Minn O is good enough to make either a star if given enough opp IMO. That is really all it boils down to for me. I could care less who is "better" or who starts. So long as I know which one to start I feel safe that I will get good production and points.

 

[BlueOnion]

I was not directing this toward you or anyone inparticular, so sorry if it appears that way. It was really just directed to the arguement/myth that Smith is far more talented. Both guys have talent and the Minn O is good enough to make either a star if given enough opp IMO. That is really all it boils down to for me. I could care less who is "better" or who starts. So long as I know which one to start I feel safe that I will get good production and points.

It was really just directed to the arguement/myth that Smith is far more talented.

I would have to agree, any argument that Smith is far more talented is not reasonable. I think Smith is better, but I would not go as far as to say far more talented. I guess what I find peculiar is the Packer fans coming in saying Bennett is obviously better than Smith, knowing their true interest is the Packers. Are they bias, maybe. But it should be noted that Bennett was born in Wisconsin, raised in Wisconsin and played for the University of Wisconsin. Bennett is a Wisconsin celebrity in some ways. Wisconsinites are very loyal people and I commend them for that. I just question if their opinion is really non-bias when it comes to the topic.

Maybe it is, maybe it is not.

 

[tenacious_b]

Face it MFers, Onterrio is the starter this weekend and your precious Bennett isn't even going to get one carry! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Eat it!

 

[tenacious_b]

Also, who is looking like the better "value" right now? Not Bennett. I got O Smith as my 4th RB and he should fill in nicely for my injured SA this week. People who drafted Bennett in the 2nd or 3rd haven't even gotten one fantasy point out of him yet. Perhaps this will change in time, but until then...O Smith kicks Bennett's ####!!! Eat it Bennet BFers!Sorry, I'm just hyped for this weekend!

 

[packersfan]

I was not directing this toward you or anyone inparticular, so sorry if it appears that way. It was really just directed to the arguement/myth that Smith is far more talented. Both guys have talent and the Minn O is good enough to make either a star if given enough opp IMO. That is really all it boils down to for me. I could care less who is "better" or who starts. So long as I know which one to start I feel safe that I will get good production and points.

It was really just directed to the arguement/myth that Smith is far more talented.

I would have to agree, any argument that Smith is far more talented is not reasonable. I think Smith is better, but I would not go as far as to say far more talented. I guess what I find peculiar is the Packer fans coming in saying Bennett is obviously better than Smith, knowing their true interest is the Packers. Are they bias, maybe. But it should be noted that Bennett was born in Wisconsin, raised in Wisconsin and played for the University of Wisconsin. Bennett is a Wisconsin celebrity in some ways. Wisconsinites are very loyal people and I commend them for that. I just question if their opinion is really non-bias when it comes to the topic.

Maybe it is, maybe it is not.

I'm assuming this is directed at me, is it not? OK, let's get a few facts straight. Yes I'm from Wisconsin and so is Michael Bennett. He was a great player at Wisconsin. But you know what? Ron Dayne was an even better player while at Wisconsin and I think he's a slug. You won't see me pimping Dayne out of some misbegotten loyalty to former Badgers. I don't let alleged loyalty to former Badgers cloud my judgment of their ability. I praise Michael Bennett because I think he's good. I think he's real good and if you asked me as a Packer fan which Minnesota RB I don't want to face, I'd say Bennett first without hesitation. That has nothing to do with home-state bias or silliness like that. It has to do with me watching both players and generating my own opinion of their talent.

And it's not like Bennett has been some kind of a slug in the NFL. He's clearly been a productive RB. So to question my thoughts about him as being something other than an opinion based on his NFL production is something I find baffling. It's not like I'm here telling people Brooks Bollinger should be starting ahead of Chad Pennington.

Oh and you're wrong about Bennett being a "Wisconsin celebrity." That really isn't the case. A Packer from Timbuktu will garner far more "celebrity" in Wisconsin than Michael Bennett.

 

[switz]

See this is exactly what I don't understand. I keep hearing this over and over and over again. Smith is the better RB. Well OK, fine I will believe all of you if that is what makes you happy. But if what you say is true, then why even when Bennett was hurt and less effective than Smith (who was healthy) does Minn and the coaches still want to go with Bennett? Are they just bad or stupid coaches? This goes against logic, does it not. Here are the facts:*Minn is a great O with a great Oline and will be able to run the ball even if you put a man in a wheel chair back there. This O is simply too good to not be effective.*Both Bennett and Smith are talented RBs. Neither is a top 5 or top 10 talent in the NFL, but both are still good.*Bennett is the RB of choice. Even after missing time due to injury now 2 years in a row, the vastly more talented Smith (by Smith supporters) could not wrestle away this starting job.Where is this overridding evidence that Smith will take over? Seems to me that if it was going to happen, it would have by now. There have already been 2 windows of opportunity for this. Last year and now this year. Yet we still see the Minn coaches stand firm on supporting Bennett as their guy. Something does not add up here. If Smith was so much more tallented than why would this process be taking so long?

jurb,solid reasoning on the topic, well thought out, and even funny, i :rotflmao: at the wheelchair commenthere's my list of reasons Smith has not supplanted Bennett... yet:1) he started slow. If he had gone off gangbusters at the begining of the season last year, like he did at the end, I don't think anyone here, or on the Vikes staff would have thought twice about annointing him starter.2) loyalty. Bennett is the vet, a first rounder, and still talented. Players do not lose their job due to injury. The only time that happens is if they keep getting injured, or their injury ends up severly limiting their peformance. Look at how long it took TD to lose his "starter" tag in DEN.3) perceived value. Bennett gets paid more, and was a first round pick. If the players produce near equally, Bennett would get the nod. Tons of examples of this.4) trust. Bennett has earned Tice's trust, he's a character guy for the most part. Onterrio does not have Tice's trust, though from some recent quotes, it appears he is starting to earn it. It doens't have so much to do with individual character, in the essence that Tice trusts Moss, though Moss isn't of great character... it has to do with "team character"5) system. I honestly think the Vikes feel that ANYONE behind their line can do awesome, and that Bennett's speed is the difference between him and the other RBs. Yet they have lost numberous games because they can't run out the clock. If they decide that protecting a lead and being able to run out the clock is better, then Smith would be the better starter. Some recent games may incline the coaches to adopt that view.6) depth. If all the parts are interchangable, why does it matter in what order they are put together. Bennett is the starter, he performs well. If sometihng goes wrong, Smith gets the nod, he performs well. If something goes wrong Moe gets the nod... etc. There's no need to upset the apple cart by putting Smith in ahead of Bennett, so why mess with team chemistry, and leave the depth the way it is.Here's the way I see it... for any of those things to change it takes time. Last years "opportunity" really didn't have any impact, because a) Smith didn't seize it eary enough b) Bennett's injury seemed like a thing of the past by the end of the seasonNow Bennett is hurt again : captainobvious : and Smith is showing that his being in the game makes the offense more explosive, and allows them to run out the clock. That's only happened one game so far, but the door is more open after game 1 then it was before game 1. The suspension will hurt, but IF Bennet's injury lingers, if they lose a cople of those games, the door will only remain open.Now if Bennett comes in while Smith is out and puts up a few 130 yard games... Smith's performances will be meaningless to the coaches. I'm just guessing Bennett will struggle, as he did last season IMO. They only won three games he started. He only broke 100 yards in one game, which they won. He ended up with a nice YPC, but there were only three games where he was "featured", and in the only one he hit over 15 carries he got hurt again. This year I think is Bennett's "second chance"... my guess is he can't do it, others think he can, and right now the staff believes in him. He's a hard worker, and DEMANDS respect for it. But in the end performance will be the deciding factor.

