I love R. Grant, but is he startable in wk 1 (1 Viewer)

[sho nuff]

I'd start whoever I think will get the most points. In this case I have Turner and he's starting over Grant. IMOGreen Bays line is in flux so its hard to say whats going to happen. Starting right guard Sitton is out, backup guard Spitz (former starting right guard) could be at center (although some think he should be the starting center), and if Coledge is starting at left guard they could get manhandled up the middle. The Williams brothers wear down during the course of the year but this is the 1st game and they are fresh and Jared Allen is coming on the end which the tackles can handle unless he spins and comes up the middle.It probably comes down to McCarthy's game plan and he's come up with some good ones. They did keep 2 full backs for the 3 back lineup they used successfully last year (allowing Grant to choose his side), I think against the Vikings. The 2 full back, 1 half back formation could neutralize the rush and allow Rogers time to throw which will then eventually open up the run.

Sitton will not be the starter and IMO, would not have been the starter.It would have been and will be Spitz...barring a setback to Wells at center.Spitz, Wells, and Colledge were the starters last year when they played Minny as well.

 

[sho nuff]

What are most of the guys in this thread smokin?Never sit your studs?Never say never!I'm a hobbled RB that is going up against a defense that doesn't have to put 8 in the box to stop me, but might just do it anyway because I have a rookie QB that's replacing a home town legend and the home time crowd will destroy his ego with the first mistake he makes. Not to mention that you have a few good options to replace him in week 1 and I'm just not sure why this thread is even a debate!This is week 1! Sit Grant as a starter see what he can do against this defense. If he performs here, you shouldn't worry about him the rest of the season.

A. Rodgers is not a rookie.B. Favre was not a home town guy...he was from Mississippi.

 

[awesomeness]

What are most of the guys in this thread smokin?

Never sit your studs?

Never say never!

I'm a hobbled RB that is going up against a defense that doesn't have to put 8 in the box to stop me, but might just do it anyway because I have a rookie QB that's replacing a home town legend and the home time crowd will destroy his ego with the first mistake he makes.

Not to mention that you have a few good options to replace him in week 1 and I'm just not sure why this thread is even a debate!

This is week 1! Sit Grant as a starter see what he can do against this defense. If he performs here, you shouldn't worry about him the rest of the season.

Hobbled? Rookie? Good options?Can I see some supporting evidence of any of these?

There is no mention of Grant in the Monday practice report from Green Bay (jsonline). Aaron Rodgers is entering his fourth season. This was not a WDIS thread and the only mention of alternatives to Grant I have noted were Mason and Muhammad, while I am a fan of both neither is a good option over a 20 carry RB.

ignore that amateur post about Mason and Muhammed. Most people who have Grant have him as a RB2. This week he faces one of, if not the, top rush defense in the league. He is coming off a Hamstring injury (which is an injury which tends to linger) and didn't play 1 snap of any preseason game. Seems reasonable enough to sit the guy for a RB3 with a better matchup this week, no?

Not for Turner. You would sit him only if you had equal quality. Turner in Atlanta with a true rookie quarterback and coach is far more "unproven" than Ryan Grant and offensive unit. Brett Favre is not the messiah.

Well Turner is gonna have a true rookie quarterback and coach and is gonna be on the far more unproven offensive unit all year long. If you can't start him when he has a good matchup and your RB2 has a bad matchup, why did you bother drafting him in round 3 or 4?

 

[awesomeness]

ignore that amateur post about Mason and Muhammed Dude don't write a check your butt can't cash.

judging by your failure to use the "quote" function properly, i may not be too far off.

 

[gman74]

ignore that amateur post about Mason and Muhammed Dude don't write a check your butt can't cash.

judging by your failure to use the "quote" function properly, i may not be too far off.

Seems as if you got the message. Enough said

 

[Moniker]

Ryan Grant's numbers from his last game against Minnesota25-119-15-20-0Vikings? Bring em on.

who was QB in those games? SIT Grant. The box will be full and Grant and the Packers are going to be writing "We Miss You Favre" letters on Monday morning.

Your reason for sitting Grant is meaningless considering anyone who drafted Grant has already decided that Favre being gone either doesn't matter or is actually better for him.

