Benny watch continues.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Benny watch continues.

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why is this news? Did anyone seriously doubt that he was a backup runner?

    BB got rid of him as soon as he had a guy with a year under his belt. 

     

    Gotta say, though, the fumbling (3!) is surprising. A complete lack of fumbles is more of a statistical anomaly than anything, as I've always maintained about him, but he's turned into a fumbling machine. 

    But the 3.5 ypc is not. It's basically what he is.

    Soooo glad NE has switched up to different runners that can actually run against mediocre defenses.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Basically there actually are some people that didn't realize that Benny was a back up and hence not reason to take the ball out of Brady's hands. It really was/is news to them....as funny as that sounds, it's true!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Always a laugh when you and babe use your amaizing mind reading abilities to tell everyone what BB was thinking.

    [/QUOTE]

    I know!! Hahaha...mind reading is good, but let us just stick to reading for the moment - you spelled amazing wrong. I wonder if Benny would of done the same? Probably, but that's just good old mind reading.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Benny watch continues.

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why is this news? Did anyone seriously doubt that he was a backup runner?

    BB got rid of him as soon as he had a guy with a year under his belt. 

     

    Gotta say, though, the fumbling (3!) is surprising. A complete lack of fumbles is more of a statistical anomaly than anything, as I've always maintained about him, but he's turned into a fumbling machine. 

    But the 3.5 ypc is not. It's basically what he is.

    Soooo glad NE has switched up to different runners that can actually run against mediocre defenses.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Basically there actually are some people that didn't realize that Benny was a back up and hence not reason to take the ball out of Brady's hands. It really was/is news to them....as funny as that sounds, it's true!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Always a laugh when you and babe use your amaizing mind reading abilities to tell everyone what BB was thinking.

    [/QUOTE]

    I know!! Hahaha...mind reading is good, but let us just stick to reading for the moment - you spelled amazing wrong. I wonder if Benny would of done the same? Probably, but that's just good old mind reading.

    [/QUOTE]


    Ah the spelling whine! Last refuge of weenies. But hey it gave you an excuse to ignore the point about the offensive plan being different.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: Benny watch continues.

    Look, it's obvious that both Bolden and Ridley are upgrades to BJGE.  Similar body types to BJGE, but both are faster with much more shake and both have a better natural ability to catch the ball.  There is no shame in saying thet BJGE was a serviceable back when he was here.  If the point of this thread is to say the the running game (or lack thereof) was more a personnel issue than a philosophical one, I'd say that is part of the reason.  But a new OC and a somewhat altered philosophy about how the run game fits into this offense could be a bigger part.  We'll see as the season unfolds.  


    BJGE capitalized on his success here and parlayed it into a nice contract.  I think BB realised that with the youth on his roster and the money BJGE would cost, it was time to move on.  I wish nothing but the best for the guy. 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Benny watch continues.

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why is this news? Did anyone seriously doubt that he was a backup runner?

    BB got rid of him as soon as he had a guy with a year under his belt. 

     

    Gotta say, though, the fumbling (3!) is surprising. A complete lack of fumbles is more of a statistical anomaly than anything, as I've always maintained about him, but he's turned into a fumbling machine. 

    But the 3.5 ypc is not. It's basically what he is.

    Soooo glad NE has switched up to different runners that can actually run against mediocre defenses.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Basically there actually are some people that didn't realize that Benny was a back up and hence not reason to take the ball out of Brady's hands. It really was/is news to them....as funny as that sounds, it's true!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Always a laugh when you and babe use your amaizing mind reading abilities to tell everyone what BB was thinking.

    [/QUOTE]

    I know!! Hahaha...mind reading is good, but let us just stick to reading for the moment - you spelled amazing wrong. I wonder if Benny would of done the same? Probably, but that's just good old mind reading.

    [/QUOTE]


    Ah the spelling whine! Last refuge of weenies. But hey it gave you an excuse to ignore the point about the offensive plan being different.

    [/QUOTE]


    I know, I shouldn't of done that. Truthfully I can't stand the spell checkers, and there I go and do it myself.