 

[switz]

I would have to agree, any argument that Smith is far more talented is not reasonable. I think Smith is better, but I would not go as far as to say far more talented.

I guess what I find peculiar is the Packer fans coming in saying Bennett is obviously better than Smith, knowing their true interest is the Packers. Are they bias, maybe. But it should be noted that Bennett was born in Wisconsin, raised in Wisconsin and played for the University of Wisconsin. Bennett is a Wisconsin celebrity in some ways. Wisconsinites are very loyal people and I commend them for that. I just question if their opinion is really non-bias when it comes to the topic.

Maybe it is, maybe it is not.

Wanted to make a couple comments re: this...I don't think Smith is far more talented either. I DO think he's a far better runner. Bennett's speed is probably some of the best in the NFL, but Onterrio shows better vision, balance, and shiftiness. That makes him a better runner.

re: questioning pf's bias. I do believe that pf obviously has some fandom for Bennett because of the Wisconsin connection, but I don't think it's a concious bias, and I think he is examining the MIN RB sit as a "football" fan, not as a Wisconsin or Packer fan. His arguments are sounds and rational, not otherworldly like most blind bias

 

[tenacious_b]

I won't fold like Switz-cheese. O Smith is better than Bennett for many reasons, but most of all value. Why draft Bennett in the 2nd if you can get O Smith much later. Especially if they are "considered" equally skilled RBs. First of all, if all three RBs are healthy you won't see much production out of any of them because they'll all be sharing carries. The smart manager takes O Smith with a later pick with the hope that he'll turn into a home run if Bennett and Mo get injured, which is EXACTLY what happened. You Bennett biatches are just trying to justify your wasted pick! Meanwhile, I'm going to ride O Smith for a couple of weeks while my man SA gets healthy. HAHAHAHAHA! Eat it!

 

[switz]

I won't fold like Switz-cheese.

Not sure I folded... huh

 

[packersfan]

They only won three games he started.

I think it's extremely unfair to place the blame for the Vikings defeats in those games on Bennett. The Vikings had begun to swoon before Bennett became the starter. I think one of the biggest reasons Tice put Bennett back in the starting lineup was to not only get his starting RB back on the field more, but also to try and provide his team with a badly needed spark. Anyone who watched the Vikings last season knows all too well their demise was tied directly to the inept play of their defense and not because Michael Bennett started a few games.Bennett started four games last season (tossing out the KC game where he was a "starter" in name only but Tice clearly wasn't going to use him). In those four games:

Week 12 vs. Detroit: Vikings win.

Week 13 vs. St. Louis: Vikings lose and surrender 48 points despite accumulating 465 yards of total offense (Bennett, by the way, had 122 total yards). How exactly was that defeat Bennett's fault? The Vikings simply got their a***s handed to them by a better team.

Week 14 vs. Seattle: Vikings win; Bennett tops 100 yards and gets hurt.

Week 17 vs. Arizona: Vikings lose when their defense chokes on the last play. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Bennett was playing defense on that play.

 

[packersfan]

re: questioning pf's bias. I do believe that pf obviously has some fandom for Bennett because of the Wisconsin connection, but I don't think it's a concious bias

It's a non-existent bias. Seriously. I don't get that argument since I'm not here talking about some worthless NFL slug. I like Travis Henry this season too and have been vocal (not as vocal as Bennett, but mainly because I don't see as much anti-Henry comments here as I do anti-Bennett) and I don't know if Travis Henry has ever been to Wisconsin in his life. Seriously, I don't care where Michael Bennett went to high school or college. I am looking at this from an NFL and (more importantly for our purposes) fantasy-related point of view. If I thought Bennett stunk or I thought Onterrio Smith was better, whatever good Bennett did as a Badger would be completely tossed out the window because it would be irrelevent. And when I say something positive, it's equally as irrelevent. People can believe what they want obviously, but I don't know how much clearer I can be when I discuss this particular point of view of mine.

 

[tenacious_b]

I won't fold like Switz-cheese.

Not sure I folded... huh

I just felt like saying Switz-cheese. We can argue about who's the better runner all day. Where this argument can be won is who is the better player to have on your team right now! When you consider value the answer is obvious. Those who drafted Bennett are right now and those that drafted Smith are

 

[jurb26]

I won't fold like Switz-cheese. O Smith is better than Bennett for many reasons, but most of all value. Why draft Bennett in the 2nd if you can get O Smith much later. Especially if they are "considered" equally skilled RBs. First of all, if all three RBs are healthy you won't see much production out of any of them because they'll all be sharing carries. The smart manager takes O Smith with a later pick with the hope that he'll turn into a home run if Bennett and Mo get injured, which is EXACTLY what happened. You Bennett biatches are just trying to justify your wasted pick! Meanwhile, I'm going to ride O Smith for a couple of weeks while my man SA gets healthy. HAHAHAHAHA! Eat it!

IMO, the "smart" owner would have taken both. This system is proven to be capable of top flight production form the RB position. Bennett is and was the starter, hence he went in the 2nd or very early in relation to Smith. Smith was a backup and was thus drafted at the appropriate time for handy cap players. The best way to back your money or bets would e to have both though. What are Smith owners going to do when he sits out for his 4 games if they don't have Bennett? What are Bennett owners going to do if they did not protect themsleves knowing Bennett's recent injury history. IMO the "smart" owner would have considered both of these situations before drafting, and not just one.

 

[Groundpounder]

...I honestly think Onterrio is the better running back and will take over sooner rather than later.

See this is exactly what I don't understand. I keep hearing this over and over and over again. Smith is the better RB. Well OK, fine I will believe all of you if that is what makes you happy. But if what you say is true, then why even when Bennett was hurt and less effective than Smith (who was healthy) does Minn and the coaches still want to go with Bennett? Are they just bad or stupid coaches? This goes against logic, does it not. Here are the facts:*Minn is a great O with a great Oline and will be able to run the ball even if you put a man in a wheel chair back there. This O is simply too good to not be effective.*Both Bennett and Smith are talented RBs. Neither is a top 5 or top 10 talent in the NFL, but both are still good.*Bennett is the RB of choice. Even after missing time due to injury now 2 years in a row, the vastly more talented Smith (by Smith supporters) could not wrestle away this starting job.Now, given these facts. Why must Smith still be pimped on a weekly if not daily basis? We all know were they stand right now and we all know we can say "I was right" no matter what happens at this point. Where is this overridding evidence that Smith will take over? Seems to me that if it was going to happen, it would have by now. There have already been 2 windows of opportunity for this. Last year and now this year. Yet we still see the Minn coaches stand firm on supporting Bennett as their guy. Something does not add up here. If Smith was so much more tallented than why would this process be taking so long?Now I own both Bennett and Smith, so I think I am fairly nonbiased on this topic. I could really care less who wins out or starts. I see very similar numbers for the starting Minn RB regardless of weather it is Bennett or Smith. I actually pickup up the 2 because of thier situation, not ability. For now, Smith is the guy and that is great. When he goes on suspension though and Bennett comes back, guess what then Bennet will be the guy and be putting up very similar numbers and maybe better. There is really no way to slice this and not get a solid FF RB, so who really cares if you have both?

