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)

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?
:confused:
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.
 
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.
Why would all that matter to me be just his production and stats? And not the big picture?
 
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.
Grading an F according to who? You?Great...we already know you don't think he is good or solid.Though, those who actually grade these things have not graded him that low overall for each game...nor have the coaching staff who continue to give him carries.Why on the journal sentinel is there article after article on the play of the Oline? But not so many on Grant?Why is it the same on nearly every paper that covers the team?
 
Interesting that when we went down this exact same road last year with a top RB pick everyone was quick to blame Benson and not his awful O-line.

:hifive:

 
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.
Makes great sense to me. First time he's not on an injury report and he avg 4.6ypc and thats with a long of 14 so the ypc is not inflated..Please give me grades for the top tier Rb'sLT LJADDAIJust curious how these guys grade out in your opinion.
 
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:
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.
UNDRAFTED by NFL-----------------------TONY ROMOKURT WARNERJEFF GARCIAJAKE DELHOMMEWILLIE PARKERPRIEST HOLMESROD SMITHWES WELKERWAYNE CHREBETDREW BENNETTANTONIO GATESADAM VINATIERIUNDRAFTED players are worthless. PERIOD!
 
Interesting that when we went down this exact same road last year with a top RB pick everyone was quick to blame Benson and not his awful O-line. :goodposting:
Apples to oranges, Grant has shown before he can get the job done when he rushed for over 900 yards in the last 10 games of 2007. Benson never topped 700 yards in a season.
 
Yes everyone, SELL, SELL, SELL...

and if I didn't already own him I'd buy him low from you.

I started to follow the boxscores of all NFL games more closely the past few weeks and I noticed an interestingtrend. Teams that did not rush the ball more than 20 times lost almost every single time. I think its really more than just a hard number that you have to reach (I'd have to do more in-depth research but that takes time that I do not have) but its more a % of run plays vs. pass plays. Here are some interesting GB stats:

GB Team rushing

week 1: 27 team rushes = W

week 2: 30 team rushes = W

week 3: 21 team rushes = L

week 4: 18 team rushes = L

week 5: 23 team rushes = L

So it seems like GB is close to the magic number (in their case 24). In games where they rushed less than 24 times, they lost. Ingames where they rushed 24 or more times they won. On the flipside, here are Seattle's (GBs opponent this week) opponent's rushing stats so far this year:

Seattle Opponent Team rushing

week 1: 29 team rushes = W

week 2: 23 team rushes = W

week 3: 24 team rushes = L

week 4: BYE

week 5: 36 team rushes = W (blowout)

The magic number to target vs. Seattle seems to be again, 23. St. Lous rushed 24 times against Seattle but still lost, but I'd still like to examine what their pass/run ration was. Or maybe its just STL. It looks as though if you run at least 23 times against the Seahawks, you should win.

So to sum it all up, I think GB will realize that they will need to run more if they want to win. As much as their passing game has looked good, there may not be enough balance in teir attack. I think GB will run A LOT against Seattle and Grant will be the main beneficiary.

 
CD Dragon said:
sho nuff said:
Phase of the Game said:
sho nuff said:
Jedimaster21 said:
sho nuff said:
Jedimaster21 said:
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?
:sadbanana:
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.
UNDRAFTED by NFL-----------------------TONY ROMOKURT WARNERJEFF GARCIAJAKE DELHOMMEWILLIE PARKERPRIEST HOLMESROD SMITHWES WELKERWAYNE CHREBETDREW BENNETTANTONIO GATESADAM VINATIERIUNDRAFTED players are worthless. PERIOD!
This is a very poor argument. Of course there are successful players that went undrafted. You have to look at the percentages. Each team signs about 20 undrafted FA each year, which is about 600 undrafted players. If you take a 10 year period (which is roughly the the time period in which all the players you mentioned played), that would be 6000 players. That is 12 successful players out 6000 (if you include Drew Bennett who hasn't been very good). Those odds are similar to playing the lottery. Now take players drafted in the first 5 rounds. That is about 150 players a year, or 1500 the last 10 years. What percentage of the 53 man rosters in the NFL are made up of players drafted in those rounds? The vast majority.There will always be players that end up being good that went undrafted, but the odds are extremely stacked against them. Saying Grant will be a good player because Priest Holmes or Willie Parker are good is a foolish argument with no factual basis.
 