 

[Biabreakable]

Packers are going to get CRUSHED. I understand why you would bench Grant in this game.

 

[gman74]

Packers are going to get CRUSHED. I understand why you would bench Grant in this game.

what rookies/guppies like awesomeness don't understand is that sometimes you have to play matchups. Over time they will learn maybe by year 2 . That being said it sucks he is playing on Monday night.Will have to make the decision on him by Sunday

 

[awesomeness]

Packers are going to get CRUSHED. I understand why you would bench Grant in this game.

what rookies/guppies like awesomeness don't understand is that sometimes you have to play matchups. Over time they will learn maybe by year 2 . That being said it sucks he is playing on Monday night.Will have to make the decision on him by Sunday

You might want to read my posts before you attack me. I am sitting Grant this week.

ignore that amateur post about Mason and Muhammed. Most people who have Grant have him as a RB2. This week he faces one of, if not the, top rush defense in the league. He is coming off a Hamstring injury (which is an injury which tends to linger) and didn't play 1 snap of any preseason game. Seems reasonable enough to sit the guy for a RB3 with a better matchup this week, no?

 

[gman74]

Packers are going to get CRUSHED. I understand why you would bench Grant in this game.

what rookies/guppies like awesomeness don't understand is that sometimes you have to play matchups. Over time they will learn maybe by year 2 . That being said it sucks he is playing on Monday night.Will have to make the decision on him by Sunday

You might want to read my posts before you attack me. I am sitting Grant this week.

ignore that amateur post about Mason and Muhammed. Most people who have Grant have him as a RB2. This week he faces one of, if not the, top rush defense in the league. He is coming off a Hamstring injury (which is an injury which tends to linger) and didn't play 1 snap of any preseason game. Seems reasonable enough to sit the guy for a RB3 with a better matchup this week, no?

No value in the content IE no sense in reading them. Guppie

 

[AnonymousBob]

As the other thread has stated, Grant did not practice Tuesday. He looks like he's becoming an increasingly risky play in week one.

 

[awesomeness]

Packers are going to get CRUSHED. I understand why you would bench Grant in this game.

what rookies/guppies like awesomeness don't understand is that sometimes you have to play matchups. Over time they will learn maybe by year 2 . That being said it sucks he is playing on Monday night.Will have to make the decision on him by Sunday

You might want to read my posts before you attack me. I am sitting Grant this week.

ignore that amateur post about Mason and Muhammed. Most people who have Grant have him as a RB2. This week he faces one of, if not the, top rush defense in the league. He is coming off a Hamstring injury (which is an injury which tends to linger) and didn't play 1 snap of any preseason game. Seems reasonable enough to sit the guy for a RB3 with a better matchup this week, no?

No value in the content IE no sense in reading them. Guppie

 

[Aaronstory]

A more legit reason not to start Grant this week is the fact that the Packer line is a complete mess, esp now that Scott Wells can't seem to make it through back to back practices...

 

[CletiusMaximus]

A more legit reason not to start Grant this week is the fact that the Packer line is a complete mess, esp now that Scott Wells can't seem to make it through back to back practices...

Gregg Bedard has updated his blog: "Just when it appeared the Packers were good to go on the offensive line for the opener against the Minnesota Vikings, center Scott Wells' back has flared up again. It is unknown how long he will be out, but it certainly doesn't look good for the Vikings game."

 

[3nOut]

Not for Turner. You would sit him only if you had equal quality. Turner in Atlanta with a true rookie quarterback and coach is far more "unproven" than Ryan Grant and offensive unit. Brett Favre is not the messiah.

So who do you consider has equal quality with Grant, in general and/or this week?

 

[Facecow]

A more legit reason not to start Grant this week is the fact that the Packer line is a complete mess, esp now that Scott Wells can't seem to make it through back to back practices...

I've been watching this thread pretty closely and this Wells news seals it for me - Ryan Grant is riding bench. For perspective, I now have to decide between Maroney, Fargas, or new starter Chris Perry to team with Portis in game 1.Makes my MNF a little easier to stomach this way too.

