Interesting Article on Ryan Grant (1 Viewer)

[Phase of the Game]

Sorry to everyone else in this thread. I just don't think it is fine to state I have been negative about Grant in the past when I have never posted a negative comment about him here. Sho can continue to make up things here but I think that is wrong.

I'm done on this and I'm sure Sho will have the last word without apologizing for lying.

 

[sho nuff]

Sorry to everyone else in this thread. I just don't think it is fine to state I have been negative about Grant in the past when I have never posted a negative comment about him here. Sho can continue to make up things here but I think that is wrong.I'm done on this and I'm sure Sho will have the last word without apologizing for lying.

Just to stop this crap.I apologize if I implied that you said anything negative about Grant and lumped you in with the other two, it was not my intention.

 

[T Bell]

Did this stand out to anyone else?

http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/3325...y&detPage=1

Grant gained a 50-50 split over four starters: Seattle's Julius Jones, New England's Sammy Morris, Houston's Steve Slaton and Kansas City's Larry Johnson.

I found that name a little surprising on that part of the list.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Did this stand out to anyone else?

http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/3325...y&detPage=1

Grant gained a 50-50 split over four starters: Seattle's Julius Jones, New England's Sammy Morris, Houston's Steve Slaton and Kansas City's Larry Johnson.

I found that name a little surprising on that part of the list.

They interviewed 2 NFC scouts, and 1 of them happened to think Grant was better than Larry Johnson. I wouldn't read too much into that. The key points to consider are:- 3.4 YPC is 60th out of 65 RBs with more than 100 rushing yards

- only 4 catches

- Green Bay would save $500,000 if Grant had less than 1000 rushing yards

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Can we please stop with the childish crap in these Packer threads. It's getting very old.

Back on topic.

I was surprised to see this article, but there is definitely some truth to the performance of Grant so far. Just not the contract part.

As I stated weeks ago, Grant looks tentative, and often runs up the back of his defenders even when there appear to be lanes available for cutbacks. Again, it could be just lack of cohesion from so many missing time. However, I don't recall seeing that last year from him.

As for the contract part. Way off base. Grant is not paid that highly. If Green Bay plays out the year with him and decides he isn't the long term answer, they draft another back.

I think it's safe to say Brandon Jackson isn't the long term solution in Green Bay.

I too have noticed this. It disturbs me. I hope it disappears with him returning to health.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Grant's contract is reasonable, wholly manageable under the Packer's salary cap situation, and leaves the Packers options. If Grant is a bust he will not make his incentives and can be disposed of cheaply or held cheaply. If his lack of production is reflective of the Packers disrupted O-line and his hamstring he should show that coming up by performing better, and if he performs better he is by definition worth his contract. Long and short the Packers are not locked in here nor is the contract in any way prohibitive. The story is a result of a slow news week in Packerland with them being on a bye.

Exactly...but don't tell that to phase, moderated or ookie.

I just posted the article. I didn't state I agree with it. I thought it was an interesting take from McGinn who has covered the Packers for a long time. I don't think Grant has run as well as last year and it is way too early to call him a bust.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Can we please stop with the childish crap in these Packer threads. It's getting very old.

Back on topic.

I was surprised to see this article, but there is definitely some truth to the performance of Grant so far. Just not the contract part.

As I stated weeks ago, Grant looks tentative, and often runs up the back of his defenders even when there appear to be lanes available for cutbacks. Again, it could be just lack of cohesion from so many missing time. However, I don't recall seeing that last year from him.

As for the contract part. Way off base. Grant is not paid that highly. If Green Bay plays out the year with him and decides he isn't the long term answer, they draft another back.

I think it's safe to say Brandon Jackson isn't the long term solution in Green Bay.

I too have noticed this. It disturbs me. I hope it disappears with him returning to health.

 

[sho nuff]

Grant's contract is reasonable, wholly manageable under the Packer's salary cap situation, and leaves the Packers options. If Grant is a bust he will not make his incentives and can be disposed of cheaply or held cheaply. If his lack of production is reflective of the Packers disrupted O-line and his hamstring he should show that coming up by performing better, and if he performs better he is by definition worth his contract. Long and short the Packers are not locked in here nor is the contract in any way prohibitive. The story is a result of a slow news week in Packerland with them being on a bye.

Exactly...but don't tell that to phase, moderated or ookie.

I just posted the article. I didn't state I agree with it. I thought it was an interesting take from McGinn who has covered the Packers for a long time. I don't think Grant has run as well as last year and it is way too early to call him a bust.

