sho nuff
Footballguy
That was a bit confusing. To rephrase...the question was asked why he was not drafted.My reply question was why does that happen often in the NFL. Undrafted guys contributing...guys that nobody thought good enough to draft, yet are still good enough to play at a high level in the NFL.Why did anyone not draft alot of undrafted players that have played and played well in the NFL?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.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.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.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.
Blanket statements like if teams ran more they would win more is faulty logic but people keep trying to use it.
And I own Lynch, Grant and Rodgers in one league. (I own Rodgers in every league.)
what does this mean?eta:never mind, I get it.