:horns:

 

[teamroc]

Packers are going to get CRUSHED. I understand why you would bench Grant in this game.

what rookies/guppies like awesomeness don't understand is that sometimes you have to play matchups. Over time they will learn maybe by year 2 . That being said it sucks he is playing on Monday night.Will have to make the decision on him by Sunday

lol wait a sec...oh lawd.the dude who said he was starting mason or moose over grant week 1, is lecturing guys about fantasy football? bahahahhahhah oh lawd save me.but then after everyone laughed at you, you just said "my bad, ignore that". hahaha how do you even type it? how bad did you lock up to type that? start moose or mason over your 1st/2nd round pick grant? baking powder? flacco to mason! SCORE! My bad? Do over? Ignore that brain fart? This is the internet, that little nugget is index/cached/stored forever. Enjoy that.until you master basic ff knowledge, you know, starting stud rbs over flacco to mason, you shouldn't lecture any "guppies" about anything. you should probably not even post this year, just read. you seem to have attitude problems, without anything to back it up. gman pretty much failed every "who do i start" test in the book. moose over grant. you're "the guy" who always complains their bench goes off, they have the worst luck, ff gods hate them. mostly because they bench studs for 36 year old WRs. news flash, the dude you drafted in the 18th round, don't start him week 1. you can have that nugget for free.

 

[AnonymousBob]

I realize we're all better than everyone else could ever hope to be, but there are legitimate reasons to think twice about starting Grant week one. I certainly think he'll be fine when the season closes, but he's yet to practice, their offensive line doesn't look like it'll be completely healthy and they're facing Minnesota. It's also their first game without Favre - they'll probably run more but teams will likely focus on the running game until Rodgers proves otherwise.

I agree with the mentality to always start your studs but imo Grant has yet to prove he is a stud. There aren't many studs. There are a lot of very good players I'd love to have on my team (and Grant is one of those guys) but studs are a rare breed. LT, ADP, Westbrook...those guys are studs. Lynch, Grant, Turner? They're all relatively comparable and I'd be happy to go with the guy who has the great matchup. I won't be so bold to say Mason or some other low level wr should start over him (even if it is a ppr), but somebody like Michael Turner? Against the Shaun Rogers-less Detroit Lions? Absolutely!

 

[ScottyFargo]

Ryan Grant's numbers from his last game against Minnesota25-119-15-20-0Vikings? Bring em on.

THANK you. So sick of "How will they run on the Vikings?" They ran all over them last year and will do so again.

K, I am glad you're so certain but a few things have changed between last year and this season, most notably the loss of Favre and the addition of Jared Allen. It is safe to question whether or not Rodgers will have the same success picking the Vikes secondary apart that a veteran of Favre's caliber had in his first ever pro start. When San Francisco sold out to make Rodgers look bad they succeeded. The Vikings won't have to do much more to keep the pressure on Rodgers which in my estimation will mean Grant won't touch the same numbers he did against the Vikings last year.I think there are a few other more favorable matchups that I would go with over Grant, regardless of where you drafted him. I think intuition is played down a bit too much in favor of the cost of what you paid to get a player. You drafted a guy for the whole season, there's no rule saying you HAVE to play him. Just because you drafted him in the second round it doesn't mean each week he's going to produce like a 2RB, and I think this is one of those cases.

 

[sho nuff]

A more legit reason not to start Grant this week is the fact that the Packer line is a complete mess, esp now that Scott Wells can't seem to make it through back to back practices...

esp now?Or just because now.

Because before the setback, the line was not a complete mess.

It was the same line from last season.

 

[elmanx]

While I agree that benching Grant is worthy of consideration, I think that the ONLY reason is because of Minny. As pointed out earlier in the thread, he did well against Minny, but I think that was probably an anomaly. As we all know, it's hard to make much of a single game.

When drafting Grant highly, I knew there were line issues and I knew that Rodgers was the QB. If you're a Grant owner and are significantly concerned about these other issues (I'm not), then you probably shouldn't have drafted hiim highly as these are long-term issues.

Basically, if you're thinking of benching Grant for these reasons, you probably don't/shouldn't own Grant.

I was also aware of the hamstring issue, but I feel that the team is just being cautious, primairly because they released two other relatively experienced RBs. Doubt they would have done this if R. Grant had a significant injury. Unless Grant sustained (or aggravated) the injury after the cuts were made (which is certainly a possibility).