Not to be a smart*** but this reminds me of when Preist was a backup in Baltimore and couldn't "wrestle the starting job away". Some players simply need more of an opportunity to showcase their talents. Maybe Onterio performs well enough this weekend to put him ahead of Bennett on the depth chart.

 

[BlueOnion]

PackersFan -Yeah, that was directed at you and was not a dig nor accusation. I tend to side with Switz that if you are bias it is not conscious. However, I have yet to find out what vested interest Switz has in Onterrio.But I have to say, both sides are well argued and supported. But as many others interject (sp??), this debates have been going on since pre-season game #1 last year and the situation has not changed.I more or less just want to defend Packersfan and switz when people want to put the kabash on the debate. We are on the message board to debate and if you don't want to hear about it, don't open the thread.

 

[jurb26]

jurb,solid reasoning on the topic, well thought out, and even funny, i :rotflmao: at the wheelchair commenthere's my list of reasons Smith has not supplanted Bennett... yet:1) he started slow. If he had gone off gangbusters at the begining of the season last year, like he did at the end, I don't think anyone here, or on the Vikes staff would have thought twice about annointing him starter.2) loyalty. Bennett is the vet, a first rounder, and still talented. Players do not lose their job due to injury. The only time that happens is if they keep getting injured, or their injury ends up severly limiting their peformance. Look at how long it took TD to lose his "starter" tag in DEN.3) perceived value. Bennett gets paid more, and was a first round pick. If the players produce near equally, Bennett would get the nod. Tons of examples of this.4) trust. Bennett has earned Tice's trust, he's a character guy for the most part. Onterrio does not have Tice's trust, though from some recent quotes, it appears he is starting to earn it. It doens't have so much to do with individual character, in the essence that Tice trusts Moss, though Moss isn't of great character... it has to do with "team character"5) system. I honestly think the Vikes feel that ANYONE behind their line can do awesome, and that Bennett's speed is the difference between him and the other RBs. Yet they have lost numberous games because they can't run out the clock. If they decide that protecting a lead and being able to run out the clock is better, then Smith would be the better starter. Some recent games may incline the coaches to adopt that view.6) depth. If all the parts are interchangable, why does it matter in what order they are put together. Bennett is the starter, he performs well. If sometihng goes wrong, Smith gets the nod, he performs well. If something goes wrong Moe gets the nod... etc. There's no need to upset the apple cart by putting Smith in ahead of Bennett, so why mess with team chemistry, and leave the depth the way it is.Here's the way I see it... for any of those things to change it takes time. Last years "opportunity" really didn't have any impact, because a) Smith didn't seize it eary enough b) Bennett's injury seemed like a thing of the past by the end of the seasonNow Bennett is hurt again : captainobvious : and Smith is showing that his being in the game makes the offense more explosive, and allows them to run out the clock. That's only happened one game so far, but the door is more open after game 1 then it was before game 1. The suspension will hurt, but IF Bennet's injury lingers, if they lose a cople of those games, the door will only remain open.Now if Bennett comes in while Smith is out and puts up a few 130 yard games... Smith's performances will be meaningless to the coaches. I'm just guessing Bennett will struggle, as he did last season IMO. They only won three games he started. He only broke 100 yards in one game, which they won. He ended up with a nice YPC, but there were only three games where he was "featured", and in the only one he hit over 15 carries he got hurt again. This year I think is Bennett's "second chance"... my guess is he can't do it, others think he can, and right now the staff believes in him. He's a hard worker, and DEMANDS respect for it. But in the end performance will be the deciding factor.

Great post switz, but a few questions:1. Smith did start off slow when he come in and you seem to not hold that against him. But why then do you hold it against Bennett for coming back slow when he had a more valid reason, the foot injury? This does not seem very fair.2. Yes, loyalty is a factor I can admit that. However in Den, TD was not soon replaced because there was not a much greater option at the time. Gary was not half the RB TD was and not much better even post TD's injury. Simply look 2 yrs laster at that same Den team and how fast they were replace the incumbant when a far talented RB came along in Portis.Outside of that, I pretty much argee with your points and they are good ones.

 

[switz]

They only won three games he started.

I think it's extremely unfair to place the blame for the Vikings defeats in those games on Bennett. The Vikings had begun to swoon before Bennett became the starter. I think one of the biggest reasons Tice put Bennett back in the starting lineup was to not only get his starting RB back on the field more, but also to try and provide his team with a badly needed spark. Anyone who watched the Vikings last season knows all too well their demise was tied directly to the inept play of their defense and not because Michael Bennett started a few games.Bennett started four games last season (tossing out the KC game where he was a "starter" in name only but Tice clearly wasn't going to use him). In those four games:

Week 12 vs. Detroit: Vikings win.

Week 13 vs. St. Louis: Vikings lose and surrender 48 points despite accumulating 465 yards of total offense (Bennett, by the way, had 122 total yards). How exactly was that defeat Bennett's fault? The Vikings simply got their a***s handed to them by a better team.

Week 14 vs. Seattle: Vikings win; Bennett tops 100 yards and gets hurt.

Week 17 vs. Arizona: Vikings lose when their defense chokes on the last play. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Bennett was playing defense on that play.

Oh boy...they lost ONE, let's count that again, ONE game prior to Bennett being back. And that one loss was a direct result of CPep throwing to the other team.

Bennett comes back, they open with three losses in a row, where he had 5-8 carries. Offensively they still did well, putting up over 20 points per game, but their defenses were put in bad situations, and the offense couldn't run out the clock.

Look at the GB game, early in the 4tth quarter when GB goes up by 7, MIN has NO running game, GB continues to pound the ball, MIN doesn't and loses.

San Diego destroyed MIN, we'll leave that one alone

Oakland, the offense only put up 18 points, Bennett stunk, and a number of drives died because of his 0 gain runs

Detroit they won, and should have won

St. Louis again the offense STUNK! Mid third quarter the team was close, but the running game couldn't sustain drives, and CPepe started passing to the other team again.

They crush Seattle, and Bennett gets hurt again. Not that he was running great verse Seattle anyway, 25-101 4.1 YPC

They beat KC b/c Smith has a field day

Against ARI, 4th quarter trying to run out the clock, Bennett 3yards and down, Bennett 3 yards and down, penalty... ARI wins... they coudln't run out the clock with Bennett. Yes it does make a difference. Maybe Bennett wasn't playing defense but if he could have run out the lcock a bit more, ARI would not have had time to make that play.

