What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Ryan Grant owners--Let's talk (1 Viewer)

People will see a whole new Grant this week. The combination of his hammy being better and Scott Wells back at center (and more importantly, Tony Moll out at guard) will improve his output.
:shrug:
:lmao:I really think this week is his coming out party.I understand what people are saying about Brandon Jackson. I will be the first to admit that he's impressed me as well. However, as it's been said- teams are guessing that McCarthy is telegraphing his plays by taking grant out, so even though it may not be a passing down, teams play the pass. As a homer, I've noticed that Jackson has had more run to room (most of the time) because the teams drop back into pass coverage. He has done very well when given the ball, but I don't think he'll take the #1 role away from Grant.Grant really hasn't broken one big since the MIN game.... he was always guaranteed for at least one 60 yard TD run last season. We haven't seen that this year because of his hammy, Scott Wells missing at center, and yes Tony Moll who we should take to Tampa Bay and forget to bring him on the plane back. It's a great time to buy low for Ryan Grant because he will still be a fantastic RB. However, better do it now because I truly think he busts loose this week with a big game. Let's not forget- Aaron Rodgers was a bit of an unknown this season. Teams have stacked the box and in effect made Aaron Rodgers beat them. Well, Rodgers has and now teams will start to back off more and play the pass more than the run, since our passing game seems to be more effective at the moment. Grant owners don't worry. That second half and playoff schedule will come in handy. It's only 3 weeks into the season.
 
Ya know, we've all heard this a million times and it's never worked out. A rookie comes into the league, does poorly, and we hear all the "he just needs a year under his belt to learn, he's a project, etc".In the end, those guys never come in, fail, have excuses made for them, and then end up being good players. Never.
:no: The experts were sayng he'd need a year BEFORE the season started last year. You'd be right if this "excuse" were being offered after he had failed, but not in this case!He only had a couple of starts, early last year, before the line gelled, well before he supposed to be ready. Later in the season, he looked MUCH better. This year, he looks better still. EXACTLY as predicted before he ever took a single snap!Funny thing is.....he's the third down back now, already a better blocker then Grant!I'm not about to ty to argue that Grant won't win/keep the starting job. What I'm arguing is that Jackson is being prematurely written off and is likely to continue to see significant carries even when Grant is 100%.
Where are you getting that Jackson is already a better blocker than Grant?
My mistake... a better way to put it would be to say that obviously he isn't a huge liability, or he would NOT be in on passing downs, let alone be the primary back on pasing downs!Right now, GB smells like a full-fledged RBBC. That's assuming the pro-Grant posters are correct (that he is a stud in the making). I'm neither sold on, nor truly sold against Grant...I think he is and will be a solid NFL RB...but I do think Jackson will be good too, and too many pro-Grant posters are ignoring that fact.BOTH OF THESE GUYS ARE YOUNG.
Again the talk of RBBC.Carries in the 3 weeks.Grant 12, 15, 13Jackson, 7, 7, 3Does that look like its trending to an RBBC?Im not ignoring Jackson. I think he is still dancing too much behind the line, his blocking is still a bit suspect, and he just is not as decisive in his cuts as Grant is. Though, he is showing some improvement. I just think Grant is and has shown he is the better back.
 
Ya know, we've all heard this a million times and it's never worked out. A rookie comes into the league, does poorly, and we hear all the "he just needs a year under his belt to learn, he's a project, etc".In the end, those guys never come in, fail, have excuses made for them, and then end up being good players. Never.
:wub: The experts were sayng he'd need a year BEFORE the season started last year. You'd be right if this "excuse" were being offered after he had failed, but not in this case!He only had a couple of starts, early last year, before the line gelled, well before he supposed to be ready. Later in the season, he looked MUCH better. This year, he looks better still. EXACTLY as predicted before he ever took a single snap!Funny thing is.....he's the third down back now, already a better blocker then Grant!I'm not about to ty to argue that Grant won't win/keep the starting job. What I'm arguing is that Jackson is being prematurely written off and is likely to continue to see significant carries even when Grant is 100%.
Where are you getting that Jackson is already a better blocker than Grant?
My mistake... a better way to put it would be to say that obviously he isn't a huge liability, or he would NOT be in on passing downs, let alone be the primary back on pasing downs!Right now, GB smells like a full-fledged RBBC. That's assuming the pro-Grant posters are correct (that he is a stud in the making). I'm neither sold on, nor truly sold against Grant...I think he is and will be a solid NFL RB...but I do think Jackson will be good too, and too many pro-Grant posters are ignoring that fact.BOTH OF THESE GUYS ARE YOUNG.
Again the talk of RBBC.Carries in the 3 weeks.Grant 12, 15, 13Jackson, 7, 7, 3Does that look like its trending to an RBBC?Im not ignoring Jackson. I think he is still dancing too much behind the line, his blocking is still a bit suspect, and he just is not as decisive in his cuts as Grant is. Though, he is showing some improvement. I just think Grant is and has shown he is the better back.
:no:Grant is in no danger of losing his job to BJ. Grant is going to get 20 carries this week, and put an end to this RBBC crap. mark it down
 
Again the talk of RBBC.Carries in the 3 weeks.Grant 12, 15, 13Jackson, 7, 7, 3Does that look like its trending to an RBBC?Im not ignoring Jackson. I think he is still dancing too much behind the line, his blocking is still a bit suspect, and he just is not as decisive in his cuts as Grant is. Though, he is showing some improvement. I just think Grant is and has shown he is the better back.
:lmao:Grant is in no danger of losing his job to BJ. Grant is going to get 20 carries this week, and put an end to this RBBC crap. mark it down
Hopefully Mcarthy can have his playcalling vindicated by attacking the Tampa 2 like you're supposed to; up the gut / between the tackles.
 
Ok Grant is hitting rock bottom, wouldnt be surpised to see him lose job soon

14 carries so far today 17 yards and a huge fumble

 
Ok Grant is hitting rock bottom, wouldnt be surpised to see him lose job soon14 carries so far today 17 yards and a huge fumble
I thought he was overrated coming into the season, but I never expected him to stink it up this bad. Gado v. 2.0?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow... was just playing around with some things, and here's a damning stat for Grant's prospects...

This is a list of RBs who have at least 30 career catches since 1998, ranked from lowest yards/catch:

1 Charles Way 4.52

2 James Hodgins 4.81

3 Jeremi Johnson 4.89

4 Karim Abdul-Jabbar 4.89

5 Ryan Grant 4.9

6 Lorenzo Neal 4.99

7 Brian Milne 5.06

8 Terrelle Smith 5.08

9 LenDale White 5.12

10 Vonta Leach 5.21

11 Travis Prentice 5.29

12 Clif Groce 5.53

13 Cadillac Williams 5.55

14 Alan Ricard 5.59

15 Roosevelt Potts 5.6

16 Joel Makovicka 5.62

17 Jason McKie 5.66

18 Fred McCrary 5.69

19 Tatum Bell 5.93

20 Ron Dayne 5.96

That is NOT company you want to find yourself in. Fullbacks and busts.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok Grant is hitting rock bottom, wouldnt be surpised to see him lose job soon14 carries so far today 17 yards and a huge fumble
Lose his job to who?A guy who is less decisive in cuts, cause an INT, and can't pass block?Look, he was getting killed out there today...the Oline needs to step up.Im not saying Grant has played that well...but look at the whole picture.
 
I've put Ryan Grant on the trade block in my league, and listed my asking price as a 12 pack of Fat Tire beer... (I'd seriously consider if someone offered)

He's worthless. Even if he turns it around his fantasy teams won't benefit because of already having too many losses. I'm in danger of losing a chance at the playoffs... good thing I'm deep with Chris Johnson. But I do need MJD to step it up. Bush needs to pull a Nancy Carigan on McAllister...

I'm convinced he won't be worth anything until after the bye week... but this week vs ATL will be a test. If he can rush well agianst them then we know TB stepped it up big time... if not we know he's got some troubles that we have to wait until after the bye to figure out if he'll get healthy and overcome everything.

TB did have his number, and he looked awesome early on in the first 2 drives, lots of burst, cutting to the holes, making moves... but I'm just starting to lose my patience. He is in no danger of losing his job. Jackson is still a year or 2 away from being a legitimate starting RB in the league.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
With the D studs droping like flies I don;t see any releif in the horizan. The saying is you must be effective when weather turns cold. I don;t know whats wrong in GB but they can;t get a running game going no matter who they try!

Favre effect that bad?