 

[hawaiiankrush]

The "always start your studs" theory doesn't apply to Grant this week. He still is bothered by his hammy and may not even play. See FBG news on him.

 

[Aaronstory]

A more legit reason not to start Grant this week is the fact that the Packer line is a complete mess, esp now that Scott Wells can't seem to make it through back to back practices...

esp now?Or just because now.

Because before the setback, the line was not a complete mess.

It was the same line from last season.

Come on sho nuff. You're a smarter fan than that. You know damn well there has been zero continutiy on that line this offseason and through camp. Yes, it was going to be the same line, and only by default due to two injuries (Wells, Sitton) - this "same line" hasn't taken a snap together since January.It's a mess.

 

[pollardsvision]

Not for Turner. You would sit him only if you had equal quality. Turner in Atlanta with a true rookie quarterback and coach is far more "unproven" than Ryan Grant and offensive unit. Brett Favre is not the messiah.

So who do you consider has equal quality with Grant, in general and/or this week?

i'm considering starting chris perry over ryan grant this week. the knock on perry is his health, may as well use him before he has a chance to get hurt.

 

[gman74]

Packers are going to get CRUSHED. I understand why you would bench Grant in this game.

what rookies/guppies like awesomeness don't understand is that sometimes you have to play matchups. Over time they will learn maybe by year 2 . That being said it sucks he is playing on Monday night.Will have to make the decision on him by Sunday

lol wait a sec...oh lawd.the dude who said he was starting mason or moose over grant week 1, is lecturing guys about fantasy football? bahahahhahhah oh lawd save me.but then after everyone laughed at you, you just said "my bad, ignore that". hahaha how do you even type it? how bad did you lock up to type that? start moose or mason over your 1st/2nd round pick grant? baking powder? flacco to mason! SCORE! My bad? Do over? Ignore that brain fart? This is the internet, that little nugget is index/cached/stored forever. Enjoy that.until you master basic ff knowledge, you know, starting stud rbs over flacco to mason, you shouldn't lecture any "guppies" about anything. you should probably not even post this year, just read. you seem to have attitude problems, without anything to back it up. gman pretty much failed every "who do i start" test in the book. moose over grant. you're "the guy" who always complains their bench goes off, they have the worst luck, ff gods hate them. mostly because they bench studs for 36 year old WRs. news flash, the dude you drafted in the 18th round, don't start him week 1. you can have that nugget for free.

lol that did not even resemble a complete sentence. Wow is all I can say. As for your "nugget" you can keep it . I will go with what most are doing here and sit Grant.

 

[sho nuff]

A more legit reason not to start Grant this week is the fact that the Packer line is a complete mess, esp now that Scott Wells can't seem to make it through back to back practices...

esp now?Or just because now.

Because before the setback, the line was not a complete mess.

It was the same line from last season.

Come on sho nuff. You're a smarter fan than that. You know damn well there has been zero continutiy on that line this offseason and through camp. Yes, it was going to be the same line, and only by default due to two injuries (Wells, Sitton) - this "same line" hasn't taken a snap together since January.It's a mess.

I know damn well they have shuffled the line in camp.I know damn well that once Wells was back, Spitz was back at RG and Colldge at LG.

I think...and this is opinion...that if Wells was healthy, there was no way in hell Sitton was seeing the starting RG spot over Spitz and Colledge would have been at LG anyway....that the line would have remained the same from last season.

It is not a mess...its one player away from being the same line. And these guys have been working together quite a bit...in some different combinations...but have been working together.

Its not like they have had Colledge just working on the 3rd team and Moll not working.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

A more legit reason not to start Grant this week is the fact that the Packer line is a complete mess, esp now that Scott Wells can't seem to make it through back to back practices...

esp now?Or just because now.

Because before the setback, the line was not a complete mess.

It was the same line from last season.

Come on sho nuff. You're a smarter fan than that. You know damn well there has been zero continutiy on that line this offseason and through camp. Yes, it was going to be the same line, and only by default due to two injuries (Wells, Sitton) - this "same line" hasn't taken a snap together since January.It's a mess.