 

[packersfan]

Yeah, that was directed at you and was not a dig nor accusation. I tend to side with Switz that if you are bias it is not conscious.

Since I'm a Smith owner this year my interest is actually with Onterrio more than Bennett. As I've said before, I'd love to see Smith get the starting job because, and I agree with jbourb here, that offense is so good whoever's back there is going to be a quality fantasy RB. Well maybe not Eddie George.

 

[tenacious_b]

I won't fold like Switz-cheese. O Smith is better than Bennett for many reasons, but most of all value. Why draft Bennett in the 2nd if you can get O Smith much later. Especially if they are "considered" equally skilled RBs. First of all, if all three RBs are healthy you won't see much production out of any of them because they'll all be sharing carries. The smart manager takes O Smith with a later pick with the hope that he'll turn into a home run if Bennett and Mo get injured, which is EXACTLY what happened. You Bennett biatches are just trying to justify your wasted pick! Meanwhile, I'm going to ride O Smith for a couple of weeks while my man SA gets healthy. HAHAHAHAHA! Eat it!

IMO, the "smart" owner would have taken both. This system is proven to be capable of top flight production form the RB position. Bennett is and was the starter, hence he went in the 2nd or very early in relation to Smith. Smith was a backup and was thus drafted at the appropriate time for handy cap players. The best way to back your money or bets would e to have both though. What are Smith owners going to do when he sits out for his 4 games if they don't have Bennett? What are Bennett owners going to do if they did not protect themsleves knowing Bennett's recent injury history. IMO the "smart" owner would have considered both of these situations before drafting, and not just one.

Jurb, you're completely and utterly wrong! There are a bunch of other RBs that I would rather take than Bennett who could have potentially be involved in a RBBC. Even if you get Bennett and Smith you've still got to worry about Mo. Like I said, you're not getting any value there. Instead, if you take O Smith in like the 6th-8th round you've got a potential home run with much less risk. O Smith might be gone in a few weeks, but I took him in the 8th round -- I think -- so I haven't lost much. At least in the meantime I've got him filling in for the injured SA -- although I could start Morris because I grabbed him LATE too. Bennett was a crap pick.

 

[packersfan]

They only won three games he started.

I think it's extremely unfair to place the blame for the Vikings defeats in those games on Bennett. The Vikings had begun to swoon before Bennett became the starter. I think one of the biggest reasons Tice put Bennett back in the starting lineup was to not only get his starting RB back on the field more, but also to try and provide his team with a badly needed spark. Anyone who watched the Vikings last season knows all too well their demise was tied directly to the inept play of their defense and not because Michael Bennett started a few games.Bennett started four games last season (tossing out the KC game where he was a "starter" in name only but Tice clearly wasn't going to use him). In those four games:

Week 12 vs. Detroit: Vikings win.

Week 13 vs. St. Louis: Vikings lose and surrender 48 points despite accumulating 465 yards of total offense (Bennett, by the way, had 122 total yards). How exactly was that defeat Bennett's fault? The Vikings simply got their a***s handed to them by a better team.

Week 14 vs. Seattle: Vikings win; Bennett tops 100 yards and gets hurt.

Week 17 vs. Arizona: Vikings lose when their defense chokes on the last play. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Bennett was playing defense on that play.

Oh boy...they lost ONE, let's count that again, ONE game prior to Bennett being back. And that one loss was a direct result of CPep throwing to the other team.

Bennett comes back, they open with three losses in a row, where he had 5-8 carries. Offensively they still did well, putting up over 20 points per game, but their defenses were put in bad situations, and the offense couldn't run out the clock.

Look at the GB game, early in the 4tth quarter when GB goes up by 7, MIN has NO running game, GB continues to pound the ball, MIN doesn't and loses.

San Diego destroyed MIN, we'll leave that one alone

Oakland, the offense only put up 18 points, Bennett stunk, and a number of drives died because of his 0 gain runs

Detroit they won, and should have won

St. Louis again the offense STUNK! Mid third quarter the team was close, but the running game couldn't sustain drives, and CPepe started passing to the other team again.

They crush Seattle, and Bennett gets hurt again. Not that he was running great verse Seattle anyway, 25-101 4.1 YPC

They beat KC b/c Smith has a field day

Against ARI, 4th quarter trying to run out the clock, Bennett 3yards and down, Bennett 3 yards and down, penalty... ARI wins... they coudln't run out the clock with Bennett. Yes it does make a difference. Maybe Bennett wasn't playing defense but if he could have run out the lcock a bit more, ARI would not have had time to make that play.

I don't dispute the running out the clock point of view. Fair enough. That said, the Vikings win that game if their defense was worth anything. The fact their defense choked is the reason why they lost. And I'm sorry switz, but I think it's a real reach to blame Bennett for defeats in games in which he barely played. That's like blaming Najeh Davenport (who had 9 carries in that game, more than Bennett had in all of Minnesota's defeats before he became a starter) for the Packers' loss to Philly in the playoffs.

 

[switz]

1. Smith did start off slow when he come in and you seem to not hold that against him. But why then do you hold it against Bennett for coming back slow when he had a more valid reason, the foot injury? This does not seem very fair.2. Yes, loyalty is a factor I can admit that. However in Den, TD was not soon replaced because there was not a much greater option at the time. Gary was not half the RB TD was and not much better even post TD's injury. Simply look 2 yrs laster at that same Den team and how fast they were replace the incumbant when a far talented RB came along in Portis.

1. rookies take time... he produced well when he saw the field, but hit pass protection and other details weren't up to snuff for Tice, it's completely different than Bennett's situation. And Bennett's injury supposedly was "healed" when he came back. Smith's lack of production early was complete lack of opportunity, because of the coaches decision. You can't overcome that with painkillers. 2. When Portis replaced Gary, Gary was not half the RB Portis was, I'm not sure what youa re trying to reason on that... Portis is on the same level as TD, Gary couldn't hold either down.

 

[Raiders Fan]

I won't fold like Switz-cheese. O Smith is better than Bennett for many reasons, but most of all value. Why draft Bennett in the 2nd if you can get O Smith much later. Especially if they are "considered" equally skilled RBs. First of all, if all three RBs are healthy you won't see much production out of any of them because they'll all be sharing carries. The smart manager takes O Smith with a later pick with the hope that he'll turn into a home run if Bennett and Mo get injured, which is EXACTLY what happened. You Bennett biatches are just trying to justify your wasted pick! Meanwhile, I'm going to ride O Smith for a couple of weeks while my man SA gets healthy. HAHAHAHAHA! Eat it! 

IMO, the "smart" owner would have taken both. This system is proven to be capable of top flight production form the RB position. Bennett is and was the starter, hence he went in the 2nd or very early in relation to Smith. Smith was a backup and was thus drafted at the appropriate time for handy cap players. The best way to back your money or bets would e to have both though. What are Smith owners going to do when he sits out for his 4 games if they don't have Bennett? What are Bennett owners going to do if they did not protect themsleves knowing Bennett's recent injury history. IMO the "smart" owner would have considered both of these situations before drafting, and not just one.