Noted...and I agree with you.Perhaps I was quick to include you and phase in with the other.

 

[T Bell]

Can we please stop with the childish crap in these Packer threads. It's getting very old.

Back on topic.

I was surprised to see this article, but there is definitely some truth to the performance of Grant so far. Just not the contract part.

As I stated weeks ago, Grant looks tentative, and often runs up the back of his defenders even when there appear to be lanes available for cutbacks. Again, it could be just lack of cohesion from so many missing time. However, I don't recall seeing that last year from him.

As for the contract part. Way off base. Grant is not paid that highly. If Green Bay plays out the year with him and decides he isn't the long term answer, they draft another back.

I think it's safe to say Brandon Jackson isn't the long term solution in Green Bay.

I too have noticed this. It disturbs me. I hope it disappears with him returning to health.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but conceptually I'm having trouble understanding why an injured/recovering guy is more prone to run into his own blockers rather than see and use a cutback lane than is a healthy player. That seems like a vision problem rather than a problem explainable due to the physical injuries. Can anyone explain this to me as it relates to Grant?

 

[TommyGilmore]

Can we please stop with the childish crap in these Packer threads. It's getting very old.

Back on topic.

I was surprised to see this article, but there is definitely some truth to the performance of Grant so far. Just not the contract part.

As I stated weeks ago, Grant looks tentative, and often runs up the back of his defenders even when there appear to be lanes available for cutbacks. Again, it could be just lack of cohesion from so many missing time. However, I don't recall seeing that last year from him.

As for the contract part. Way off base. Grant is not paid that highly. If Green Bay plays out the year with him and decides he isn't the long term answer, they draft another back.

I think it's safe to say Brandon Jackson isn't the long term solution in Green Bay.

I too have noticed this. It disturbs me. I hope it disappears with him returning to health.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but conceptually I'm having trouble understanding why an injured/recovering guy is more prone to run into his own blockers rather than see and use a cutback lane than is a healthy player. That seems like a vision problem rather than a problem explainable due to the physical injuries. Can anyone explain this to me as it relates to Grant?

Perhaps he is afraid to cut back and possibly tear an ACL or sprain an ankle?

 

[Donnybrook]

"He's not in a special class," said Will Lewis, the Seattle Seahawks' director of pro personnel who was not one of the aforementioned two scouts. "He does what he does, which is run hard and give everything he's got. Sometimes that's enough, sometimes it's not against pretty good defenses. I don't think he's a dominant runner."

Those living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I wonder if this guy recommended the signing of Julius Jones to a big contract.

 

[sho nuff]

Can we please stop with the childish crap in these Packer threads. It's getting very old.

Back on topic.

I was surprised to see this article, but there is definitely some truth to the performance of Grant so far. Just not the contract part.

As I stated weeks ago, Grant looks tentative, and often runs up the back of his defenders even when there appear to be lanes available for cutbacks. Again, it could be just lack of cohesion from so many missing time. However, I don't recall seeing that last year from him.

As for the contract part. Way off base. Grant is not paid that highly. If Green Bay plays out the year with him and decides he isn't the long term answer, they draft another back.

I think it's safe to say Brandon Jackson isn't the long term solution in Green Bay.

I too have noticed this. It disturbs me. I hope it disappears with him returning to health.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but conceptually I'm having trouble understanding why an injured/recovering guy is more prone to run into his own blockers rather than see and use a cutback lane than is a healthy player. That seems like a vision problem rather than a problem explainable due to the physical injuries. Can anyone explain this to me as it relates to Grant?

I guess just trying to look for a difference in him between this year and last.Sure...some want to say Favre...but I fail to see how Favre made his vision better.

The vision issue seems odd...as that was huge for him last year. They noted it quite often down the stretch showing how he was seeing the right cuts.

It just has not been happening very much this year for some reason.

The injury could make him tentative in his cuts (at least at the beginning of the year).

Now, there should be no excuse.

 

[Dexter Manley]

grant = timmy smith

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

Can we please stop with the childish crap in these Packer threads. It's getting very old.

Back on topic.

I was surprised to see this article, but there is definitely some truth to the performance of Grant so far. Just not the contract part.

As I stated weeks ago, Grant looks tentative, and often runs up the back of his defenders even when there appear to be lanes available for cutbacks. Again, it could be just lack of cohesion from so many missing time. However, I don't recall seeing that last year from him.