Yes everyone, SELL, SELL, SELL...

and if I didn't already own him I'd buy him low from you.

I started to follow the boxscores of all NFL games more closely the past few weeks and I noticed an interestingtrend. Teams that did not rush the ball more than 20 times lost almost every single time. I think its really more than just a hard number that you have to reach (I'd have to do more in-depth research but that takes time that I do not have) but its more a % of run plays vs. pass plays. Here are some interesting GB stats:

GB Team rushing

week 1: 27 team rushes = W

week 2: 30 team rushes = W

week 3: 21 team rushes = L

week 4: 18 team rushes = L

week 5: 23 team rushes = L

So it seems like GB is close to the magic number (in their case 24). In games where they rushed less than 24 times, they lost. Ingames where they rushed 24 or more times they won. On the flipside, here are Seattle's (GBs opponent this week) opponent's rushing stats so far this year:

Seattle Opponent Team rushing

week 1: 29 team rushes = W

week 2: 23 team rushes = W

week 3: 24 team rushes = L

week 4: BYE

week 5: 36 team rushes = W (blowout)

The magic number to target vs. Seattle seems to be again, 23. St. Lous rushed 24 times against Seattle but still lost, but I'd still like to examine what their pass/run ration was. Or maybe its just STL. It looks as though if you run at least 23 times against the Seahawks, you should win.

So to sum it all up, I think GB will realize that they will need to run more if they want to win. As much as their passing game has looked good, there may not be enough balance in teir attack. I think GB will run A LOT against Seattle and Grant will be the main beneficiary.
They might...but will it be this game.The other side to this...and a real possibility...is a pass happy offense because of the talent they have at WR.

Why not get Driver, Jones, Jennings, Nelson on the field as much as possible together.

I still agree with you, that they will realize they need to run and control the clock more. They need to get that defense a rest as much as possible.

 
This is a very poor argument. Of course there are successful players that went undrafted. You have to look at the percentages. Each team signs about 20 undrafted FA each year, which is about 600 undrafted players. If you take a 10 year period (which is roughly the the time period in which all the players you mentioned played), that would be 6000 players. That is 12 successful players out 6000 (if you include Drew Bennett who hasn't been very good). Those odds are similar to playing the lottery. Now take players drafted in the first 5 rounds. That is about 150 players a year, or 1500 the last 10 years. What percentage of the 53 man rosters in the NFL are made up of players drafted in those rounds? The vast majority.There will always be players that end up being good that went undrafted, but the odds are extremely stacked against them. Saying Grant will be a good player because Priest Holmes or Willie Parker are good is a foolish argument with no factual basis.
Why can't Grant be one of those successful players is the point?Why do you and moderated feel as if he is just bad and cannot succeed like others have?Nobody is saying he will be good because they are...so yes, that is a foolish argument...but once again, its not one anyone is making.People are saying, Grant has already shown he can do well in the NFL...the rebuttal by a few of you keeps coming back to him being undrafted and pedigree...yet there are many examples of it happening, and for at least a short time it happened for Grant.So again, why can he not do it again? Why can he not be in that group? Simply because you don't believe he can be?
 
Yes everyone, SELL, SELL, SELL...

and if I didn't already own him I'd buy him low from you.

I started to follow the boxscores of all NFL games more closely the past few weeks and I noticed an interestingtrend. Teams that did not rush the ball more than 20 times lost almost every single time. I think its really more than just a hard number that you have to reach (I'd have to do more in-depth research but that takes time that I do not have) but its more a % of run plays vs. pass plays. Here are some interesting GB stats:

GB Team rushing

week 1: 27 team rushes = W

week 2: 30 team rushes = W

week 3: 21 team rushes = L

week 4: 18 team rushes = L

week 5: 23 team rushes = L

So it seems like GB is close to the magic number (in their case 24). In games where they rushed less than 24 times, they lost. Ingames where they rushed 24 or more times they won. On the flipside, here are Seattle's (GBs opponent this week) opponent's rushing stats so far this year:

Seattle Opponent Team rushing

week 1: 29 team rushes = W

week 2: 23 team rushes = W

week 3: 24 team rushes = L

week 4: BYE

week 5: 36 team rushes = W (blowout)

The magic number to target vs. Seattle seems to be again, 23. St. Lous rushed 24 times against Seattle but still lost, but I'd still like to examine what their pass/run ration was. Or maybe its just STL. It looks as though if you run at least 23 times against the Seahawks, you should win.