I know damn well they have shuffled the line in camp.I know damn well that once Wells was back, Spitz was back at RG and Colldge at LG.

I think...and this is opinion...that if Wells was healthy, there was no way in hell Sitton was seeing the starting RG spot over Spitz and Colledge would have been at LG anyway....that the line would have remained the same from last season.

It is not a mess...its one player away from being the same line. And these guys have been working together quite a bit...in some different combinations...but have been working together.

Its not like they have had Colledge just working on the 3rd team and Moll not working.

Problem is Moll and Colledge are not good. Period. With Wells at Center, at least only one of those two have to play, since Spitz would then be playing guard.I'm not excited about the injuries here. I can't see anyway they'll hold their own in the opener. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Aaronstory]

A more legit reason not to start Grant this week is the fact that the Packer line is a complete mess, esp now that Scott Wells can't seem to make it through back to back practices...

esp now?Or just because now.

Because before the setback, the line was not a complete mess.

It was the same line from last season.

Come on sho nuff. You're a smarter fan than that. You know damn well there has been zero continutiy on that line this offseason and through camp. Yes, it was going to be the same line, and only by default due to two injuries (Wells, Sitton) - this "same line" hasn't taken a snap together since January.It's a mess.

I know damn well they have shuffled the line in camp.I know damn well that once Wells was back, Spitz was back at RG and Colldge at LG.

I think...and this is opinion...that if Wells was healthy, there was no way in hell Sitton was seeing the starting RG spot over Spitz and Colledge would have been at LG anyway....that the line would have remained the same from last season.

It is not a mess...its one player away from being the same line. And these guys have been working together quite a bit...in some different combinations...but have been working together.

Its not like they have had Colledge just working on the 3rd team and Moll not working.

You also know damn well that Spitz was at LG and Sitton at RG before Sitton got hurt.A. Mess.

 

[Muahahaha]

I think the shark move will be to trade for Grant after week one vs. the Vikings.

 

[sho nuff]

A more legit reason not to start Grant this week is the fact that the Packer line is a complete mess, esp now that Scott Wells can't seem to make it through back to back practices...

esp now?Or just because now.

Because before the setback, the line was not a complete mess.

It was the same line from last season.

Come on sho nuff. You're a smarter fan than that. You know damn well there has been zero continutiy on that line this offseason and through camp. Yes, it was going to be the same line, and only by default due to two injuries (Wells, Sitton) - this "same line" hasn't taken a snap together since January.It's a mess.

I know damn well they have shuffled the line in camp.I know damn well that once Wells was back, Spitz was back at RG and Colldge at LG.

I think...and this is opinion...that if Wells was healthy, there was no way in hell Sitton was seeing the starting RG spot over Spitz and Colledge would have been at LG anyway....that the line would have remained the same from last season.

It is not a mess...its one player away from being the same line. And these guys have been working together quite a bit...in some different combinations...but have been working together.

Its not like they have had Colledge just working on the 3rd team and Moll not working.

Problem is Moll and Colledge are not good. Period. With Wells at Center, at least only one of those two have to play, since Spitz would then be playing guard.I'm not excited about the injuries here. I can't see anyway they'll hold their own in the opener. I hope I'm wrong.

Colledge is good...not great.I agree, I am not thrilled with the injuries at all. Id much rather have Wells in there as I like what Spitz brings at RG (decent run blocker there that helps out Tauscher who is a better pass blocker than run blocker)

 

[sho nuff]

A more legit reason not to start Grant this week is the fact that the Packer line is a complete mess, esp now that Scott Wells can't seem to make it through back to back practices...

esp now?Or just because now.

Because before the setback, the line was not a complete mess.

It was the same line from last season.

Come on sho nuff. You're a smarter fan than that. You know damn well there has been zero continutiy on that line this offseason and through camp. Yes, it was going to be the same line, and only by default due to two injuries (Wells, Sitton) - this "same line" hasn't taken a snap together since January.It's a mess.

I know damn well they have shuffled the line in camp.I know damn well that once Wells was back, Spitz was back at RG and Colldge at LG.

I think...and this is opinion...that if Wells was healthy, there was no way in hell Sitton was seeing the starting RG spot over Spitz and Colledge would have been at LG anyway....that the line would have remained the same from last season.