As for the contract part. Way off base. Grant is not paid that highly. If Green Bay plays out the year with him and decides he isn't the long term answer, they draft another back.

I think it's safe to say Brandon Jackson isn't the long term solution in Green Bay.

I too have noticed this. It disturbs me. I hope it disappears with him returning to health.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but conceptually I'm having trouble understanding why an injured/recovering guy is more prone to run into his own blockers rather than see and use a cutback lane than is a healthy player. That seems like a vision problem rather than a problem explainable due to the physical injuries. Can anyone explain this to me as it relates to Grant?

I guess just trying to look for a difference in him between this year and last.Sure...some want to say Favre...but I fail to see how Favre made his vision better.

The vision issue seems odd...as that was huge for him last year. They noted it quite often down the stretch showing how he was seeing the right cuts.

It just has not been happening very much this year for some reason.

The injury could make him tentative in his cuts (at least at the beginning of the year).

Now, there should be no excuse.

I think the Favre thing is overblown. Rodgers and Jennings sure look capable of making big plays, so it's not like they can only key on Grant.I realize they're playing the Titans this week, but if they don't show improvement coming out of the bye running the football, I'm officially concerned. They had two weeks to fix this. Better get it fixed.

 

[T Bell]

I do have to say here that Grant looks like the classic case of a modestly talented RB in a great situation, which always makes me leery about his ability to hold onto his job long term, and therefore concerned about his dynasty value.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Perhaps he is afraid to cut back and possibly tear an ACL or sprain an ankle?

If he's really that hurt he shouldn't be playing.

 

[KSU_Shrink]

Maybe they don't have anyone else to turn to? Run Ryan until he drops or until he gets it right?

 

[Mr Anonymous]

McGinn and his "scouts" put together a similar article around this same time two years ago about another recent signee looking old, slow, and overpaid. His name...

Charles Woodson

 

[Interseptopus]

I think the Favre thing is blown out of proportion. Favre did create some passing lanes, but Rodgers has an even better arm than Favre for the deep ball (See Jennings' comments preseason). Rodgers is a rather unknown still to some teams- there really isn't a lot of game film on him yet... only 7 games worth, 7 different defensive schemes. I think Grant's ineffectiveness is due to:

1) Defenses focusing on stopping the run and make Rodgers beat them

2) More game film on Grant, therefore teams can plan for him better. You see this "sophomore slump" because teams know the player and they can make a game plan better to stop him. They've got tendencies, favorite plays, etc.

Grant was really not that fantastic last season... he would break 1 60 yard run a game and finish with 25 carries, 120 yards. Take away those big gains and you've got what we see this year! I suspected this way back when, but what I got was "well he did get those long runs, so they did happen, so you can't say that". Bottom line is Grant looks about the same but he's not breaking a 20-30 yard gain, or that 60 yard TD that we saw so much last season

 

[sho nuff]

Can we please stop with the childish crap in these Packer threads. It's getting very old.

Back on topic.

I was surprised to see this article, but there is definitely some truth to the performance of Grant so far. Just not the contract part.

As I stated weeks ago, Grant looks tentative, and often runs up the back of his defenders even when there appear to be lanes available for cutbacks. Again, it could be just lack of cohesion from so many missing time. However, I don't recall seeing that last year from him.

As for the contract part. Way off base. Grant is not paid that highly. If Green Bay plays out the year with him and decides he isn't the long term answer, they draft another back.

I think it's safe to say Brandon Jackson isn't the long term solution in Green Bay.

I too have noticed this. It disturbs me. I hope it disappears with him returning to health.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but conceptually I'm having trouble understanding why an injured/recovering guy is more prone to run into his own blockers rather than see and use a cutback lane than is a healthy player. That seems like a vision problem rather than a problem explainable due to the physical injuries. Can anyone explain this to me as it relates to Grant?

I guess just trying to look for a difference in him between this year and last.Sure...some want to say Favre...but I fail to see how Favre made his vision better.

The vision issue seems odd...as that was huge for him last year. They noted it quite often down the stretch showing how he was seeing the right cuts.

It just has not been happening very much this year for some reason.

The injury could make him tentative in his cuts (at least at the beginning of the year).

Now, there should be no excuse.

I think the Favre thing is overblown. Rodgers and Jennings sure look capable of making big plays, so it's not like they can only key on Grant.I realize they're playing the Titans this week, but if they don't show improvement coming out of the bye running the football, I'm officially concerned. They had two weeks to fix this. Better get it fixed.