Jurb, you're completely and utterly wrong! There are a bunch of other RBs that I would rather take than Bennett who could have potentially be involved in a RBBC. Even if you get Bennett and Smith you've still got to worry about Mo. Like I said, you're not getting any value there. Instead, if you take O Smith in like the 6th-8th round you've got a potential home run with much less risk. O Smith might be gone in a few weeks, but I took him in the 8th round -- I think -- so I haven't lost much. At least in the meantime I've got him filling in for the injured SA -- although I could start Morris because I grabbed him LATE too. Bennett was a crap pick.

1 week in and now Bennett is a crap pick.. You just inserted foot.. Wonder how much of it you will eat in a few weeks??? Smith might get you 1-2 starts but Bennett could be a decent #2 or at least a matchup #2... Smith will lose all value in a few weeks... To me thats a CRAP pick cause when you ened him most which is bye week fill ins. He can't.. Just an observation.

 

[vinwinephans]

Everyone can have their opinion on who you think the better RB is. But there is lots that goes into whether a RB plays or starts.I think switz, packersfan and jurb26 have all intelligently posted on this exact concept. I am not quite sure what tenacious_b is trying to prove other than try to ruffle some feather.A young guy maybe a better athelete, may have a brighter future, may have nastier skills than the vet, but the vet is the vet and that mean SAFE.We saw it with Chris Brown and Eddie George in Tennessee last year.We see it now with Julies Jones/Rashard Lee and Eddie George in Dallas.We saw it last year with Hearst and Barlow.We saw it last year with Rudi and Dillon.It took a while for GB to commit to Green over Levens.Emmitt Smith got the nod over Shipp even before Shipp got hurt this year.There is lot to be said for a young RB's upside, but it does not mean he will instantly be the player. As soon as Onterio Smith proves he can be relied on to perform well in all aspects of the game (blocking, blitz pickup and rushing), he will beat out Bennett. It takes some coaches longer than others to make that initial leap of faith. When there is a reliable vet in the mix, the rookie takes longer to emerge, but OS will be the starter some day. When will depend entirely on Tice.Edited for spelling and clarity

 

[packersfan]

Everyone can have their opinion on who you think the better RB is. But there is lots that goes into whether a RB plays or starts.I think switz, packersfan and jurb26 have all intelligently posted on this exact concept. I am not quite sure what tenacious_b is trying to prove other than try to ruffle some feather.A young guy maybe a better athelete, may have a brighter future, may have nastier skills than the vet, but the vet is the vet and that mean SAFE.We saw it with Chris Brown and Eddie George in Tennessee last year.We see it now with Julies Jones/Rashard Lee and Eddie George in Dallas.We saw it last year with Hearst and Barlow.We saw it last year with Rudi and Dillon.It took a while for GB to commit to Green over Levens.Emmitt Smith got the nod over Shipp even before Shipp got hurt this year.There is lot to be said for a young RB's upside, but it does not mean he will instantly be the player. As soon as Onterio Smith proves he can be relied on to perform well in all aspects of the game (blocking, blitz pickup and rushing), he will beat out Bennett. It takes some coaches longer than others to make that initial leap of faith. When there is a reliable vet in the mix, the rookie takes longer to emerge, but OS will be the starter some day. When will depend entirely on Tice.Edited for spelling and clarity

The only thing I would add to that is to clarify that with all of the examples you mention above the "veteran" was a guy who'd been in the league for a long time. That is not the case with Bennett. Although he's three years older, he's not some grizzled old vet by any means. He's still a young RB, so this really isn't a similar situation to the ones listed above (or a Shaun Alexander/Ricky Watters comparison).

 

[tenacious_b]

I won't fold like Switz-cheese. O Smith is better than Bennett for many reasons, but most of all value. Why draft Bennett in the 2nd if you can get O Smith much later. Especially if they are "considered" equally skilled RBs. First of all, if all three RBs are healthy you won't see much production out of any of them because they'll all be sharing carries. The smart manager takes O Smith with a later pick with the hope that he'll turn into a home run if Bennett and Mo get injured, which is EXACTLY what happened. You Bennett biatches are just trying to justify your wasted pick! Meanwhile, I'm going to ride O Smith for a couple of weeks while my man SA gets healthy. HAHAHAHAHA! Eat it!

IMO, the "smart" owner would have taken both. This system is proven to be capable of top flight production form the RB position. Bennett is and was the starter, hence he went in the 2nd or very early in relation to Smith. Smith was a backup and was thus drafted at the appropriate time for handy cap players. The best way to back your money or bets would e to have both though. What are Smith owners going to do when he sits out for his 4 games if they don't have Bennett? What are Bennett owners going to do if they did not protect themsleves knowing Bennett's recent injury history. IMO the "smart" owner would have considered both of these situations before drafting, and not just one.

Jurb, you're completely and utterly wrong! There are a bunch of other RBs that I would rather take than Bennett who could have potentially be involved in a RBBC. Even if you get Bennett and Smith you've still got to worry about Mo. Like I said, you're not getting any value there. Instead, if you take O Smith in like the 6th-8th round you've got a potential home run with much less risk. O Smith might be gone in a few weeks, but I took him in the 8th round -- I think -- so I haven't lost much. At least in the meantime I've got him filling in for the injured SA -- although I could start Morris because I grabbed him LATE too. Bennett was a crap pick.

1 week in and now Bennett is a crap pick.. You just inserted foot.. Wonder how much of it you will eat in a few weeks??? Smith might get you 1-2 starts but Bennett could be a decent #2 or at least a matchup #2... Smith will lose all value in a few weeks... To me thats a CRAP pick cause when you ened him most which is bye week fill ins. He can't.. Just an observation.

Bennett is a crap pick simply because even if he had stayed healthy he would have Smith and Williams vulturing carries from him throughout the year. There were better guys available in the 2nd round than Bennett. Not to mention the fact that he's missing time from an injury. Bennett is an especially crappy pick when compared to Smith who you could've gotten MUCH later. You seem to miss the point entirely. If you drafted Smith late he's not crucial to your team's success like drafting Bennett early. It's not going to kill my team if he breaks his leg. Of course, I'd prefer him to be the starter and not get suspended, but I'm not counting on it. People who drafted Bennett in the 2nd were counting on him and I think they put their eggs in the wrong basket. Smith won't lose all value to me because even in the worst case I'll get him back after the suspension and he'll steal carries from whoever the starter is in Minny.BTW, I'm in a two player keeper league and my RBs are Alexander, Faulk, Westbrook, O Smith, and M Morris. I don't even need Smith to be a bye week fill-in. He's simply icing on the cake.

 

[packersfan]

There were better guys available in the 2nd round than Bennett. Not to mention the fact that he's missing time from an injury.