It is not a mess...its one player away from being the same line. And these guys have been working together quite a bit...in some different combinations...but have been working together.

Its not like they have had Colledge just working on the 3rd team and Moll not working.

You also know damn well that Spitz was at LG and Sitton at RG before Sitton got hurt.A. Mess.

I know they were trying it...yes...also trying to see if Colledge was really able to be a tackle in the future. IMO, its not looking like he will be.One guy missing from last year's line or them trying different combos does not make it a mess IMO.

Its not perfect now with the Wells injury for sure...but far from a mess.

 

[Aaronstory]

A more legit reason not to start Grant this week is the fact that the Packer line is a complete mess, esp now that Scott Wells can't seem to make it through back to back practices...

esp now?Or just because now.

Because before the setback, the line was not a complete mess.

It was the same line from last season.

Come on sho nuff. You're a smarter fan than that. You know damn well there has been zero continutiy on that line this offseason and through camp. Yes, it was going to be the same line, and only by default due to two injuries (Wells, Sitton) - this "same line" hasn't taken a snap together since January.It's a mess.

I know damn well they have shuffled the line in camp.I know damn well that once Wells was back, Spitz was back at RG and Colldge at LG.

I think...and this is opinion...that if Wells was healthy, there was no way in hell Sitton was seeing the starting RG spot over Spitz and Colledge would have been at LG anyway....that the line would have remained the same from last season.

It is not a mess...its one player away from being the same line. And these guys have been working together quite a bit...in some different combinations...but have been working together.

Its not like they have had Colledge just working on the 3rd team and Moll not working.

Problem is Moll and Colledge are not good. Period. With Wells at Center, at least only one of those two have to play, since Spitz would then be playing guard.I'm not excited about the injuries here. I can't see anyway they'll hold their own in the opener. I hope I'm wrong.

Colledge is good...not great.I agree, I am not thrilled with the injuries at all. Id much rather have Wells in there as I like what Spitz brings at RG (decent run blocker there that helps out Tauscher who is a better pass blocker than run blocker)

I agree that Colledge is better than most Packer fans give him credit for. The problem is consitency. Every game, he just absolutley whiffs or has a complete mental breakdown in pass pro that almost gets the QB killed. With Favre, it wasn't a problem (save for the Dallas game) With Rodgres, I worry.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

A more legit reason not to start Grant this week is the fact that the Packer line is a complete mess, esp now that Scott Wells can't seem to make it through back to back practices...

esp now?Or just because now.

Because before the setback, the line was not a complete mess.

It was the same line from last season.

Come on sho nuff. You're a smarter fan than that. You know damn well there has been zero continutiy on that line this offseason and through camp. Yes, it was going to be the same line, and only by default due to two injuries (Wells, Sitton) - this "same line" hasn't taken a snap together since January.It's a mess.

I know damn well they have shuffled the line in camp.I know damn well that once Wells was back, Spitz was back at RG and Colldge at LG.

I think...and this is opinion...that if Wells was healthy, there was no way in hell Sitton was seeing the starting RG spot over Spitz and Colledge would have been at LG anyway....that the line would have remained the same from last season.

It is not a mess...its one player away from being the same line. And these guys have been working together quite a bit...in some different combinations...but have been working together.

Its not like they have had Colledge just working on the 3rd team and Moll not working.

Problem is Moll and Colledge are not good. Period. With Wells at Center, at least only one of those two have to play, since Spitz would then be playing guard.I'm not excited about the injuries here. I can't see anyway they'll hold their own in the opener. I hope I'm wrong.