I think the Titans can be run on...their pass D has actually been better than the run D...though, they have yet to see the WRs that the Packers have. Key is...just don't run at Big Al.

 

[sho nuff]

McGinn and his "scouts" put together a similar article around this same time two years ago about another recent signee looking old, slow, and overpaid. His name...Charles Woodson

Id love to read that if anyone can find it.Ive done a quick search and come up empty as it sounds familiar now that you say it.Though, in the beginning, I was also leery of the Woodson signing and thought they gave up too much at the time.I am very glad to be wrong about that one.

 

[bcr8f]

Milwaukee reporters look for anything negative to print.

Grant isn't the problem.

 

[bcr8f]

Grant was really not that fantastic last season... he would break 1 60 yard run a game and finish with 25 carries, 120 yards. Take away those big gains and you've got what we see this year! I suspected this way back when, but what I got was "well he did get those long runs, so they did happen, so you can't say that". Bottom line is Grant looks about the same but he's not breaking a 20-30 yard gain, or that 60 yard TD that we saw so much last season

Did you even watch last year? His one cut style last year fit the team perfectly, but last year there were actual holes to run into.

 

[sho nuff]

I think the Favre thing is blown out of proportion. Favre did create some passing lanes, but Rodgers has an even better arm than Favre for the deep ball (See Jennings' comments preseason). Rodgers is a rather unknown still to some teams- there really isn't a lot of game film on him yet... only 7 games worth, 7 different defensive schemes. I think Grant's ineffectiveness is due to:1) Defenses focusing on stopping the run and make Rodgers beat them2) More game film on Grant, therefore teams can plan for him better. You see this "sophomore slump" because teams know the player and they can make a game plan better to stop him. They've got tendencies, favorite plays, etc.Grant was really not that fantastic last season... he would break 1 60 yard run a game and finish with 25 carries, 120 yards. Take away those big gains and you've got what we see this year! I suspected this way back when, but what I got was "well he did get those long runs, so they did happen, so you can't say that". Bottom line is Grant looks about the same but he's not breaking a 20-30 yard gain, or that 60 yard TD that we saw so much last season

Ahh...the take away the big run argument.If you do that to any RB their yards per carry will generally not be that good.And even without the big runs....he is not looking as good as last year...its the missing 10-15 yard bursts that he is missing too. Now, he has had a few more of those in recent weeks. But early on, not so much...and has more negative carries this season (I would guess).

 

[Aaronstory]

What a bunch of crap.

Last year, Favre minimized the attention defenses could bring to Grant which, in turn, artificially inflated his rushing statistics.

Is this guy an actual journalist? How about a little support for this blatant opinion-asserted-as-fact.

Um, it's an opinion piece....

 

[Aaronstory]

McGinn and his "scouts" put together a similar article around this same time two years ago about another recent signee looking old, slow, and overpaid. His name...

Charles Woodson

Id love to read that if anyone can find it.Ive done a quick search and come up empty as it sounds familiar now that you say it.

Though, in the beginning, I was also leery of the Woodson signing and thought they gave up too much at the time.

I am very glad to be wrong about that one.

Saw this this morning as well:http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/29172504.html

For now, at least, the megabucks signing of Charles Woodson hasn't come back to haunt the Green Bay Packers.

But as the weeks and months, perhaps even seasons, of the Woodson chapter begin to unfold, the hunch is that general manager Ted Thompson ultimately will wish that he had spent his money on somebody else.

Woodson is making a king's ransom. The seven-year, $39.034 million deal that he and agent Carl Poston extracted from Thompson three days before the draft provides him with $9.9 million guaranteed this season. He counts $6.709 million against the Packers' salary cap, second only to Brett Favre at $12.6 million.

For that, the Packers hoped that Woodson would be a proverbial shut-down cornerback, a possible contributor on offense and special teams, and a positive presence in the locker room.

What they've gotten so far is a middle-of-the-road starting cornerback by National Football League standards, an adequate punt returner and someone who does his job but isn't about to make an emotional or tutorial commitment to the organization or his teammates.

 

[sho nuff]

McGinn and his "scouts" put together a similar article around this same time two years ago about another recent signee looking old, slow, and overpaid. His name...

Charles Woodson

Id love to read that if anyone can find it.Ive done a quick search and come up empty as it sounds familiar now that you say it.

Though, in the beginning, I was also leery of the Woodson signing and thought they gave up too much at the time.

I am very glad to be wrong about that one.