So to sum it all up, I think GB will realize that they will need to run more if they want to win. As much as their passing game has looked good, there may not be enough balance in teir attack. I think GB will run A LOT against Seattle and Grant will be the main beneficiary.
for the most part teams run because they are winning, they don't win because they are running.
 
Yes everyone, SELL, SELL, SELL...

and if I didn't already own him I'd buy him low from you.

I started to follow the boxscores of all NFL games more closely the past few weeks and I noticed an interestingtrend. Teams that did not rush the ball more than 20 times lost almost every single time. I think its really more than just a hard number that you have to reach (I'd have to do more in-depth research but that takes time that I do not have) but its more a % of run plays vs. pass plays. Here are some interesting GB stats:

GB Team rushing

week 1: 27 team rushes = W

week 2: 30 team rushes = W

week 3: 21 team rushes = L

week 4: 18 team rushes = L

week 5: 23 team rushes = L

So it seems like GB is close to the magic number (in their case 24). In games where they rushed less than 24 times, they lost. Ingames where they rushed 24 or more times they won. On the flipside, here are Seattle's (GBs opponent this week) opponent's rushing stats so far this year:

Seattle Opponent Team rushing

week 1: 29 team rushes = W

week 2: 23 team rushes = W

week 3: 24 team rushes = L

week 4: BYE

week 5: 36 team rushes = W (blowout)

The magic number to target vs. Seattle seems to be again, 23. St. Lous rushed 24 times against Seattle but still lost, but I'd still like to examine what their pass/run ration was. Or maybe its just STL. It looks as though if you run at least 23 times against the Seahawks, you should win.

So to sum it all up, I think GB will realize that they will need to run more if they want to win. As much as their passing game has looked good, there may not be enough balance in teir attack. I think GB will run A LOT against Seattle and Grant will be the main beneficiary.
for the most part teams run because they are winning, they don't win because they are running.
:boxing: Blanket statements like if teams ran more they would win more is faulty logic but people keep trying to use it.

 
This is a very poor argument. Of course there are successful players that went undrafted. You have to look at the percentages. Each team signs about 20 undrafted FA each year, which is about 600 undrafted players. If you take a 10 year period (which is roughly the the time period in which all the players you mentioned played), that would be 6000 players. That is 12 successful players out 6000 (if you include Drew Bennett who hasn't been very good). Those odds are similar to playing the lottery. Now take players drafted in the first 5 rounds. That is about 150 players a year, or 1500 the last 10 years. What percentage of the 53 man rosters in the NFL are made up of players drafted in those rounds? The vast majority.

There will always be players that end up being good that went undrafted, but the odds are extremely stacked against them. Saying Grant will be a good player because Priest Holmes or Willie Parker are good is a foolish argument with no factual basis.
Why can't Grant be one of those successful players is the point?Why do you and moderated feel as if he is just bad and cannot succeed like others have?

Nobody is saying he will be good because they are...so yes, that is a foolish argument...but once again, its not one anyone is making.

People are saying, Grant has already shown he can do well in the NFL...the rebuttal by a few of you keeps coming back to him being undrafted and pedigree...yet there are many examples of it happening, and for at least a short time it happened for Grant.

So again, why can he not do it again? Why can he not be in that group? Simply because you don't believe he can be?
It might have something to do with the fact that he really sucks this year
 
im starting breaston over him at flex this week.
I am stuck starting him this week with CJ3 on a bye and Lewis playing the Giants. Here's hoping he remembers how well he ran v Seattle in the playoffs last year and is able to have a decent game. If he does, then he has Indy next week....
 