Line not effective?

Green Bay in for a long long year it looks like! Lost there corner, 2 safties, now AJ.

Woodson hurting. That's the entire secondary plus AJ. And where has Barnett been? You used to see that dude in on every play. I don;t even notice him on field anymore hardly!

Looks like they wont be having many situations to even try and run in near future!

I drafted Grant as a RB 2 my very first draft this year back in July and fortunatly for me stayed away from him after that. He was a wasted second pick it looks like!

I wouldn;t even buy low at this point of time!

 
With the D studs droping like flies I don;t see any releif in the horizan. The saying is you must be effective when weather turns cold. I don;t know whats wrong in GB but they can;t get a running game going no matter who they try! Favre effect that bad? Line not effective? Green Bay in for a long long year it looks like! Lost there corner, 2 safties, now AJ.Woodson hurting. That's the entire secondary plus AJ. And where has Barnett been? You used to see that dude in on every play. I don;t even notice him on field anymore hardly! Looks like they wont be having many situations to even try and run in near future! I drafted Grant as a RB 2 my very first draft this year back in July and fortunatly for me stayed away from him after that. He was a wasted second pick it looks like! I wouldn;t even buy low at this point of time!
The Favre effect doesn't have much to do with this.This is exactly how they started out last year as well. This O line continues to be shuffled each training camp, leading to inconsistency and lack of continuity. That makes it very hard to run the football. I really think if Josh Sitton G ® and Scott Wells C had stayed healthy during camp, things would be different now. As it stands, I have little confidence they'll get things into a groove before the bye week. Now after the bye week...maybe we can see something. I just find it hard to believe they'll get it figured out before then.The Green Bay defensive injuries make the running game even more important. You just have to keep that D off the field right now. If you can't do that, you're in trouble. They have four safeties hurt right now, plus Harris and Hawk. I saw Jarret Bush get into the game at Tampa. That's not good.
 
With the D studs droping like flies I don;t see any releif in the horizan. The saying is you must be effective when weather turns cold. I don;t know whats wrong in GB but they can;t get a running game going no matter who they try! Favre effect that bad? Line not effective? Green Bay in for a long long year it looks like! Lost there corner, 2 safties, now AJ.Woodson hurting. That's the entire secondary plus AJ. And where has Barnett been? You used to see that dude in on every play. I don;t even notice him on field anymore hardly! Looks like they wont be having many situations to even try and run in near future! I drafted Grant as a RB 2 my very first draft this year back in July and fortunatly for me stayed away from him after that. He was a wasted second pick it looks like! I wouldn;t even buy low at this point of time!
The Favre effect doesn't have much to do with this.This is exactly how they started out last year as well. This O line continues to be shuffled each training camp, leading to inconsistency and lack of continuity. That makes it very hard to run the football. I really think if Josh Sitton G ® and Scott Wells C had stayed healthy during camp, things would be different now. As it stands, I have little confidence they'll get things into a groove before the bye week. Now after the bye week...maybe we can see something. I just find it hard to believe they'll get it figured out before then.The Green Bay defensive injuries make the running game even more important. You just have to keep that D off the field right now. If you can't do that, you're in trouble. They have four safeties hurt right now, plus Harris and Hawk. I saw Jarret Bush get into the game at Tampa. That's not good.
Wells yes...Sitton. Not as big of an issue, unless you were planning on Spitz moving to LG in place of Colledge (and from what I recall, Spitz did not look as good at LG as he did at G and C).I think Spitz is their best interior lineman at this point...reminds me of Mike Flanagan a few years ago...versatile and pretty good.
 
I'm giving him his final chance this week. If he can't get it going against the Falcons at home, his year is a huge bust. He is killing me this season - afraid to sit him or start him.

 
I'm giving him his final chance this week. If he can't get it going against the Falcons at home, his year is a huge bust. He is killing me this season - afraid to sit him or start him.
That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? You have visions of his long runs from last season dancing in your head and would hate to have him on your bench the week he finally busts a few. But he is simply KILLING you week in and week out while you wait for him. I would completely agree - if he can't get it going against the Falcons, it's Lumpkin time :thumbup:
 
After 5 games here are Grant's per game stats.

14.6 carries/53.8 yards/3.7 YPCarry

.4 rec/-.4 yards/-2 YPReception

0 TD's

If the Pack don't bench this guy they are going to keep losing. He's one of the main problems with the team right now. Just horrible.

 
I suspect that Brandon Jackson will begin to see some more carries, but Grant will continue to get the bulk unless Jackson starts to shine.

Reason: Jackson got a critical 1st down this past game showing good vision and breaking tackles. That's enough to warrant 8-10 touches per game.

 
I suspect that Brandon Jackson will begin to see some more carries, but Grant will continue to get the bulk unless Jackson starts to shine.Reason: Jackson got a critical 1st down this past game showing good vision and breaking tackles. That's enough to warrant 8-10 touches per game.
So a 3rd down back gets a first down....what a novel idea. I doubt many other 3rd down backs who get one first down get promoted much. BJax had 2 carries all game.
 
After 5 games here are Grant's per game stats.14.6 carries/53.8 yards/3.7 YPCarry.4 rec/-.4 yards/-2 YPReception0 TD'sIf the Pack don't bench this guy they are going to keep losing. He's one of the main problems with the team right now. Just horrible.
And you call me an embarassment to Packer fans? Really?Right after the game in which he shows he is healthier and running better, they are going to bench him?And you think he is the reason they are losing with that comment? Still have your head in the sand about the play of the line or the defense? Just blame it all on Grant...freakin hilarious.
 
I suspect that Brandon Jackson will begin to see some more carries, but Grant will continue to get the bulk unless Jackson starts to shine.Reason: Jackson got a critical 1st down this past game showing good vision and breaking tackles. That's enough to warrant 8-10 touches per game.
What makes you think it will make him get more carries? Was it the two he got that game? The fact that its trending even further away from RBBC in GB?One first down is enough to warrant 8-10 touches? Well, touches I guess...he did have 7 touches this past week. With his 2 carries and 5 receptions.
 
Reason: Jackson got a critical 1st down this past game showing good vision and breaking tackles. That's enough to warrant 8-10 touches per game.
The sun even shines on a dog's a## some days. Jackson is awful. He lacks vision as a runner, he lacks burst and the ability to run with authority on a consistent basis. He is not a good RB and he's no threat to a healthy Ryan Grant for the starting job. I think Grant has run well the past few games. The problem is the team can't consistently stick with or maintain a quality running game. I'd like to see more carries for Grant going forward, not less. From a fantasy perspective, I'd advise trading for Grant right now because I do believe it will get better. If the Packers are going to turn things around, it will have to start with the running game. They need to protect Rodgers and, more importantly, protect a defense that suddenly looks like one of the league's worst. The best way to do both is by establishing a consistent ground game.
 
After 5 games here are Grant's per game stats.14.6 carries/53.8 yards/3.7 YPCarry.4 rec/-.4 yards/-2 YPReception0 TD'sIf the Pack don't bench this guy they are going to keep losing. He's one of the main problems with the team right now. Just horrible.
And you call me an embarassment to Packer fans? Really?Right after the game in which he shows he is healthier and running better, they are going to bench him?And you think he is the reason they are losing with that comment? Still have your head in the sand about the play of the line or the defense? Just blame it all on Grant...freakin hilarious.
Umm, he was playing against Atlanta and his only good runs were through HUGE holes that any NFL RB could have ran through.The guy lacks any kind of vision and his success depends 100% on the line opening gaping holes. Good RB's can occasionally make something out of nothing, Grant isn't capable of that.And yes, i do think Grant is one of the major reasons the Pack are struggling. The guy is just plain bad. I used to think he was average, but it looks like i was wrong, he is one of the worst starting RB's in the entire NFL.
 
I just traded Warner, TO, Graham, and Mendenhall for Frerotte, Cotchery, Grant, and Slaton.

I could not be happier and getting Grant was really the Icing on the cake. He will come on as the season goes on.

He just got paid to be the #1 in GB and he has the talent. Time will tell, but I'm buying.