If your draft was closer to the start of the season (as mine was) you wouldn't have taken Bennett in the second round and you would have drafted him knowing full well he might not be available until Week 5.

 

[switz]

And I'm sorry switz, but I think it's a real reach to blame Bennett for defeats in games in which he barely played. That's like blaming Najeh Davenport (who had 9 carries in that game, more than Bennett had in all of Minnesota's defeats before he became a starter) for the Packers' loss to Philly in the playoffs.

I'm not... surely it's complete conincidence that the team turned away from running the ball as much once Bennett was healthy.Week 1 - 22 carries by Moe WINWeek 2 - 30 carries Moe/Smith WINWeek 3 - 15 carries Moe/Smith WINWeek 4 - 23 carries Moe/Smith WINWeek 5 - 24 carries Moe/Smith WINWeek 6 - 19 carries Moe/Smith WINWeek 7 - 22 carries Moe/Smith LOSSBennett returnsWeek 8 - 20 carries Moe/Bennett LOSSWeek 9 - 17 carries Moe/Bennett LOSSWeek 10 - 15 carries Moe/Bennett LOSSWeek 11 - 20 carries Moe/Bennett WINWeek 12 - 20 carries Moe/Bennett LOSSWeek 13 - 37 carries Bennett/Moe/Smith WINWeek 14 - 31 carries Smith/Moe LOSSWeek 15 - 32 carries Smith/Bennett/Moe WINWeek 16 - 24 carries Bennett/Smith/Moe LOSSWithout Bennett - 23.25 carries/gameWithout Smith - 18 carries a gameabout a 25% dropoff in running plays by RBsIn wins 24.67 carries/gameIn losses 21 carries a game (because of the one game with 31 rushes, otherwise much lower)I don't know, maybe the numbers are meaningless, but it certainly seems with Bennett in there, the team runs less often, and loses more often. Whatever the reason MAY be, the numbers indicate, the more the team runs, the better their chances to win, and they run more when Smith is in the game.This is all from last season, but even in week one, they had 25 carries between Smith, Moe, and Moore and they won...I'm not quite sure what you mean by your Davenport reference. When they needed to run out the game, was he the one getting carries? B/C the references I used in my breakdown were games where Bennett was in to close and couldn't...

 

[jurb26]

Bennett is a crap pick simply because even if he had stayed healthy he would have Smith and Williams vulturing carries from him throughout the year. There were better guys available in the 2nd round than Bennett. Not to mention the fact that he's missing time from an injury. Bennett is an especially crappy pick when compared to Smith who you could've gotten MUCH later. You seem to miss the point entirely. If you drafted Smith late he's not crucial to your team's success like drafting Bennett early. It's not going to kill my team if he breaks his leg. Of course, I'd prefer him to be the starter and not get suspended, but I'm not counting on it. People who drafted Bennett in the 2nd were counting on him and I think they put their eggs in the wrong basket. Smith won't lose all value to me because even in the worst case I'll get him back after the suspension and he'll steal carries from whoever the starter is in Minny.BTW, I'm in a two player keeper league and my RBs are Alexander, Faulk, Westbrook, O Smith, and M Morris. I don't even need Smith to be a bye week fill-in. He's simply icing on the cake.

I think it is you who is missing the point here. Yes I drafted Bennett in the 2nd rd and did so thinking that if healthy he would compete for a low RB1 or top RB2. I also got O.Smith because I knew about at prepared for the risks that a player such as Bennett entitles. I lost Bennett to injury for a few week, ok yeah that sucks. But low and behold I have O.Smith to pick up the wieght any ways. So I still ended up with a viable RB1-RB2 out of the stratagy. How exactly did I loose in the deal? And don't give me that wasted 2nd rd pick crap, because if it wasn't for the injry then Bennett and not Smith simply would be the guy putting up RB1-RB2 #s right now and you can't predict injuries. I didn't put to many eggs in one basket nor did anyone else who got both RBs on their team. You took both because you view the situation as good enough to land you a low end RB1 or top end RB2. The situation is good enough with either RB to to so. I still have that right now in Smith (with Bennett out), and guess what when Smith is suspended I'll have it agian cause Bennett should be back. The only way to loose is if both are out at the same time and that is simply way to difficult to plan for IMO. BTW, what exactly do you plan on doing when Smith is out for 4 games?

 

[vinwinephans]

Everyone can have their opinion on who you think the better RB is.  But there is lots that goes into whether a RB plays or starts.I think switz, packersfan and jurb26 have all intelligently posted on this exact concept.  I am not quite sure what tenacious_b is trying to prove other than try to ruffle some feather.A young guy maybe a better athelete, may have a brighter future, may have nastier skills than the vet, but the vet is the vet and that mean SAFE.We saw it with Chris Brown and Eddie George in Tennessee last year.We see it now with Julies Jones/Rashard Lee and Eddie George in Dallas.We saw it last year with Hearst and Barlow.We saw it last year with Rudi and Dillon.It took a while for GB to commit to Green over Levens.Emmitt Smith got the nod over Shipp even before Shipp got hurt this year.There is lot to be said for a young RB's upside, but it does not mean he will instantly be the player.  As soon as Onterio Smith proves he can be relied on to perform well in all aspects of the game (blocking, blitz pickup and rushing), he will beat out Bennett.  It takes some coaches longer than others to make that initial leap of faith.  When there is a reliable vet in the mix, the rookie takes longer to emerge, but OS will be the starter some day.  When will depend entirely on Tice.Edited for spelling and clarity

The only thing I would add to that is to clarify that with all of the examples you mention above the "veteran" was a guy who'd been in the league for a long time. That is not the case with Bennett. Although he's three years older, he's not some grizzled old vet by any means. He's still a young RB, so this really isn't a similar situation to the ones listed above (or a Shaun Alexander/Ricky Watters comparison).

Bennett is young, but there is still something to be said for a player that has already, in a sense, been instiutionalized. Bennett knows the gig, knows the system, knows more than Onterio.Bennett knows more, but OS could do more, once he learns to.As for the whole where you should have drafted Bennett when deal...Before Bennett got hurt, he was a solid pick. I actually liked him to hold OS off for a while, especially when the suspension news came out. For a redraft/non-keeper league, Bennett was a solid pick at RB......until he got hurt.Timing is everything. Now OS is not suspended to start the season. Now OS is getting a chance to showcase himself. Now OS has the potential to make Bennett a non-factor......unless OS goes away (on suspension) for while like Bennett did.Then Bennett has the chance to reprove his worthiness. He could steal the job back. He is easier person to like, character wise, than OS is at this point. If Bennett proves just as effective as OS, he keeps his job. It may also depend on how much Minny thinks OS has gone straight and narrow. It would suck to hitch your wagon to a horse that may go nowhere.IMO, anyone who is counting on either of these players to emerge is in trouble. At this point, there is serious question as to who could remain. If you in a position to take a flyer, it's a worthy gamble, but it's not a rock solid situation by any means.Bennett late or OS late as a 4th RB is a great pick. Problem is, noone was getting Bennett as a 4th RB, IMO, because it's easy to like Bennett to wint he job in the end from a character standpoint.I have OS in dynasty. He sits on my Practice Squad hoping that he stays clean and will eventually prove he is worth the trust necessary to be named 'featured back' by an organization.