Saw this this morning as well:http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/29172504.html

For now, at least, the megabucks signing of Charles Woodson hasn't come back to haunt the Green Bay Packers.

But as the weeks and months, perhaps even seasons, of the Woodson chapter begin to unfold, the hunch is that general manager Ted Thompson ultimately will wish that he had spent his money on somebody else.

Woodson is making a king's ransom. The seven-year, $39.034 million deal that he and agent Carl Poston extracted from Thompson three days before the draft provides him with $9.9 million guaranteed this season. He counts $6.709 million against the Packers' salary cap, second only to Brett Favre at $12.6 million.

For that, the Packers hoped that Woodson would be a proverbial shut-down cornerback, a possible contributor on offense and special teams, and a positive presence in the locker room.

What they've gotten so far is a middle-of-the-road starting cornerback by National Football League standards, an adequate punt returner and someone who does his job but isn't about to make an emotional or tutorial commitment to the organization or his teammates.

Great posting.Like I said, I questioned the signing at first and thought they gave up alot for the guy and love that I am wrong.

But its not the first time McGinn has taken stances like this and won't be the last.

 

[Aaronstory]

McGinn and his "scouts" put together a similar article around this same time two years ago about another recent signee looking old, slow, and overpaid. His name...

Charles Woodson

Id love to read that if anyone can find it.Ive done a quick search and come up empty as it sounds familiar now that you say it.

Though, in the beginning, I was also leery of the Woodson signing and thought they gave up too much at the time.

I am very glad to be wrong about that one.

Saw this this morning as well:http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/29172504.html

For now, at least, the megabucks signing of Charles Woodson hasn't come back to haunt the Green Bay Packers.

But as the weeks and months, perhaps even seasons, of the Woodson chapter begin to unfold, the hunch is that general manager Ted Thompson ultimately will wish that he had spent his money on somebody else.

Woodson is making a king's ransom. The seven-year, $39.034 million deal that he and agent Carl Poston extracted from Thompson three days before the draft provides him with $9.9 million guaranteed this season. He counts $6.709 million against the Packers' salary cap, second only to Brett Favre at $12.6 million.

For that, the Packers hoped that Woodson would be a proverbial shut-down cornerback, a possible contributor on offense and special teams, and a positive presence in the locker room.

What they've gotten so far is a middle-of-the-road starting cornerback by National Football League standards, an adequate punt returner and someone who does his job but isn't about to make an emotional or tutorial commitment to the organization or his teammates.

Great posting.Like I said, I questioned the signing at first and thought they gave up alot for the guy and love that I am wrong.

But its not the first time McGinn has taken stances like this and won't be the last.

I still give him grief over his column advocating for the Packers to give up a first round pick for Drew Henson...(Which even he admits was one of his most horrible judgments...)

 

[Homewrecker Steve-O]

So who should I start, Grant or Favre?

 

[Mr Anonymous]

He was clearly not running full bore the first 4-5 games. He essentially had zero training camp and a tender hamstring that kept him from practicing all week once the regular season started. He finally starts to feel 100% and is able to practice all week as of about 2-3 games ago and viola...he starts putting up decent numbers. Let's see if he can continue this recent string of games with 90+ yards before we bury him. Sometimes these anonymous scouts and personnel people are about as clued in as the majority of posters here.

Yes I'm bumping this. Because I was right on the money. Screw Bob McGinn and his anonymous scouts.

 

[parasaurolophus]

He was clearly not running full bore the first 4-5 games. He essentially had zero training camp and a tender hamstring that kept him from practicing all week once the regular season started. He finally starts to feel 100% and is able to practice all week as of about 2-3 games ago and viola...he starts putting up decent numbers. Let's see if he can continue this recent string of games with 90+ yards before we bury him. Sometimes these anonymous scouts and personnel people are about as clued in as the majority of posters here.

Yes I'm bumping this. Because I was right on the money. Screw Bob McGinn and his anonymous scouts.

you were just waiting for a good half to bump this huh?

 

[Mr Anonymous]

He was clearly not running full bore the first 4-5 games. He essentially had zero training camp and a tender hamstring that kept him from practicing all week once the regular season started. He finally starts to feel 100% and is able to practice all week as of about 2-3 games ago and viola...he starts putting up decent numbers. Let's see if he can continue this recent string of games with 90+ yards before we bury him. Sometimes these anonymous scouts and personnel people are about as clued in as the majority of posters here.

Yes I'm bumping this. Because I was right on the money. Screw Bob McGinn and his anonymous scouts.

you were just waiting for a good half to bump this huh?