 
After 5 games here are Grant's per game stats.14.6 carries/53.8 yards/3.7 YPCarry.4 rec/-.4 yards/-2 YPReception0 TD'sIf the Pack don't bench this guy they are going to keep losing. He's one of the main problems with the team right now. Just horrible.
And you call me an embarassment to Packer fans? Really?Right after the game in which he shows he is healthier and running better, they are going to bench him?And you think he is the reason they are losing with that comment? Still have your head in the sand about the play of the line or the defense? Just blame it all on Grant...freakin hilarious.
Umm, he was playing against Atlanta and his only good runs were through HUGE holes that any NFL RB could have ran through.The guy lacks any kind of vision and his success depends 100% on the line opening gaping holes. Good RB's can occasionally make something out of nothing, Grant isn't capable of that.And yes, i do think Grant is one of the major reasons the Pack are struggling. The guy is just plain bad. I used to think he was average, but it looks like i was wrong, he is one of the worst starting RB's in the entire NFL.
Ahhh...the old, it was just the huge holes...nothing Grant actually did.I think the line is one of the major reasons the Packers are struggling. Or do you think the number of penalties and sacks is all Grants fault?The guy lacks any kind of vision? Now you are just completely lying...that was his biggest strength last season...he was making the big runs by seeing the right cut.Just plain bad? Thanks...we all know you think this, and all know how BS that opinion of Grant really is.One of the worst in the NFL?If anyone takes you seriously on this subject anymore, they need serious help.
 
After 5 games here are Grant's per game stats.14.6 carries/53.8 yards/3.7 YPCarry.4 rec/-.4 yards/-2 YPReception0 TD'sIf the Pack don't bench this guy they are going to keep losing. He's one of the main problems with the team right now. Just horrible.
And you call me an embarassment to Packer fans? Really?Right after the game in which he shows he is healthier and running better, they are going to bench him?And you think he is the reason they are losing with that comment? Still have your head in the sand about the play of the line or the defense? Just blame it all on Grant...freakin hilarious.
Umm, he was playing against Atlanta and his only good runs were through HUGE holes that any NFL RB could have ran through.The guy lacks any kind of vision and his success depends 100% on the line opening gaping holes. Good RB's can occasionally make something out of nothing, Grant isn't capable of that.And yes, i do think Grant is one of the major reasons the Pack are struggling. The guy is just plain bad. I used to think he was average, but it looks like i was wrong, he is one of the worst starting RB's in the entire NFL.
Ahhh...the old, it was just the huge holes...nothing Grant actually did.I think the line is one of the major reasons the Packers are struggling. Or do you think the number of penalties and sacks is all Grants fault?The guy lacks any kind of vision? Now you are just completely lying...that was his biggest strength last season...he was making the big runs by seeing the right cut.Just plain bad? Thanks...we all know you think this, and all know how BS that opinion of Grant really is.One of the worst in the NFL?If anyone takes you seriously on this subject anymore, they need serious help.
I'm not a Grant owner, nor a Packers fan, but the numbers speak for themselves. Grant has been pitiful in real life and FF. If the hammy is the reason, then GB should shut him down for a few weeks and play Jackson/Lumpkin. And if he is finally healthy, is that enough reason for him to be able to turn it around?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
After 5 games here are Grant's per game stats.14.6 carries/53.8 yards/3.7 YPCarry.4 rec/-.4 yards/-2 YPReception0 TD'sIf the Pack don't bench this guy they are going to keep losing. He's one of the main problems with the team right now. Just horrible.
And you call me an embarassment to Packer fans? Really?Right after the game in which he shows he is healthier and running better, they are going to bench him?And you think he is the reason they are losing with that comment? Still have your head in the sand about the play of the line or the defense? Just blame it all on Grant...freakin hilarious.
Umm, he was playing against Atlanta and his only good runs were through HUGE holes that any NFL RB could have ran through.The guy lacks any kind of vision and his success depends 100% on the line opening gaping holes. Good RB's can occasionally make something out of nothing, Grant isn't capable of that.And yes, i do think Grant is one of the major reasons the Pack are struggling. The guy is just plain bad. I used to think he was average, but it looks like i was wrong, he is one of the worst starting RB's in the entire NFL.
Ahhh...the old, it was just the huge holes...nothing Grant actually did.I think the line is one of the major reasons the Packers are struggling. Or do you think the number of penalties and sacks is all Grants fault?The guy lacks any kind of vision? Now you are just completely lying...that was his biggest strength last season...he was making the big runs by seeing the right cut.Just plain bad? Thanks...we all know you think this, and all know how BS that opinion of Grant really is.One of the worst in the NFL?If anyone takes you seriously on this subject anymore, they need serious help.
I'm not a Grant owner, nor a Packers fan, but the numbers speak for themselves. Grant has been pitiful in real life and FF. If the hammy is the reason, then GB should shut him down for a few weeks and play Jackson/Lumpkin.
:bag: Actions speak louder than words, and Grants actions this year have been downright awful.
 
After 5 games here are Grant's per game stats.14.6 carries/53.8 yards/3.7 YPCarry.4 rec/-.4 yards/-2 YPReception0 TD'sIf the Pack don't bench this guy they are going to keep losing. He's one of the main problems with the team right now. Just horrible.
And you call me an embarassment to Packer fans? Really?Right after the game in which he shows he is healthier and running better, they are going to bench him?And you think he is the reason they are losing with that comment? Still have your head in the sand about the play of the line or the defense? Just blame it all on Grant...freakin hilarious.
Umm, he was playing against Atlanta and his only good runs were through HUGE holes that any NFL RB could have ran through.The guy lacks any kind of vision and his success depends 100% on the line opening gaping holes. Good RB's can occasionally make something out of nothing, Grant isn't capable of that.And yes, i do think Grant is one of the major reasons the Pack are struggling. The guy is just plain bad. I used to think he was average, but it looks like i was wrong, he is one of the worst starting RB's in the entire NFL.
Ahhh...the old, it was just the huge holes...nothing Grant actually did.I think the line is one of the major reasons the Packers are struggling. Or do you think the number of penalties and sacks is all Grants fault?The guy lacks any kind of vision? Now you are just completely lying...that was his biggest strength last season...he was making the big runs by seeing the right cut.Just plain bad? Thanks...we all know you think this, and all know how BS that opinion of Grant really is.One of the worst in the NFL?If anyone takes you seriously on this subject anymore, they need serious help.
I'm not a Grant owner, nor a Packers fan, but the numbers speak for themselves. Grant has been pitiful in real life and FF. If the hammy is the reason, then GB should shut him down for a few weeks and play Jackson/Lumpkin. And if he is finally healthy, is that enough reason for him to be able to turn it around?
Im not claiming he has played great. He did have a good game on Sunday and it was his first week practicing fully all week.And no, the stats and numbers don't speak for themselves...where in those stats and numbers does it describe the play of the line.One poster here would lead you to believe the line is just fine. Not sure youd get more than 3% of all Packer fans that would argue that the line is just fine right now.
 
After 5 games here are Grant's per game stats.14.6 carries/53.8 yards/3.7 YPCarry.4 rec/-.4 yards/-2 YPReception0 TD'sIf the Pack don't bench this guy they are going to keep losing. He's one of the main problems with the team right now. Just horrible.
And you call me an embarassment to Packer fans? Really?Right after the game in which he shows he is healthier and running better, they are going to bench him?And you think he is the reason they are losing with that comment? Still have your head in the sand about the play of the line or the defense? Just blame it all on Grant...freakin hilarious.
Umm, he was playing against Atlanta and his only good runs were through HUGE holes that any NFL RB could have ran through.The guy lacks any kind of vision and his success depends 100% on the line opening gaping holes. Good RB's can occasionally make something out of nothing, Grant isn't capable of that.And yes, i do think Grant is one of the major reasons the Pack are struggling. The guy is just plain bad. I used to think he was average, but it looks like i was wrong, he is one of the worst starting RB's in the entire NFL.
Ahhh...the old, it was just the huge holes...nothing Grant actually did.I think the line is one of the major reasons the Packers are struggling. Or do you think the number of penalties and sacks is all Grants fault?The guy lacks any kind of vision? Now you are just completely lying...that was his biggest strength last season...he was making the big runs by seeing the right cut.Just plain bad? Thanks...we all know you think this, and all know how BS that opinion of Grant really is.One of the worst in the NFL?If anyone takes you seriously on this subject anymore, they need serious help.
I'm not a Grant owner, nor a Packers fan, but the numbers speak for themselves. Grant has been pitiful in real life and FF. If the hammy is the reason, then GB should shut him down for a few weeks and play Jackson/Lumpkin. And if he is finally healthy, is that enough reason for him to be able to turn it around?
And no, the stats and numbers don't speak for themselves...where in those stats and numbers does it describe the play of the line.
:goodposting: Quit blaming the line for all of Grants short comings.HUGE holes = Grant doing well, but then again every NFL RB does well in that situationSmall holes = Grant is worthless, and above average RB's can still perform with small openings.
 
