Wolfe Preferred Over Benson?

by WCG on Apr 11, 2008 3:41 PM CDT in News

I suppose this is considered more speculation or opinion than it is anything else, but I still found it interesting.

Brad Biggs did a Q&A on the Bears. One of the questions was if the Bears draft a running back, would the Bears be more likely to carry 4 backs or cut Adrian Peterson or Garrett Wolfe.

Here is Biggs response:

The Bears are not going to give up on Wolfe, a third-round pick in 2007, after one season. They're more likely to cut their losses with Cedric Benson before Wolfe. They need to find a better defined role for him as a change-of-pace back this season but before they do that they need to straighten out the running game, period. I think it's fair to say Peterson showed he's not cut out for the backup role but he's a valuable performer on special teams and has been durable. I don't see why the Bears would not keep four running backs (five if you count a fullback). They kept six wide receivers last season and virtually never used Mike Hass.

Now, I am not a fan of Benson per say, but he has only been a starter one year, he has been behind a broke line and he has had no help from the passing game. He got injured to boot. It seems odd that he thinks they would be willing to cut loose Benson before Wolfe. I like the idea of having a guy like Wolfe on the team, but he is too small to ever be a feature back. He is purely a situational guy.

Benson or Wolfe?

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Wolfe

The guy has talent. He is a better receiver than Benson and quicker. He may never be able to break tackles and he's a midget, but so what? I think he's good.

by GallopingGhost on Apr 11, 2008 4:25 PM CDT 0 recs

ridiculous

Not sure how Biggs can say this:

They're more likely to cut their losses with Cedric Benson before Wolfe.

And then say this later in the same Q&A:

Not only does the experience with Cedric Benson scare the Bears, they still want to see him succeed.

So lets see... they still want him to succeed, but they may cut him rather than Wolfe?

Further, this is pure meaningless speculation that is not supported with an ounce of facts.

visit the mindful mission.

by big_lowitzki on Apr 11, 2008 4:43 PM CDT 0 recs

Neither

RB is the easiest transition from college to the pros, neither showed anything really. But if i had to choose one it'd be Wollfe just cuz he hasent had 3 years to fail the team.

by SuperBowlXX on Apr 11, 2008 4:44 PM CDT 0 recs

Wolfe all the way!

This guy is not an every down back, but he has serious game breaking ability. He just needs to be utilized better. Turner finally started to get the right idea how to use Hester in the last few weeks of the season (not just a screen pass or reverse whenever #23 stepped foot on the field), maybe next year he'll develop an intelligent role for Wolfe. I know what someone did in college does not hold true in the NFL, but when you look at what that guy did against Ohio State (one of the Best defenses in college football) 2 years ago with a team like Northern Illinois, it is really impressive. Fast, illusive, and agile... a spot back. He will at least push for extra yards, unlike Benson who falls on first touch.

by sirus19x on Apr 11, 2008 10:35 PM CDT 0 recs

I think it's meant...

...as if they draft a RB thinking he can be the main back. And, oddly, this assumes they keep Peterson as an RB. Do you keep the expensive Benson who wouldn't be too different than the feature back or Peterson, or do you keep the guy who would bring a different dimension to the game and is cheaper.

I think his second-to-last sentence is the real answer: Ya keep all four, moving Peterson to Special Teams until Benson gets hurt.

by tyger1147 on Apr 11, 2008 11:54 PM CDT 0 recs

Exactly Right

Tyger hit the nail on the head. It's more of a financial reason than a skill/talent comment. Benson is obviously better equipped to be the feature back as Wolfe is undersized. However, the NFL is as much a financial game as it is a physical one. Therefore, the cheaper Wolfe is more likely to stick around than the albatross that is Benson.

by bs1220 on Apr 12, 2008 2:06 PM CDT 0 recs

Neither

But as mentioned above, they cannot afford to carry Benson as just another extra wheel, primarily due to financial concerns. Wolfe could be this generation's version of Dennis Gentry, who was a terrific 3rd down scat back who could give you some amazing production out of unique situations (like 3rd and long). Gentry was also small in stature, yet he was a wide load and difficult for only one tackler to bring down.

by Dmac on Apr 12, 2008 5:58 PM CDT 0 recs

Benson

should be more likely to be cut. He does have a cap hit if cut this year (around 1.5 - 2 mil), but by cutting him they'd save (in payroll dollars, not cap dollars) his salary this year and next, plus the bonus he'd get if he gets over 700 yards this year. So by cutting him they'd save somewhere around 5-7 mil, whereas cutting Wolfe wouldn't save much at all.

That said, I think Wolfe has a very, very limited role in which he could be effective. He better learn to be a special teams ace or he's not going to have a job anywhere much longer. He was a bad pick, imo.

by tomas21 on Apr 13, 2008 8:24 PM CDT 0 recs

I think its one more year and done

for Peterson especially, and maybe Benson unless he performs consistently better this season. They can find a ST ace for less money than Peterson, but should keep him around another year as an emergency RB. Keep Wolfe as a situational 3rd string back; at least until you know what you've got. Draft a RB this year to be the main backup, learn the system, and be the main guy if Benson goes down(or never gets going). Give them all some strong, young blockers and hope for the best. No more excuses this year; get more acceptable production, or join Miller and Brown on the cast-off pile.

by gillrowdy on Apr 13, 2008 8:46 PM CDT 0 recs

Bang for your buck...

Obviously Wolfe will never have the same impact that Benson could potentially have, but its time to read the tea leaves and realize that Benson is just a longer suffering Curtis Enis. This guy is a flop. Period.

Wolfe is the best back we have. Is he a feature back? No. Will he ever be? No. But he is a solid player who can add to the team. Benson is gone after this year, period.

Peterson? He's been a good player for us, but his time is up as well.

Let the rebuilding begin... again...

by sethneal on Apr 14, 2008 11:45 PM CDT 0 recs