 

[packersfan]

And I'm sorry switz, but I think it's a real reach to blame Bennett for defeats in games in which he barely played. That's like blaming Najeh Davenport (who had 9 carries in that game, more than Bennett had in all of Minnesota's defeats before he became a starter) for the Packers' loss to Philly in the playoffs.

I'm not... surely it's complete conincidence that the team turned away from running the ball as much once Bennett was healthy.Week 1 - 22 carries by Moe WIN

Week 2 - 30 carries Moe/Smith WIN

Week 3 - 15 carries Moe/Smith WIN

Week 4 - 23 carries Moe/Smith WIN

Week 5 - 24 carries Moe/Smith WIN

Week 6 - 19 carries Moe/Smith WIN

Week 7 - 22 carries Moe/Smith LOSS

Bennett returns

Week 8 - 20 carries Moe/Bennett LOSS

Week 9 - 17 carries Moe/Bennett LOSS

Week 10 - 15 carries Moe/Bennett LOSS

Week 11 - 20 carries Moe/Bennett WIN

Week 12 - 20 carries Moe/Bennett LOSS

Week 13 - 37 carries Bennett/Moe/Smith WIN

Week 14 - 31 carries Smith/Moe LOSS

Week 15 - 32 carries Smith/Bennett/Moe WIN

Week 16 - 24 carries Bennett/Smith/Moe LOSS

Without Bennett - 23.25 carries/game

Without Smith - 18 carries a game

about a 25% dropoff in running plays by RBs

In wins 24.67 carries/game

In losses 21 carries a game (because of the one game with 31 rushes, otherwise much lower)

I don't know, maybe the numbers are meaningless, but it certainly seems with Bennett in there, the team runs less often, and loses more often. Whatever the reason MAY be, the numbers indicate, the more the team runs, the better their chances to win, and they run more when Smith is in the game.

This is all from last season, but even in week one, they had 25 carries between Smith, Moe, and Moore and they won...

I'm not quite sure what you mean by your Davenport reference. When they needed to run out the game, was he the one getting carries? B/C the references I used in my breakdown were games where Bennett was in to close and couldn't...

I'm sorry switz, but I think it's ridiculous to blame Bennett for those losses when he carried the ball less than 20 times combined in those three games. Blame the play calling; blame the defense, but don't blame a guy who barely got on the field.

 

[switz]

I'm sorry switz, but I think it's ridiculous to blame Bennett for those losses when he carried the ball less than 20 times combined in those three games. Blame the play calling; blame the defense, but don't blame a guy who barely got on the field.

My point with that breakdown was not to say Bennett _lost_ the game, rather that when he is available, for the most part, the team goes away from the run, and in those cases, they ose more frequently. That's undeniable. That's why there was the whole, Bennett should get 18 carries a game, why? because he doesn't get 18 carries a game regularly, because the team passes more often with him in there.[rant]

Slice it, dice it, chop it, crop it, anyway you want it, that's an undeniable fact. And I DO blame Bennett for the ARI loss... if the kid could have only run out the clock a bit, but no, Mr. Speed, goes down on two freakin' arm tackles, gimme a break!! That's what allowed the Cards to get the ball back, and that's what gave them a score, and enough time for the OSK... Bennett cannot get the tough yards... he can't run the clock out, and he can't stand up to heavy work in a game... use him and his speed 5-8 times a game as a Change of Pace, but he's not primary ball carrier material IMO

[/rant]

 

[packersfan]

I'm sorry switz, but I think it's ridiculous to blame Bennett for those losses when he carried the ball less than 20 times combined in those three games. Blame the play calling; blame the defense, but don't blame a guy who barely got on the field.

My point with that breakdown was not to say Bennett _lost_ the game, rather that when he is available, for the most part, the team goes away from the run, and in those cases, they ose more frequently. That's undeniable. That's why there was the whole, Bennett should get 18 carries a game, why? because he doesn't get 18 carries a game regularly, because the team passes more often with him in there.

But you're using games in which he barely played to support your argument. He was a bit player in those games so if the Vikings threw more in those games it's meaningless because he had a minimal impact since he barely got on the field. Toss out those three games and let's talk about the games where Bennett was the starter and was a key part of the game plan and let's go from there. I'll grant you the Arizona game because I think that's a reasonable point. That said, no matter what may have happened offensively, if the Vikings simply play good defense on the last play of the game they would've won and gone to the playoffs. Make the play and whatever happened before is a footnote. The defense failed the Vikings that day (and last season overall) when it mattered most.

 

[tenacious_b]

There were better guys available in the 2nd round than Bennett. Not to mention the fact that he's missing time from an injury.

If your draft was closer to the start of the season (as mine was) you wouldn't have taken Bennett in the second round and you would have drafted him knowing full well he might not be available until Week 5.

My draft was 9/7 making O Smith's slip to me in the 8th even better.

 

[packersfan]

There were better guys available in the 2nd round than Bennett. Not to mention the fact that he's missing time from an injury.

If your draft was closer to the start of the season (as mine was) you wouldn't have taken Bennett in the second round and you would have drafted him knowing full well he might not be available until Week 5.

My draft was 9/7 making O Smith's slip to me in the 8th even better.

My draft was 9/8 and I got him at 14:1. And no this isn't a guppy league. It's a very competitive league and I was surprised when Onterrio slid that far. I think the suspension and everyone knowing Bennett was the starter scared them off Onterrio. I didn't complain a bit.

 

[tenacious_b]

Bennett is a crap pick simply because even if he had stayed healthy he would have Smith and Williams vulturing carries from him throughout the year. There were better guys available in the 2nd round than Bennett. Not to mention the fact that he's missing time from an injury. Bennett is an especially crappy pick when compared to Smith who you could've gotten MUCH later. You seem to miss the point entirely. If you drafted Smith late he's not crucial to your team's success like drafting Bennett early. It's not going to kill my team if he breaks his leg. Of course, I'd prefer him to be the starter and not get suspended, but I'm not counting on it. People who drafted Bennett in the 2nd were counting on him and I think they put their eggs in the wrong basket. Smith won't lose all value to me because even in the worst case I'll get him back after the suspension and he'll steal carries from whoever the starter is in Minny.BTW, I'm in a two player keeper league and my RBs are Alexander, Faulk, Westbrook, O Smith, and M Morris. I don't even need Smith to be a bye week fill-in. He's simply icing on the cake.