After 5 games here are Grant's per game stats.14.6 carries/53.8 yards/3.7 YPCarry.4 rec/-.4 yards/-2 YPReception0 TD'sIf the Pack don't bench this guy they are going to keep losing. He's one of the main problems with the team right now. Just horrible.
And you call me an embarassment to Packer fans? Really?Right after the game in which he shows he is healthier and running better, they are going to bench him?And you think he is the reason they are losing with that comment? Still have your head in the sand about the play of the line or the defense? Just blame it all on Grant...freakin hilarious.
Umm, he was playing against Atlanta and his only good runs were through HUGE holes that any NFL RB could have ran through.The guy lacks any kind of vision and his success depends 100% on the line opening gaping holes. Good RB's can occasionally make something out of nothing, Grant isn't capable of that.And yes, i do think Grant is one of the major reasons the Pack are struggling. The guy is just plain bad. I used to think he was average, but it looks like i was wrong, he is one of the worst starting RB's in the entire NFL.
Ahhh...the old, it was just the huge holes...nothing Grant actually did.I think the line is one of the major reasons the Packers are struggling. Or do you think the number of penalties and sacks is all Grants fault?The guy lacks any kind of vision? Now you are just completely lying...that was his biggest strength last season...he was making the big runs by seeing the right cut.Just plain bad? Thanks...we all know you think this, and all know how BS that opinion of Grant really is.One of the worst in the NFL?If anyone takes you seriously on this subject anymore, they need serious help.
I'm not a Grant owner, nor a Packers fan, but the numbers speak for themselves. Grant has been pitiful in real life and FF. If the hammy is the reason, then GB should shut him down for a few weeks and play Jackson/Lumpkin. And if he is finally healthy, is that enough reason for him to be able to turn it around?
And no, the stats and numbers don't speak for themselves...where in those stats and numbers does it describe the play of the line.
:) Quit blaming the line for all of Grants short comings.HUGE holes = Grant doing well, but then again every NFL RB does well in that situationSmall holes = Grant is worthless, and above average RB's can still perform with small openings.
Care to show where I blamed the line for "all" of his short comings.I have not, and never have.There is blame on both sides...But claiming he just sucks or is just bad and the line just made huge holes and thats why he did well Sunday is complete :bag: There were plenty of times last season, and a few this season where a hole was not gaping and he did well with it.He is not nearly as bad as you claim.But go ahead and keep thinking the line is fine...you are in a very small minority who believes that.
 
I just traded Warner, TO, Graham, and Mendenhall for Frerotte, Cotchery, Grant, and Slaton.I could not be happier and getting Grant was really the Icing on the cake. He will come on as the season goes on.He just got paid to be the #1 in GB and he has the talent. Time will tell, but I'm buying.
not to hijack this thread.. but who is your QB? I'm guessing somebody really good.. otherwise I don't like that trade that much.. not sure I would get rid of both Warner & Owens at this time.. But if you have Cutler or Romo/Brees then it makes sense.. who is your starting QB..
 
The argument has changed from Grant being an elite back with top 5 numbers, 1500 yards, and lots of TDs to...he doesn't stink. Sho Nuff, you have to admit that you were quite wrong about his talent level and potential, even if he does turn it around and have a decent season. He just isn't the type of player that can create production on his own and he needs a supporting cast. Despite a great passing game, he still hasn't been able to get consistent yardage. He just isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job in the NFL long term with his lack of pedigree and lack of elite talent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The argument has changed from Grant being an elite back with top 5 numbers, 1500 yards, and lots of TDs to...he doesn't stink. Sho Nuff, you have to admit that you were quite wrong about his talent level and potential, even if he does turn it around and have a decent season. He just isn't the type of player that can create production on his own and he needs a supporting cast. Despite a great passing game, he still hasn't been able to get consistent yardage. He just isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job in the NFL long term with his lack of pedigree and lack of elite talent.
Im quite wrong about his talent level or potential?I don't think I have been wrong about those things.He has that potential.I have been wrong about a few things.A. I did not think he was as hurt was he was to start off.B. I totally overestimated the play of the Oline. I thought 3rd year in zone blocking, 3rd year with the main starters (Clifton, Colledge, Wells, Spitz, Tauscher) together and the 3rd year for Colledge, Spitz and Wells as starters would show some consistency and they would pick up where they left off down the stretch last season. Wells getting hurt has not helped, but the entire line has had issues. Can any of you honestly disagree with that?C. Grant did not start well at all, he was not running well or as aggressively and I have said that. Though, I don't think its an issue of his talent or potential. He created a bunch of that production last year...even with the line playing well down the stretch, he had plenty of runs that were cuts that he made and had the vision and made the hole. He had more burst at times too. Of course he needs a supporting cast...very very few backs in this league need a supporting cast. My thoughts on his potential were because of the supporting cast as well as what I think he can do. And the passing game overall numbers look great...but be realistic there too, it has been wildly inconsistent at times, often starting very slow in the past 3 games. How many times have they started out 3 and out?But you can all go on saying "lack of pedigree" as if right now, his supposed pedigree means anything.
 
The argument has changed from Grant being an elite back with top 5 numbers, 1500 yards, and lots of TDs to...he doesn't stink. Sho Nuff, you have to admit that you were quite wrong about his talent level and potential, even if he does turn it around and have a decent season. He just isn't the type of player that can create production on his own and he needs a supporting cast. Despite a great passing game, he still hasn't been able to get consistent yardage. He just isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job in the NFL long term with his lack of pedigree and lack of elite talent.
Im quite wrong about his talent level or potential?I don't think I have been wrong about those things.He has that potential.I have been wrong about a few things.A. I did not think he was as hurt was he was to start off.B. I totally overestimated the play of the Oline. I thought 3rd year in zone blocking, 3rd year with the main starters (Clifton, Colledge, Wells, Spitz, Tauscher) together and the 3rd year for Colledge, Spitz and Wells as starters would show some consistency and they would pick up where they left off down the stretch last season. Wells getting hurt has not helped, but the entire line has had issues. Can any of you honestly disagree with that?C. Grant did not start well at all, he was not running well or as aggressively and I have said that. Though, I don't think its an issue of his talent or potential. He created a bunch of that production last year...even with the line playing well down the stretch, he had plenty of runs that were cuts that he made and had the vision and made the hole. He had more burst at times too. Of course he needs a supporting cast...very very few backs in this league need a supporting cast. My thoughts on his potential were because of the supporting cast as well as what I think he can do. And the passing game overall numbers look great...but be realistic there too, it has been wildly inconsistent at times, often starting very slow in the past 3 games. How many times have they started out 3 and out?But you can all go on saying "lack of pedigree" as if right now, his supposed pedigree means anything.
The blame everyone and everything else mentality, love it.Also you say i'm in the minority about Grant, i can tell you i've talked to HUNDREDS of Packer fans and most are not impressed with Grant at all and think he was a one year wonder.You live in Tennessee, there is no way you've talked to more Packer fans then I have, i see them everyday all around me.Your opinion is based on the few posters here who support him, we'll i can tell you for a fact that Packer fans who think Grant is a stud are in the vast minority, not majority.That is a fact, take it to the bank and cash it in.
 