    Consider this...the coach came out this summer and said why we weren't running more. The QB said this morning why play action works and why it doesn't. Brady said you can't play action by just trying to run it more - you need to be effective at running to play action (I think that explains a lot about why we didn't play action much last year, compared to this year...it's the runners).

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: Benny watch continues.

    Good to see him do well. He's a good guy and gave the Patriots some solid games. I like the guys we have now better but appreciate BJGE's efforts here. 

    Thanks for keeping us posted babe, looks like he's having a decent season.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny watch continues.

    In response to Patsman3's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe your starting to look really lame with this.  You can't go off on Rusty for his Anti-Brady crusade and then keep this up each week with your Anti-Benny crusade .  He was a solid back for us.  Give it a rest already.

    [/QUOTE]


    Ahhh, Brady plays for the New England Patriots. Benny don't. See the difference?

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny watch continues.

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe sounds like a jilted exlover. Move on, he did, the Pats did. He was a good player for the Pats but the Pats had Ridley and Vereen. I don't know why you are rooting for his failure.

    [/QUOTE]


    I've NEVER said I want him to fail. I don't care what he does really. It's just interesting to see how he does in the light of the great praise certain persons here lavished on him.

     

    Some people just hate it when they are shown they were wrong.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny watch continues.

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Did you see yesterday's game? No, you didn't.  If we had done that in the SB, NE blows out the Giants.  But, Brady wanted to throw with Woodhead as the lead back.

    Check the data, Pezzy.  You've been exposed again by facts. 

    All we heard all week long is how great the Bills pass rush is. LMAO

    Do you get it yet?

    [/QUOTE]


    Ahhh, our backs averaged 3.6 yac in that SB. You wanted MORE of that?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny watch continues.

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why is this news? Did anyone seriously doubt that he was a backup runner?

    BB got rid of him as soon as he had a guy with a year under his belt. 

     

    Gotta say, though, the fumbling (3!) is surprising. A complete lack of fumbles is more of a statistical anomaly than anything, as I've always maintained about him, but he's turned into a fumbling machine. 

    But the 3.5 ypc is not. It's basically what he is.

    Soooo glad NE has switched up to different runners that can actually run against mediocre defenses.  

    [/QUOTE]


    Well z, plenty conted he wasn't just a backup. But it is doubtful any factual proof will ever impact their notions. Some people just get things in their head and it's there forever come hell or high water. Interestingly, their greatest defense of him was how he would never fumble. That's a memory now.

     

    Just posting this stuff for the record.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny watch continues.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Btw Benny has averaged 20 carries a game and his team is 3-1, and his QB in his 2nd year is the 5th highest rated QB in the league, but that probably is just dumb luck and not a commitment to the running game.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you feel his well below average yac is responsible for his team's record, or is it just the fact that they played only one good team (and were routed by them)?

     

    The teams they beat have a combined 3-9 record.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Benny watch continues.

    Funny how more touches correlates into more fumbles.  Yet the run at any cost'ers will never get that you need a RB with actual TALENT to successfully run 30 times a game and still be in position to win. 

     

    Thank God BB gets it and let Maroney Lite walk without even offering him a contract.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny watch continues.

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am very surprised he fumbled again. Odd for him for sure. Cincy is playing well at a quiet 3-1 and Benny is a winner, so I am sure a pathetic franchise is enjoying his steady presence.  Good for CIncy.

    This attempt to somehow make it seem like BJGE couldn't have been a better choice in the second half of the SB over Woodhead won't work.

    We know why we lost in the SB and we saw why again yesterday with the run game allowing the offense to dictate. No Waters, No Logie, No Hernandez.  Pretty much a case closed kind of situation at this point regardless of Babe Parilli and his cohorts looking to scapegoat a former Pats player who was good here.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't think there is a lot of argument whether Benny might have been better than Woody. Both were/are pretty marginal.

     

    Are you trying to say the Bills yesterday are as good a team as the Giants championship team?

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Benny watch continues.

    Some people just don't get it...never will...all the way to the bitter end...

