clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Wolfe Preferred Over Benson?

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?