The argument has changed from Grant being an elite back with top 5 numbers, 1500 yards, and lots of TDs to...he doesn't stink. Sho Nuff, you have to admit that you were quite wrong about his talent level and potential, even if he does turn it around and have a decent season. He just isn't the type of player that can create production on his own and he needs a supporting cast. Despite a great passing game, he still hasn't been able to get consistent yardage. He just isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job in the NFL long term with his lack of pedigree and lack of elite talent.
Im quite wrong about his talent level or potential?I don't think I have been wrong about those things.He has that potential.I have been wrong about a few things.A. I did not think he was as hurt was he was to start off.B. I totally overestimated the play of the Oline. I thought 3rd year in zone blocking, 3rd year with the main starters (Clifton, Colledge, Wells, Spitz, Tauscher) together and the 3rd year for Colledge, Spitz and Wells as starters would show some consistency and they would pick up where they left off down the stretch last season. Wells getting hurt has not helped, but the entire line has had issues. Can any of you honestly disagree with that?C. Grant did not start well at all, he was not running well or as aggressively and I have said that. Though, I don't think its an issue of his talent or potential. He created a bunch of that production last year...even with the line playing well down the stretch, he had plenty of runs that were cuts that he made and had the vision and made the hole. He had more burst at times too. Of course he needs a supporting cast...very very few backs in this league need a supporting cast. My thoughts on his potential were because of the supporting cast as well as what I think he can do. And the passing game overall numbers look great...but be realistic there too, it has been wildly inconsistent at times, often starting very slow in the past 3 games. How many times have they started out 3 and out?But you can all go on saying "lack of pedigree" as if right now, his supposed pedigree means anything.
A players pedigree can allow you to see through moments of great production, and serve as a reminder that there was a reason that this player was undrafted and cut by a team. Good players don't always have good pedigrees, but it is maybe the largest indicator of future success when deciding how a players career will turn out. I do agree that your points have an effect, but I want to draw a comparison. Look at a player like Adrian Peterson. He had a hamstring injury, his team is playing poorly, they are stacking 8 in the box, and have changed their QB. These factors affect him greatly, but he is still producing because he has the talent to overcome his situation. Now I don't think it is fair to compare Grant to the best back in the NFL, but it shows that the excuses don't negate the fact that many were predicting big things for Grant. He hasn't delivered, and in a situation that has been less than perfect (unlike the last 8 games last season) he hasn't been anything more than average. He isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job long term, and IMO it is extremely unlikely that he performs like he did last year for an extended period again.
 
The argument has changed from Grant being an elite back with top 5 numbers, 1500 yards, and lots of TDs to...he doesn't stink. Sho Nuff, you have to admit that you were quite wrong about his talent level and potential, even if he does turn it around and have a decent season. He just isn't the type of player that can create production on his own and he needs a supporting cast. Despite a great passing game, he still hasn't been able to get consistent yardage. He just isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job in the NFL long term with his lack of pedigree and lack of elite talent.
Im quite wrong about his talent level or potential?I don't think I have been wrong about those things.He has that potential.I have been wrong about a few things.A. I did not think he was as hurt was he was to start off.B. I totally overestimated the play of the Oline. I thought 3rd year in zone blocking, 3rd year with the main starters (Clifton, Colledge, Wells, Spitz, Tauscher) together and the 3rd year for Colledge, Spitz and Wells as starters would show some consistency and they would pick up where they left off down the stretch last season. Wells getting hurt has not helped, but the entire line has had issues. Can any of you honestly disagree with that?C. Grant did not start well at all, he was not running well or as aggressively and I have said that. Though, I don't think its an issue of his talent or potential. He created a bunch of that production last year...even with the line playing well down the stretch, he had plenty of runs that were cuts that he made and had the vision and made the hole. He had more burst at times too. Of course he needs a supporting cast...very very few backs in this league need a supporting cast. My thoughts on his potential were because of the supporting cast as well as what I think he can do. And the passing game overall numbers look great...but be realistic there too, it has been wildly inconsistent at times, often starting very slow in the past 3 games. How many times have they started out 3 and out?But you can all go on saying "lack of pedigree" as if right now, his supposed pedigree means anything.
The blame everyone and everything else mentality, love it.Also you say i'm in the minority about Grant, i can tell you i've talked to HUNDREDS of Packer fans and most are not impressed with Grant at all and think he was a one year wonder.You live in Tennessee, there is no way you've talked to more Packer fans then I have, i see them everyday all around me.Your opinion is based on the few posters here who support him, we'll i can tell you for a fact that Packer fans who think Grant is a stud are in the vast minority, not majority.That is a fact, take it to the bank and cash it in.
I guess you did not read part C where I explicitly put some of the blame on him as well.You can keep claiming you talked to hundreds of fans...Im not buying it. Ive listened to local sports talk, read several Wisconsin papers...and the overwhelming majority talk of the poor play of the line as well as how Grant has played...very few, if any, calling Grant simply bad.I live in Tennessee, but they have this thing called the internet you know. Papers like jsonline, greenbay press gazette, railbird central, the appleton post crescent (where I grew up)...forums all over the place with Packer fans.I don't base it on a few here...I base it on the overall thing...and you are very much in the minority here.Where do I claim he is a stud? Where do you see me saying that?Again, you continue to post things that are not being said in order to make an argument.You would not know a fact if it came up and tapped you on the shoulder and introduced itself.
 
The argument has changed from Grant being an elite back with top 5 numbers, 1500 yards, and lots of TDs to...he doesn't stink. Sho Nuff, you have to admit that you were quite wrong about his talent level and potential, even if he does turn it around and have a decent season. He just isn't the type of player that can create production on his own and he needs a supporting cast. Despite a great passing game, he still hasn't been able to get consistent yardage. He just isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job in the NFL long term with his lack of pedigree and lack of elite talent.
Im quite wrong about his talent level or potential?I don't think I have been wrong about those things.He has that potential.I have been wrong about a few things.A. I did not think he was as hurt was he was to start off.B. I totally overestimated the play of the Oline. I thought 3rd year in zone blocking, 3rd year with the main starters (Clifton, Colledge, Wells, Spitz, Tauscher) together and the 3rd year for Colledge, Spitz and Wells as starters would show some consistency and they would pick up where they left off down the stretch last season. Wells getting hurt has not helped, but the entire line has had issues. Can any of you honestly disagree with that?C. Grant did not start well at all, he was not running well or as aggressively and I have said that. Though, I don't think its an issue of his talent or potential. He created a bunch of that production last year...even with the line playing well down the stretch, he had plenty of runs that were cuts that he made and had the vision and made the hole. He had more burst at times too. Of course he needs a supporting cast...very very few backs in this league need a supporting cast. My thoughts on his potential were because of the supporting cast as well as what I think he can do. And the passing game overall numbers look great...but be realistic there too, it has been wildly inconsistent at times, often starting very slow in the past 3 games. How many times have they started out 3 and out?But you can all go on saying "lack of pedigree" as if right now, his supposed pedigree means anything.
A players pedigree can allow you to see through moments of great production, and serve as a reminder that there was a reason that this player was undrafted and cut by a team. Good players don't always have good pedigrees, but it is maybe the largest indicator of future success when deciding how a players career will turn out. I do agree that your points have an effect, but I want to draw a comparison. Look at a player like Adrian Peterson. He had a hamstring injury, his team is playing poorly, they are stacking 8 in the box, and have changed their QB. These factors affect him greatly, but he is still producing because he has the talent to overcome his situation. Now I don't think it is fair to compare Grant to the best back in the NFL, but it shows that the excuses don't negate the fact that many were predicting big things for Grant. He hasn't delivered, and in a situation that has been less than perfect (unlike the last 8 games last season) he hasn't been anything more than average. He isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job long term, and IMO it is extremely unlikely that he performs like he did last year for an extended period again.
He was not cut by a team. He was traded.For every future success, there is almost an equal number of future failures with great pedigree.Heart is not measured in 40 time. Neither is how a guy runs in pads...how fast he really is when it matters.Grant's 40 time is not the greatest, no doubt...but he looked darn fast running away from both the Dallas and Chicago defenses last season didn't he?Once you are playing and performing in the NFL, as Grant has. Pedigree means squat. 40 times mean squat. That he did not play much in college means squat.How much did Peterson produce last game? How about against Carolina? How about down the stretch last season? Pedigree is not the end all be all.And where have I ever tried to compare him to Adrian Peterson as far as talent or ability?I predicted big things for him...and laid out why. You can call them excuses...but when I said why I thought Grant would do well, i mentioned the things I said above about the Oline, I mentioned the continuity, I mentioned the supporting cast of WRs. I mentioned even the defense would make it so that GB and Rodgers would not have to do it all and could run the ball more.Many of those things are not happening and its simply dishonest to just put all or even most of that on Grant right now.As I have said to another poster...anyone claiming this line has played just fine...is not being objective or even paying attention. The line has been bad.That is not excusing Grant. He has had some stinkers too.But he played well against Minny, Dallas, and Atlanta. Its not all just in the box score.
 