    Bill Belichick doesn't let young, hard working and cheap players just walk in free agency...unless they're not good enough.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Benny watch continues.

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Getting younger at the position isn't a bad thing. He felt Ridley and Vereen were ready to go and by adding a BJGE Jr in Bolden, it's far more of a numbers game and he's  getting THREE RBs for the money BJGE just signed with in Cincy.

    DId BB want to walk away from Vinatieri? No, he walked away from an offer or an extension because he felt it was too much money and he knew he was going to have to pay others.  So, he drafted a kicker. 

    You'te telling me I don't get it, yet you prove you don't.  Woodhead is not better than BJGE either.  He just isn't. He has a very specifc skill set that really only shows up in the passing game, so according to you, the reason why Woodhead was used more in the SB means Woodhead is deemed better than BJGE?

    Laughable to those of us with IQs over 100, Hurlie.

    [/QUOTE]


    Perhaps the weakest argument I've seen out of you. Listen I know it's tough admiting when you're wrong - but try it - just take a deep breath and let go.....ahhhhhhh. Bliss.

    Hay? Do you still think they should trade Brady and start Mallett? Or did you change your mind? 

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Benny watch continues.

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    No, of course not. I don't know why you would come to such a silly conclusion. If we ran BJGE as our lead back in the SB, especially in the second half like they did out of halftime, we win that game.

    I don't care if you don't agree or whatever. The likelihood is Brady doesn't throw that pick, there is far less time on the clock for the GIants, etc, etc. We've argued this to death. Just give it a rest.

    You have to use your lead back in order for him to produce. The main reason why RIdley and Bolden look so effective is because they're good, as was BJGE, and their skill sets are basically the same. Ridley has more spark, but if you look at how the run, it's essentially the same. Ridley is electric in the open field, probably has more shake than Bolden, so there are slight differences, but stop acting like BJGE was so awful. He ran behind a very good O Line, but he can't his touches when his QB is trying to throw in a shotgun 40+ times.

    Just get over it. 

    [/QUOTE]

     

    For all you know if we ran BJGE "as our lead back in the SB, especially in the second half" - we would have lost by more. Just because you say something doesn't make it factual.

    But we did give him the ball on the crucial drive culminating with the Welker drop.

    And what did he do? He got 3 yards and minus 1 yards on the two times he was given the ball. By far the most important carries of his entire life and he averaged one yard a carry. Kind of shoots your theory to hell, don't it? Why oh why didn't BB demand he get it more so we could enjoy his great clutch running? Even you should be able to figure the answer to that out.


    I'm not arguing with you. I'm letting the facts about BJGE speak loudly and clearly for themselves. He's a stiff. Even Maroney averaged more a carry for us than Benny.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Benny watch continues.

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DelGriffith's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am very surprised he fumbled again. Odd for him for sure. Cincy is playing well at a quiet 3-1 and Benny is a winner, so I am sure a pathetic franchise is enjoying his steady presence.  Good for CIncy.

    This attempt to somehow make it seem like BJGE couldn't have been a better choice in the second half of the SB over Woodhead won't work.

    We know why we lost in the SB and we saw why again yesterday with the run game allowing the offense to dictate. No Waters, No Logie, No Hernandez.  Pretty much a case closed kind of situation at this point regardless of Babe Parilli and his cohorts looking to scapegoat a former Pats player who was good here.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't think there is a lot of argument whether Benny might have been better than Woody. Both were/are pretty marginal.

     

    Are you trying to say the Bills yesterday are as good a team as the Giants championship team?

    [/QUOTE without checking i think the Bills were a better run defense then the Giants last year, then they put 90 million in their D line. Anyway, I think a balanced attack opens up the passing game for Brady, as oppossed to making Brady throw 600 times again.....at 34 and 35 years old. Benny wasnt a HOFer, but BB the GM felt he was good enough o be our starting power back. unfortunately we fell back on our crutchagain this past SB and played into the Giants strengths. We threw the ball a ton and scored 17 pts. Giants were weak against the rn, BJGE was effective. I think you know this is true Babe. You would just rather argue. sorry about grammar but this site is tough on smart phones.]


     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share