I know we're getting pretty far afield from the point of this thread, but I would just ask if you remember Mike Wahle's first 3 years with the Packers. He was absolutely atrocious, benched several times, but then took "the leap" in his 4th or 5th year and became one of the best guards I have ever seen play - a joy to watch for OL geeks. I am a hopeless optimist, especially this time of year, but I am going to give the third year guys on the OL another chance before writing them off, while agreeing that neither Colledge nor Moll looked like an NFL caliber guard the past two seasons.As for Monday, I am taking consolation in a few factors: 1) although perhaps "A Mess", the OL does have some consistency insofar as we know the five starters will be familiar names who have played together for at least the past two seasons (albeit with a bit of shuffling); 2) The Packers started last season with no RB's and no hope for a decent running game, but survived largely in my opinion due to great gameplanning by McCarthy (and, admittedly, Brett Favre); 3) The Packers absolutley thumped the Vikings twice last year, and ran the ball very well the last time they played; 4) The Williams bros. are great and will cause problems in the middle as always, but I think Pat is almost 38 now - he's got to start slowing down some day; 5) the Packers' tackles are healthy and should be in good form for this game, knowing they can handle the Vikings as they've done in the past; 6) With Madieu Williams hurt, they are starting a rookie at free safety and still have a liability at corner opposite Winfiled in Cedrick Griffin, and I expect McCarthy, Rodgers and the WR's to exploit that to keep the pressure off the run game somewhat.

 

[Aaronstory]

A more legit reason not to start Grant this week is the fact that the Packer line is a complete mess, esp now that Scott Wells can't seem to make it through back to back practices...

esp now?Or just because now.

Because before the setback, the line was not a complete mess.

It was the same line from last season.

Come on sho nuff. You're a smarter fan than that. You know damn well there has been zero continutiy on that line this offseason and through camp. Yes, it was going to be the same line, and only by default due to two injuries (Wells, Sitton) - this "same line" hasn't taken a snap together since January.It's a mess.

I know damn well they have shuffled the line in camp.I know damn well that once Wells was back, Spitz was back at RG and Colldge at LG.

I think...and this is opinion...that if Wells was healthy, there was no way in hell Sitton was seeing the starting RG spot over Spitz and Colledge would have been at LG anyway....that the line would have remained the same from last season.

It is not a mess...its one player away from being the same line. And these guys have been working together quite a bit...in some different combinations...but have been working together.

Its not like they have had Colledge just working on the 3rd team and Moll not working.

Problem is Moll and Colledge are not good. Period. With Wells at Center, at least only one of those two have to play, since Spitz would then be playing guard.I'm not excited about the injuries here. I can't see anyway they'll hold their own in the opener. I hope I'm wrong.

I know we're getting pretty far afield from the point of this thread, but I would just ask if you remember Mike Wahle's first 3 years with the Packers. He was absolutely atrocious, benched several times, but then took "the leap" in his 4th or 5th year and became one of the best guards I have ever seen play - a joy to watch for OL geeks. I am a hopeless optimist, especially this time of year, but I am going to give the third year guys on the OL another chance before writing them off, while agreeing that neither Colledge nor Moll looked like an NFL caliber guard the past two seasons.As for Monday, I am taking consolation in a few factors: 1) although perhaps "A Mess", the OL does have some consistency insofar as we know the five starters will be familiar names who have played together for at least the past two seasons (albeit with a bit of shuffling); 2) The Packers started last season with no RB's and no hope for a decent running game, but survived largely in my opinion due to great gameplanning by McCarthy (and, admittedly, Brett Favre); 3) The Packers absolutley thumped the Vikings twice last year, and ran the ball very well the last time they played; 4) The Williams bros. are great and will cause problems in the middle as always, but I think Pat is almost 38 now - he's got to start slowing down some day; 5) the Packers' tackles are healthy and should be in good form for this game, knowing they can handle the Vikings as they've done in the past; 6) With Madieu Williams hurt, they are starting a rookie at free safety and still have a liability at corner opposite Winfiled in Cedrick Griffin, and I expect McCarthy, Rodgers and the WR's to exploit that to keep the pressure off the run game somewhat.

Excellent across the board, though I would quibble with small points here and there. Overall though, I agree that Packer fans have much more to be optimistic about than most seem to think.

 

[skillz]

Any news yet on whether Grant practiced today (Wed.)?

 

[Aaronstory]

Any news yet on whether Grant practiced today (Wed.)?

Packer have off today. Tomorrow is the big test. If he doesn't go tomorrow, I doubt he plays much if at all.

 

[Pnishthm]

I'm starting Turner over Grant THIS WEEK. It's not just because of the tough Minny D but more of me not wanting to take a risk of the guy not being healthy and sitting for over half the game. I'd rather see him play an entire game first to show me he's healthy enough to contribute.