The argument has changed from Grant being an elite back with top 5 numbers, 1500 yards, and lots of TDs to...he doesn't stink. Sho Nuff, you have to admit that you were quite wrong about his talent level and potential, even if he does turn it around and have a decent season. He just isn't the type of player that can create production on his own and he needs a supporting cast. Despite a great passing game, he still hasn't been able to get consistent yardage. He just isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job in the NFL long term with his lack of pedigree and lack of elite talent.
Im quite wrong about his talent level or potential?I don't think I have been wrong about those things.He has that potential.I have been wrong about a few things.A. I did not think he was as hurt was he was to start off.B. I totally overestimated the play of the Oline. I thought 3rd year in zone blocking, 3rd year with the main starters (Clifton, Colledge, Wells, Spitz, Tauscher) together and the 3rd year for Colledge, Spitz and Wells as starters would show some consistency and they would pick up where they left off down the stretch last season. Wells getting hurt has not helped, but the entire line has had issues. Can any of you honestly disagree with that?C. Grant did not start well at all, he was not running well or as aggressively and I have said that. Though, I don't think its an issue of his talent or potential. He created a bunch of that production last year...even with the line playing well down the stretch, he had plenty of runs that were cuts that he made and had the vision and made the hole. He had more burst at times too. Of course he needs a supporting cast...very very few backs in this league need a supporting cast. My thoughts on his potential were because of the supporting cast as well as what I think he can do. And the passing game overall numbers look great...but be realistic there too, it has been wildly inconsistent at times, often starting very slow in the past 3 games. How many times have they started out 3 and out?But you can all go on saying "lack of pedigree" as if right now, his supposed pedigree means anything.
A players pedigree can allow you to see through moments of great production, and serve as a reminder that there was a reason that this player was undrafted and cut by a team. Good players don't always have good pedigrees, but it is maybe the largest indicator of future success when deciding how a players career will turn out. I do agree that your points have an effect, but I want to draw a comparison. Look at a player like Adrian Peterson. He had a hamstring injury, his team is playing poorly, they are stacking 8 in the box, and have changed their QB. These factors affect him greatly, but he is still producing because he has the talent to overcome his situation. Now I don't think it is fair to compare Grant to the best back in the NFL, but it shows that the excuses don't negate the fact that many were predicting big things for Grant. He hasn't delivered, and in a situation that has been less than perfect (unlike the last 8 games last season) he hasn't been anything more than average. He isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job long term, and IMO it is extremely unlikely that he performs like he did last year for an extended period again.
He was not cut by a team. He was traded.For every future success, there is almost an equal number of future failures with great pedigree.Heart is not measured in 40 time. Neither is how a guy runs in pads...how fast he really is when it matters.Grant's 40 time is not the greatest, no doubt...but he looked darn fast running away from both the Dallas and Chicago defenses last season didn't he?Once you are playing and performing in the NFL, as Grant has. Pedigree means squat. 40 times mean squat. That he did not play much in college means squat.How much did Peterson produce last game? How about against Carolina? How about down the stretch last season? Pedigree is not the end all be all.And where have I ever tried to compare him to Adrian Peterson as far as talent or ability?I predicted big things for him...and laid out why. You can call them excuses...but when I said why I thought Grant would do well, i mentioned the things I said above about the Oline, I mentioned the continuity, I mentioned the supporting cast of WRs. I mentioned even the defense would make it so that GB and Rodgers would not have to do it all and could run the ball more.Many of those things are not happening and its simply dishonest to just put all or even most of that on Grant right now.As I have said to another poster...anyone claiming this line has played just fine...is not being objective or even paying attention. The line has been bad.That is not excusing Grant. He has had some stinkers too.But he played well against Minny, Dallas, and Atlanta. Its not all just in the box score.
You are correct that he didn't get cut, but that was going to happen if they didn't trade him. If he was that good, why didn't anyone draft him, and why was he traded for next to nothing? He didn't have a significant injury in college. He just isn't anything special.You can say that you didn't say he was elite, but I got in several discussions with you about how you were having difficulty looking at this situation objectively in different threads. You predicted top 5 numbers, 1500 rushing yards...elite production. Go back and look at our back and forth discussions. You thought he would be a stud. I don't have difficulty looking at facts, I actually DO look at the facts and don't listen to reporters from the same area of the player I am trying to be objective about. You think the Green Bay forums are going to stay unbiased? If you look at Grant's entire career, including college, I just don't see a player that is anything special and I think that will show over the next few years. The bottom line is, we can go back and forth all day with excuses and counter points, but in the end Grant just isn't that good. We will just have to see, but your adamant assessments made before the season haven't been too accurate.
 
This is what we know

He was hurt much of the preseason and was not able to get much practice time with the team

He started the season Injured and has had limited reps the first 4 games

1st week he's NOT on the injury report he avg 4.6 per carry

Look as someone like LT or LJ last year and see what happens to a player when they dont play in the pre season. They start off slow, they need time to get into a rythm with their offense and top that off with a hammy injury and I say Grant has actually done well given the circumstance.

He seems to be healthy and I expect his #'s to go up. Give him 22-23 carries and he breaks a 100+ yds last week.

So to this point he has been a poor fantasy back but if you take a mintute and ask yourself, how would any RB such as LT, LJ, Gore ect. with a hammy injury + no practice time + beginning of the year with a new QB.

Do you honestly believe they would be doing as well as they are now?

 
The argument has changed from Grant being an elite back with top 5 numbers, 1500 yards, and lots of TDs to...he doesn't stink. Sho Nuff, you have to admit that you were quite wrong about his talent level and potential, even if he does turn it around and have a decent season. He just isn't the type of player that can create production on his own and he needs a supporting cast. Despite a great passing game, he still hasn't been able to get consistent yardage. He just isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job in the NFL long term with his lack of pedigree and lack of elite talent.
Im quite wrong about his talent level or potential?I don't think I have been wrong about those things.He has that potential.I have been wrong about a few things.A. I did not think he was as hurt was he was to start off.B. I totally overestimated the play of the Oline. I thought 3rd year in zone blocking, 3rd year with the main starters (Clifton, Colledge, Wells, Spitz, Tauscher) together and the 3rd year for Colledge, Spitz and Wells as starters would show some consistency and they would pick up where they left off down the stretch last season. Wells getting hurt has not helped, but the entire line has had issues. Can any of you honestly disagree with that?C. Grant did not start well at all, he was not running well or as aggressively and I have said that. Though, I don't think its an issue of his talent or potential. He created a bunch of that production last year...even with the line playing well down the stretch, he had plenty of runs that were cuts that he made and had the vision and made the hole. He had more burst at times too. Of course he needs a supporting cast...very very few backs in this league need a supporting cast. My thoughts on his potential were because of the supporting cast as well as what I think he can do. And the passing game overall numbers look great...but be realistic there too, it has been wildly inconsistent at times, often starting very slow in the past 3 games. How many times have they started out 3 and out?But you can all go on saying "lack of pedigree" as if right now, his supposed pedigree means anything.
A players pedigree can allow you to see through moments of great production, and serve as a reminder that there was a reason that this player was undrafted and cut by a team. Good players don't always have good pedigrees, but it is maybe the largest indicator of future success when deciding how a players career will turn out. I do agree that your points have an effect, but I want to draw a comparison. Look at a player like Adrian Peterson. He had a hamstring injury, his team is playing poorly, they are stacking 8 in the box, and have changed their QB. These factors affect him greatly, but he is still producing because he has the talent to overcome his situation. Now I don't think it is fair to compare Grant to the best back in the NFL, but it shows that the excuses don't negate the fact that many were predicting big things for Grant. He hasn't delivered, and in a situation that has been less than perfect (unlike the last 8 games last season) he hasn't been anything more than average. He isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job long term, and IMO it is extremely unlikely that he performs like he did last year for an extended period again.
He was not cut by a team. He was traded.For every future success, there is almost an equal number of future failures with great pedigree.Heart is not measured in 40 time. Neither is how a guy runs in pads...how fast he really is when it matters.Grant's 40 time is not the greatest, no doubt...but he looked darn fast running away from both the Dallas and Chicago defenses last season didn't he?Once you are playing and performing in the NFL, as Grant has. Pedigree means squat. 40 times mean squat. That he did not play much in college means squat.How much did Peterson produce last game? How about against Carolina? How about down the stretch last season? Pedigree is not the end all be all.And where have I ever tried to compare him to Adrian Peterson as far as talent or ability?I predicted big things for him...and laid out why. You can call them excuses...but when I said why I thought Grant would do well, i mentioned the things I said above about the Oline, I mentioned the continuity, I mentioned the supporting cast of WRs. I mentioned even the defense would make it so that GB and Rodgers would not have to do it all and could run the ball more.Many of those things are not happening and its simply dishonest to just put all or even most of that on Grant right now.As I have said to another poster...anyone claiming this line has played just fine...is not being objective or even paying attention. The line has been bad.That is not excusing Grant. He has had some stinkers too.But he played well against Minny, Dallas, and Atlanta. Its not all just in the box score.
You are correct that he didn't get cut, but that was going to happen if they didn't trade him. If he was that good, why didn't anyone draft him, and why was he traded for next to nothing? He didn't have a significant injury in college. He just isn't anything special.You can say that you didn't say he was elite, but I got in several discussions with you about how you were having difficulty looking at this situation objectively in different threads. You predicted top 5 numbers, 1500 rushing yards...elite production. Go back and look at our back and forth discussions. You thought he would be a stud. I don't have difficulty looking at facts, I actually DO look at the facts and don't listen to reporters from the same area of the player I am trying to be objective about. You think the Green Bay forums are going to stay unbiased? If you look at Grant's entire career, including college, I just don't see a player that is anything special and I think that will show over the next few years. The bottom line is, we can go back and forth all day with excuses and counter points, but in the end Grant just isn't that good. We will just have to see, but your adamant assessments made before the season haven't been too accurate.
Why did anyone not draft alot of undrafted players that have played and played well in the NFL?Why did many NFL players not get drafted until very late?I predicted numbers based on overall situation and what he brings to it. Never claiming he was just an elite back. Id love to see anyone post a link to where I said such things other than predicting his numbers and giving my reasoning which I mention above. I believe I have been very consistent in that.I think Green Bay papers and forums are being very objective in telling it like it is for the Oline. That is what I am getting at about reading things from up there. ITs not just about Grant.The part I will continue to disagree with this is the part saying he just isn't that good. Im sorry, but Im not seeing that at all.
 