I think it is you who is missing the point here. Yes I drafted Bennett in the 2nd rd and did so thinking that if healthy he would compete for a low RB1 or top RB2. I also got O.Smith because I knew about at prepared for the risks that a player such as Bennett entitles. I lost Bennett to injury for a few week, ok yeah that sucks. But low and behold I have O.Smith to pick up the wieght any ways. So I still ended up with a viable RB1-RB2 out of the stratagy. How exactly did I loose in the deal? And don't give me that wasted 2nd rd pick crap, because if it wasn't for the injry then Bennett and not Smith simply would be the guy putting up RB1-RB2 #s right now and you can't predict injuries. I didn't put to many eggs in one basket nor did anyone else who got both RBs on their team. You took both because you view the situation as good enough to land you a low end RB1 or top end RB2. The situation is good enough with either RB to to so. I still have that right now in Smith (with Bennett out), and guess what when Smith is suspended I'll have it agian cause Bennett should be back. The only way to loose is if both are out at the same time and that is simply way to difficult to plan for IMO. BTW, what exactly do you plan on doing when Smith is out for 4 games?

Hmm, when I lose O Smith I think I'll just have to start Alexander/Morris, Faulk and Westbrook. Maybe I can "get by" with those guys. You were dumb to believe Bennett would live up to a 2nd round pick with or without the injury because he's got Smith and Williams and if all are healthy it's a RBBC. Even drafting Bennett and Smith doesn't cover you completely because you've got Williams to possibly steal some goaline. The point is that there were better options available in the second round than Bennett. I bet you spent a 5th or 6th round on O Smith and to me that is just spending too much on insurance. It's a similar argument people made about Faulk. I would have had to take Jackson in the 6th to handcuff Faulk, and I wasn't willing to do that.

 

[tenacious_b]

There were better guys available in the 2nd round than Bennett. Not to mention the fact that he's missing time from an injury.

If your draft was closer to the start of the season (as mine was) you wouldn't have taken Bennett in the second round and you would have drafted him knowing full well he might not be available until Week 5.

My draft was 9/7 making O Smith's slip to me in the 8th even better.

My draft was 9/8 and I got him at 14:1. And no this isn't a guppy league. It's a very competitive league and I was surprised when Onterrio slid that far. I think the suspension and everyone knowing Bennett was the starter scared them off Onterrio. I didn't complain a bit.

Good for you. Obviously you got excellent value. Technically I got him in the 10th, but I don't count the 1st two rounds because those are the keeper rounds.

 

[tenacious_b]

IMO, anyone who is counting on either of these players to emerge is in trouble. At this point, there is serious question as to who could remain. If you in a position to take a flyer, it's a worthy gamble, but it's not a rock solid situation by any means.

Bennett late or OS late as a 4th RB is a great pick. Problem is, noone was getting Bennett as a 4th RB, IMO, because it's easy to like Bennett to wint he job in the end from a character standpoint.

Finally! Someone understands what I'm saying!!!

 

[jurb26]

Hmm, when I lose O Smith I think I'll just have to start Alexander/Morris, Faulk and Westbrook. Maybe I can "get by" with those guys. You were dumb to believe Bennett would live up to a 2nd round pick with or without the injury because he's got Smith and Williams and if all are healthy it's a RBBC. Even drafting Bennett and Smith doesn't cover you completely because you've got Williams to possibly steal some goaline. The point is that there were better options available in the second round than Bennett. I bet you spent a 5th or 6th round on O Smith and to me that is just spending too much on insurance. It's a similar argument people made about Faulk. I would have had to take Jackson in the 6th to handcuff Faulk, and I wasn't willing to do that.

You should try not to assume what you don't know. I drafted Bennett in the 3rd rd 1st of all, not the 2nd. I got him along with Portis, C.Brown, K.Jones, and O.Smith (WW after draft, no one wanted to touch him in my league do to the suspension talk and I knew it). My draft was a week or 2 before the Bennett injury so that was not a factor at the time. You laugh at Bennett for being an injury risk, but you have the most sure fire player in the league to get hurt on your team in Faulk. If you feel drafting Bennett early on is dump, then how in the world can you justify taking Faulk early on? The major difference is, I wound up with the backup in Smith for Bennett and am seeing no ill effects as of now. You on the other hand did not get Faulk's backup and could then be in trouble.Fact of the matter is, I am still 1-0 in my league. So even if drafting Bennett in the 3rd was not the wisest of decisions, it has yet to cost me and I doubt it will as Smith seems likely to play untill he returns. So long as I keep winning, I don't care if you and everyone else in the world thinks it was the worst strat ever.

 

[tenacious_b]

Yes I drafted Bennett in the 2nd rd and did so thinking that if healthy he would compete for a low RB1 or top RB2.

You should try not to assume what you don't know. I drafted Bennett in the 3rd rd 1st of all, not the 2nd.

Jurb26, Wow, having trouble keeping your lies straight, huh Jurble? Just admit that taking Bennett in the 2nd was a bad pick. It's a lot easier than lying about it. BTW, Faulk was a keeper and I don't even believe you have O Smith at this point. I think you're full of it. I never said Bennett was an injury threat anyway. I tend not to give a crap about guys being injury risks because on any given play even the Mannings and Favres of the NFL can go down for the year. It's all luck.You're a lightweight Jurble

 

[jurb26]

Yes I drafted Bennett in the 2nd rd and did so thinking that if healthy he would compete for a low RB1 or top RB2.

You should try not to assume what you don't know. I drafted Bennett in the 3rd rd 1st of all, not the 2nd.

Jurb26, Wow, having trouble keeping your lies straight, huh Jurble? Just admit that taking Bennett in the 2nd was a bad pick. It's a lot easier than lying about it. BTW, Faulk was a keeper and I don't even believe you have O Smith at this point. I think you're full of it. I never said Bennett was an injury threat anyway. I tend not to give a crap about guys being injury risks because on any given play even the Mannings and Favres of the NFL can go down for the year. It's all luck.You're a lightweight Jurble

Yeah, my bad. I thought that I did and as just going on memory. I drated in this order thoughortisHoltBennettI can PM you the lague site if you really want, but I also created a thread in the AC forum right after the draft if you just want to look there. Let me know how you want to fingd the answer and I will provide the proper link.

 

[tenacious_b]

Yes I drafted Bennett in the 2nd rd and did so thinking that if healthy he would compete for a low RB1 or top RB2.

You should try not to assume what you don't know. I drafted Bennett in the 3rd rd 1st of all, not the 2nd.

Jurb26, Wow, having trouble keeping your lies straight, huh Jurble? Just admit that taking Bennett in the 2nd was a bad pick. It's a lot easier than lying about it. BTW, Faulk was a keeper and I don't even believe you have O Smith at this point. I think you're full of it. I never said Bennett was an injury threat anyway. I tend not to give a crap about guys being injury risks because on any given play even the Mannings and Favres of the NFL can go down for the year. It's all luck.You're a lightweight Jurble

Yeah, my bad. I thought that I did and as just going on memory. I drated in this order thoughortisHoltBennettI can PM you the lague site if you really want, but I also created a thread in the AC forum right after the draft if you just want to look there. Let me know how you want to fingd the answer and I will provide the proper link.

No problem. I'm sure it's just a mistake. I'm just in a mischievous mood today . I stand by Bennett in the 2nd being a poor pick, even before his injury, but it's not the worst pick one could make. I don't really care much all around. I'm just glad to have O Smith as my 4th RB.-tenny_b