No, I was waiting to see the burst and the vision that we'd see once again once he was fully healthy and had some practice reps. And that's exactly what's transpired.

 

[parasaurolophus]

He was clearly not running full bore the first 4-5 games. He essentially had zero training camp and a tender hamstring that kept him from practicing all week once the regular season started. He finally starts to feel 100% and is able to practice all week as of about 2-3 games ago and viola...he starts putting up decent numbers. Let's see if he can continue this recent string of games with 90+ yards before we bury him. Sometimes these anonymous scouts and personnel people are about as clued in as the majority of posters here.

Yes I'm bumping this. Because I was right on the money. Screw Bob McGinn and his anonymous scouts.

you were just waiting for a good half to bump this huh?

No, I was waiting to see the burst and the vision that we'd see once again once he was fully healthy and had some practice reps. And that's exactly what's transpired.

today. maybe.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

today. maybe.

Actually he had been showing signs of life prior to that article. Which is why I found the piece so idiotic to begin with.

 

[sho nuff]

He was clearly not running full bore the first 4-5 games. He essentially had zero training camp and a tender hamstring that kept him from practicing all week once the regular season started. He finally starts to feel 100% and is able to practice all week as of about 2-3 games ago and viola...he starts putting up decent numbers. Let's see if he can continue this recent string of games with 90+ yards before we bury him. Sometimes these anonymous scouts and personnel people are about as clued in as the majority of posters here.

Yes I'm bumping this. Because I was right on the money. Screw Bob McGinn and his anonymous scouts.

you were just waiting for a good half to bump this huh?

No, I was waiting to see the burst and the vision that we'd see once again once he was fully healthy and had some practice reps. And that's exactly what's transpired.

today. maybe.

And against Tennessee and Minnesota.Basically now 3 weeks in a row against 3 of the better run defenses in the league.

 

[lebowski]

He was clearly not running full bore the first 4-5 games. He essentially had zero training camp and a tender hamstring that kept him from practicing all week once the regular season started. He finally starts to feel 100% and is able to practice all week as of about 2-3 games ago and viola...he starts putting up decent numbers. Let's see if he can continue this recent string of games with 90+ yards before we bury him. Sometimes these anonymous scouts and personnel people are about as clued in as the majority of posters here.

Yes I'm bumping this. Because I was right on the money. Screw Bob McGinn and his anonymous scouts.

you were just waiting for a good half to bump this huh?

No, I was waiting to see the burst and the vision that we'd see once again once he was fully healthy and had some practice reps. And that's exactly what's transpired.

today. maybe.

And against Tennessee and Minnesota.Basically now 3 weeks in a row against 3 of the better run defenses in the league.

 

[Sinn Fein]

today. maybe.

Actually he had been showing signs of life prior to that article. Which is why I found the piece so idiotic to begin with.

He missed the entire off-season program, and got injured in training camp - it was taking him a little while to get in football shape and adjust to the new offense with Rodgers in charge.

 

[mr. furley]

Packers coulda won that game today if Grant didn't suck again

they gonna cut him this week?

 

[biggamer3]

awesome game by Grant

If he only caught a few balls he would be top 10

 

[Stinger Ray]

They reported during the game today that Jackson took over in the second half because he was the "hot hand". Does this change things going forward for Grant?

 

[sho nuff]

They reported during the game today that Jackson took over in the second half because he was the "hot hand". Does this change things going forward for Grant?

It might...prior to this week though, Grant was more productive and far outweighing Jackson's carries.Jackson looked good today for sure though.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It might...prior to this week though, Grant was more productive and far outweighing Jackson's carries. Jackson looked good today for sure though.

[The Fonz]I was...wwuun, I was wwruun, I was wwrruuunn, I was wwrrruung, I was...wrung, I was wrong[The Fonz]

 

[Stinger Ray]

It might...prior to this week though, Grant was more productive and far outweighing Jackson's carries. Jackson looked good today for sure though.

[The Fonz]I was...wwuun, I was wwruun, I was wwrruuunn, I was wwrrruung, I was...wrung, I was wrong[The Fonz]

 

[sho nuff]

It might...prior to this week though, Grant was more productive and far outweighing Jackson's carries. Jackson looked good today for sure though.

[The Fonz]I was...wwuun, I was wwruun, I was wwrruuunn, I was wwrrruung, I was...wrung, I was wrong[The Fonz]

Wrong?About what?You might want to look at this thread.And what Grant has done the past several weeks before today.