The argument has changed from Grant being an elite back with top 5 numbers, 1500 yards, and lots of TDs to...he doesn't stink. Sho Nuff, you have to admit that you were quite wrong about his talent level and potential, even if he does turn it around and have a decent season. He just isn't the type of player that can create production on his own and he needs a supporting cast. Despite a great passing game, he still hasn't been able to get consistent yardage. He just isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job in the NFL long term with his lack of pedigree and lack of elite talent.
Im quite wrong about his talent level or potential?I don't think I have been wrong about those things.He has that potential.I have been wrong about a few things.A. I did not think he was as hurt was he was to start off.B. I totally overestimated the play of the Oline. I thought 3rd year in zone blocking, 3rd year with the main starters (Clifton, Colledge, Wells, Spitz, Tauscher) together and the 3rd year for Colledge, Spitz and Wells as starters would show some consistency and they would pick up where they left off down the stretch last season. Wells getting hurt has not helped, but the entire line has had issues. Can any of you honestly disagree with that?C. Grant did not start well at all, he was not running well or as aggressively and I have said that. Though, I don't think its an issue of his talent or potential. He created a bunch of that production last year...even with the line playing well down the stretch, he had plenty of runs that were cuts that he made and had the vision and made the hole. He had more burst at times too. Of course he needs a supporting cast...very very few backs in this league need a supporting cast. My thoughts on his potential were because of the supporting cast as well as what I think he can do. And the passing game overall numbers look great...but be realistic there too, it has been wildly inconsistent at times, often starting very slow in the past 3 games. How many times have they started out 3 and out?But you can all go on saying "lack of pedigree" as if right now, his supposed pedigree means anything.
A players pedigree can allow you to see through moments of great production, and serve as a reminder that there was a reason that this player was undrafted and cut by a team. Good players don't always have good pedigrees, but it is maybe the largest indicator of future success when deciding how a players career will turn out. I do agree that your points have an effect, but I want to draw a comparison. Look at a player like Adrian Peterson. He had a hamstring injury, his team is playing poorly, they are stacking 8 in the box, and have changed their QB. These factors affect him greatly, but he is still producing because he has the talent to overcome his situation. Now I don't think it is fair to compare Grant to the best back in the NFL, but it shows that the excuses don't negate the fact that many were predicting big things for Grant. He hasn't delivered, and in a situation that has been less than perfect (unlike the last 8 games last season) he hasn't been anything more than average. He isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job long term, and IMO it is extremely unlikely that he performs like he did last year for an extended period again.
He was not cut by a team. He was traded.For every future success, there is almost an equal number of future failures with great pedigree.Heart is not measured in 40 time. Neither is how a guy runs in pads...how fast he really is when it matters.Grant's 40 time is not the greatest, no doubt...but he looked darn fast running away from both the Dallas and Chicago defenses last season didn't he?Once you are playing and performing in the NFL, as Grant has. Pedigree means squat. 40 times mean squat. That he did not play much in college means squat.How much did Peterson produce last game? How about against Carolina? How about down the stretch last season? Pedigree is not the end all be all.And where have I ever tried to compare him to Adrian Peterson as far as talent or ability?I predicted big things for him...and laid out why. You can call them excuses...but when I said why I thought Grant would do well, i mentioned the things I said above about the Oline, I mentioned the continuity, I mentioned the supporting cast of WRs. I mentioned even the defense would make it so that GB and Rodgers would not have to do it all and could run the ball more.Many of those things are not happening and its simply dishonest to just put all or even most of that on Grant right now.As I have said to another poster...anyone claiming this line has played just fine...is not being objective or even paying attention. The line has been bad.That is not excusing Grant. He has had some stinkers too.But he played well against Minny, Dallas, and Atlanta. Its not all just in the box score.
You are correct that he didn't get cut, but that was going to happen if they didn't trade him. If he was that good, why didn't anyone draft him, and why was he traded for next to nothing? He didn't have a significant injury in college. He just isn't anything special.You can say that you didn't say he was elite, but I got in several discussions with you about how you were having difficulty looking at this situation objectively in different threads. You predicted top 5 numbers, 1500 rushing yards...elite production. Go back and look at our back and forth discussions. You thought he would be a stud. I don't have difficulty looking at facts, I actually DO look at the facts and don't listen to reporters from the same area of the player I am trying to be objective about. You think the Green Bay forums are going to stay unbiased? If you look at Grant's entire career, including college, I just don't see a player that is anything special and I think that will show over the next few years. The bottom line is, we can go back and forth all day with excuses and counter points, but in the end Grant just isn't that good. We will just have to see, but your adamant assessments made before the season haven't been too accurate.
Why did anyone not draft alot of undrafted players that have played and played well in the NFL?
:goodposting:
 
The argument has changed from Grant being an elite back with top 5 numbers, 1500 yards, and lots of TDs to...he doesn't stink. Sho Nuff, you have to admit that you were quite wrong about his talent level and potential, even if he does turn it around and have a decent season. He just isn't the type of player that can create production on his own and he needs a supporting cast. Despite a great passing game, he still hasn't been able to get consistent yardage. He just isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job in the NFL long term with his lack of pedigree and lack of elite talent.
Im quite wrong about his talent level or potential?I don't think I have been wrong about those things.He has that potential.I have been wrong about a few things.A. I did not think he was as hurt was he was to start off.B. I totally overestimated the play of the Oline. I thought 3rd year in zone blocking, 3rd year with the main starters (Clifton, Colledge, Wells, Spitz, Tauscher) together and the 3rd year for Colledge, Spitz and Wells as starters would show some consistency and they would pick up where they left off down the stretch last season. Wells getting hurt has not helped, but the entire line has had issues. Can any of you honestly disagree with that?C. Grant did not start well at all, he was not running well or as aggressively and I have said that. Though, I don't think its an issue of his talent or potential. He created a bunch of that production last year...even with the line playing well down the stretch, he had plenty of runs that were cuts that he made and had the vision and made the hole. He had more burst at times too. Of course he needs a supporting cast...very very few backs in this league need a supporting cast. My thoughts on his potential were because of the supporting cast as well as what I think he can do. And the passing game overall numbers look great...but be realistic there too, it has been wildly inconsistent at times, often starting very slow in the past 3 games. How many times have they started out 3 and out?But you can all go on saying "lack of pedigree" as if right now, his supposed pedigree means anything.
A players pedigree can allow you to see through moments of great production, and serve as a reminder that there was a reason that this player was undrafted and cut by a team. Good players don't always have good pedigrees, but it is maybe the largest indicator of future success when deciding how a players career will turn out. I do agree that your points have an effect, but I want to draw a comparison. Look at a player like Adrian Peterson. He had a hamstring injury, his team is playing poorly, they are stacking 8 in the box, and have changed their QB. These factors affect him greatly, but he is still producing because he has the talent to overcome his situation. Now I don't think it is fair to compare Grant to the best back in the NFL, but it shows that the excuses don't negate the fact that many were predicting big things for Grant. He hasn't delivered, and in a situation that has been less than perfect (unlike the last 8 games last season) he hasn't been anything more than average. He isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job long term, and IMO it is extremely unlikely that he performs like he did last year for an extended period again.
He was not cut by a team. He was traded.For every future success, there is almost an equal number of future failures with great pedigree.Heart is not measured in 40 time. Neither is how a guy runs in pads...how fast he really is when it matters.Grant's 40 time is not the greatest, no doubt...but he looked darn fast running away from both the Dallas and Chicago defenses last season didn't he?Once you are playing and performing in the NFL, as Grant has. Pedigree means squat. 40 times mean squat. That he did not play much in college means squat.How much did Peterson produce last game? How about against Carolina? How about down the stretch last season? Pedigree is not the end all be all.And where have I ever tried to compare him to Adrian Peterson as far as talent or ability?I predicted big things for him...and laid out why. You can call them excuses...but when I said why I thought Grant would do well, i mentioned the things I said above about the Oline, I mentioned the continuity, I mentioned the supporting cast of WRs. I mentioned even the defense would make it so that GB and Rodgers would not have to do it all and could run the ball more.Many of those things are not happening and its simply dishonest to just put all or even most of that on Grant right now.As I have said to another poster...anyone claiming this line has played just fine...is not being objective or even paying attention. The line has been bad.That is not excusing Grant. He has had some stinkers too.But he played well against Minny, Dallas, and Atlanta. Its not all just in the box score.
You are correct that he didn't get cut, but that was going to happen if they didn't trade him. If he was that good, why didn't anyone draft him, and why was he traded for next to nothing? He didn't have a significant injury in college. He just isn't anything special.You can say that you didn't say he was elite, but I got in several discussions with you about how you were having difficulty looking at this situation objectively in different threads. You predicted top 5 numbers, 1500 rushing yards...elite production. Go back and look at our back and forth discussions. You thought he would be a stud. I don't have difficulty looking at facts, I actually DO look at the facts and don't listen to reporters from the same area of the player I am trying to be objective about. You think the Green Bay forums are going to stay unbiased? If you look at Grant's entire career, including college, I just don't see a player that is anything special and I think that will show over the next few years. The bottom line is, we can go back and forth all day with excuses and counter points, but in the end Grant just isn't that good. We will just have to see, but your adamant assessments made before the season haven't been too accurate.
Why did anyone not draft alot of undrafted players that have played and played well in the NFL?
:unsure:
I was having trouble understanding that one myself, then again i usually don't understand many of ShoNuffs posts.
 
The argument has changed from Grant being an elite back with top 5 numbers, 1500 yards, and lots of TDs to...he doesn't stink. Sho Nuff, you have to admit that you were quite wrong about his talent level and potential, even if he does turn it around and have a decent season. He just isn't the type of player that can create production on his own and he needs a supporting cast. Despite a great passing game, he still hasn't been able to get consistent yardage. He just isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job in the NFL long term with his lack of pedigree and lack of elite talent.
Im quite wrong about his talent level or potential?I don't think I have been wrong about those things.He has that potential.I have been wrong about a few things.A. I did not think he was as hurt was he was to start off.B. I totally overestimated the play of the Oline. I thought 3rd year in zone blocking, 3rd year with the main starters (Clifton, Colledge, Wells, Spitz, Tauscher) together and the 3rd year for Colledge, Spitz and Wells as starters would show some consistency and they would pick up where they left off down the stretch last season. Wells getting hurt has not helped, but the entire line has had issues. Can any of you honestly disagree with that?C. Grant did not start well at all, he was not running well or as aggressively and I have said that. Though, I don't think its an issue of his talent or potential. He created a bunch of that production last year...even with the line playing well down the stretch, he had plenty of runs that were cuts that he made and had the vision and made the hole. He had more burst at times too. Of course he needs a supporting cast...very very few backs in this league need a supporting cast. My thoughts on his potential were because of the supporting cast as well as what I think he can do. And the passing game overall numbers look great...but be realistic there too, it has been wildly inconsistent at times, often starting very slow in the past 3 games. How many times have they started out 3 and out?But you can all go on saying "lack of pedigree" as if right now, his supposed pedigree means anything.
A players pedigree can allow you to see through moments of great production, and serve as a reminder that there was a reason that this player was undrafted and cut by a team. Good players don't always have good pedigrees, but it is maybe the largest indicator of future success when deciding how a players career will turn out. I do agree that your points have an effect, but I want to draw a comparison. Look at a player like Adrian Peterson. He had a hamstring injury, his team is playing poorly, they are stacking 8 in the box, and have changed their QB. These factors affect him greatly, but he is still producing because he has the talent to overcome his situation. Now I don't think it is fair to compare Grant to the best back in the NFL, but it shows that the excuses don't negate the fact that many were predicting big things for Grant. He hasn't delivered, and in a situation that has been less than perfect (unlike the last 8 games last season) he hasn't been anything more than average. He isn't the type of player that keeps a starting RB job long term, and IMO it is extremely unlikely that he performs like he did last year for an extended period again.
He was not cut by a team. He was traded.For every future success, there is almost an equal number of future failures with great pedigree.Heart is not measured in 40 time. Neither is how a guy runs in pads...how fast he really is when it matters.Grant's 40 time is not the greatest, no doubt...but he looked darn fast running away from both the Dallas and Chicago defenses last season didn't he?Once you are playing and performing in the NFL, as Grant has. Pedigree means squat. 40 times mean squat. That he did not play much in college means squat.How much did Peterson produce last game? How about against Carolina? How about down the stretch last season? Pedigree is not the end all be all.And where have I ever tried to compare him to Adrian Peterson as far as talent or ability?I predicted big things for him...and laid out why. You can call them excuses...but when I said why I thought Grant would do well, i mentioned the things I said above about the Oline, I mentioned the continuity, I mentioned the supporting cast of WRs. I mentioned even the defense would make it so that GB and Rodgers would not have to do it all and could run the ball more.Many of those things are not happening and its simply dishonest to just put all or even most of that on Grant right now.As I have said to another poster...anyone claiming this line has played just fine...is not being objective or even paying attention. The line has been bad.That is not excusing Grant. He has had some stinkers too.But he played well against Minny, Dallas, and Atlanta. Its not all just in the box score.
You are correct that he didn't get cut, but that was going to happen if they didn't trade him. If he was that good, why didn't anyone draft him, and why was he traded for next to nothing? He didn't have a significant injury in college. He just isn't anything special.You can say that you didn't say he was elite, but I got in several discussions with you about how you were having difficulty looking at this situation objectively in different threads. You predicted top 5 numbers, 1500 rushing yards...elite production. Go back and look at our back and forth discussions. You thought he would be a stud. I don't have difficulty looking at facts, I actually DO look at the facts and don't listen to reporters from the same area of the player I am trying to be objective about. You think the Green Bay forums are going to stay unbiased? If you look at Grant's entire career, including college, I just don't see a player that is anything special and I think that will show over the next few years. The bottom line is, we can go back and forth all day with excuses and counter points, but in the end Grant just isn't that good. We will just have to see, but your adamant assessments made before the season haven't been too accurate.
Why did anyone not draft alot of undrafted players that have played and played well in the NFL?
;)
I was having trouble understanding that one myself, then again i usually don't understand many of ShoNuffs posts.
I can attempt to decode after reading that about 10 times....Why has anyone not drafted, for their fantasy team, players who in the NFL went undrafted.... a #### it I'll just have another beer
 
After 5 games here are Grant's per game stats.14.6 carries/53.8 yards/3.7 YPCarry.4 rec/-.4 yards/-2 YPReception0 TD'sIf the Pack don't bench this guy they are going to keep losing. He's one of the main problems with the team right now. Just horrible.
the o-line is grading out around a 'D' right now and the defense is shredded but you're right, it's Grant's fault.
 
Grant may be a better player than his current production shows (although there is no real evidence of that this year), but all that matters to FF owners and Packers fans (I would imagine) is that his production sucks.

 
After 5 games here are Grant's per game stats.14.6 carries/53.8 yards/3.7 YPCarry.4 rec/-.4 yards/-2 YPReception0 TD'sIf the Pack don't bench this guy they are going to keep losing. He's one of the main problems with the team right now. Just horrible.
the o-line is grading out around a 'D' right now and the defense is shredded but you're right, it's Grant's fault.
We'll Grant's grading around an 'F', so he's as much of a problem as any other area.The Pack need a solid RB, and right now they don't have one.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top