Grant has 21 carries for a pedestrian 57 yards today so far with of course no receptions.

How the hell did i pick him as my RB#2!

 
If GB gave him the much-deserved carry from the 1 instead of trying a QB sneak and then throwing to the FB, everyone would be satisfied with this game.

 
If GB gave him the much-deserved carry from the 1 instead of trying a QB sneak and then throwing to the FB, everyone would be satisfied with this game.
true that. I dont know why McCarthy had to go fancy anyways, its the freaking Seahawks.
 
What has happened to Grant in the passing game? I remember last year he was getting at least a few recepions a game.

 
Hmmm, interesting. Is this better?20 carries, 104 yards, 5.20 yards per carry
:mellow: what does this mean?eta:never mind, I get it.
What does it mean?
It's his passive attempt to get affirmation that Brandon Jackson's YTD stats are better than Grant's. The 20 for 104 is Jackson's rushing production so far this year. The thing those stats don't say is that most of Jackson's runs have been on 3rd down passing downs when he's primarily used and the runs have been mainly insignificant.
 
Hmmm, interesting. Is this better?20 carries, 104 yards, 5.20 yards per carry
:confused: what does this mean?eta:never mind, I get it.
What does it mean?
It's his passive attempt to get affirmation that Brandon Jackson's YTD stats are better than Grant's. The 20 for 104 is Jackson's rushing production so far this year. The thing those stats don't say is that most of Jackson's runs have been on 3rd down passing downs when he's primarily used and the runs have been mainly insignificant.
Yeah, that's weak. Probably would be best if we could just conlude that GB doens't have any good RBs on the team, since they cut DeShawn Wynn.
 
Hmmm, interesting. Is this better?20 carries, 104 yards, 5.20 yards per carry
:goodposting: what does this mean?eta:never mind, I get it.
What does it mean?
It's his passive attempt to get affirmation that Brandon Jackson's YTD stats are better than Grant's. The 20 for 104 is Jackson's rushing production so far this year. The thing those stats don't say is that most of Jackson's runs have been on 3rd down passing downs when he's primarily used and the runs have been mainly insignificant.
Yeah, that's weak. Probably would be best if we could just conlude that GB doens't have any good RBs on the team, since they cut DeShawn Wynn.
Guess you missed Wynn play today.
 
So any new excuses? Or are we reheating the same old ones?
Excuse for what? Just looking at the box score again?He was neither terrible, nor great today.Sucks he only got the one chance at the goalline on the first try...then they let Rodgers run it...the 2nd time he is the one who got them to the goalline and they went pass right after that.
 
So any new excuses? Or are we reheating the same old ones?
Have you watched the offensive line play at all? It is really offensive right now.
shhh...some don't want to hear that...they only want to blame it totally on Grant.
shhh....some don't want to acknowledge that Grant isn't playing as well as he did last year and some of that has nothing to do with the offense line. And don't blame his injury or practice time because that excuse has expired.
 
If a play maker falls in the draft, the Packers will be drafting a RB. Grant isnt finding the holes and when he does, he falls from the first hit. When he doesnt find the holes, he just runs into the back of his blockers until a defensive player coughs on him. I dont think BJax is that much better than him either.

It may also be the play calling, never have I seen a team run it on first down in succession in a game. I dont attribute this at all to the offensive line, a good RB can overcome bad o-line play. The GB line is not terrible but they arent world class run blockers either. If Grant was as talented as some want to believe then he would be able to perform a little bit better. Dont look at his stat-line, just watch him play. He runs parallel down the line in ZBS fashion, cuts into either a gaping hole and either:

a) runs into a blocker

b) the hole is filled cause he waited too long to cut

c) hits a huge hole but gets arm tackled.

Then he gets up in frustration realizing he could have had something bigger. Everytime.

 
So any new excuses? Or are we reheating the same old ones?
Have you watched the offensive line play at all? It is really offensive right now.
shhh...some don't want to hear that...they only want to blame it totally on Grant.
shhh....some don't want to acknowledge that Grant isn't playing as well as he did last year and some of that has nothing to do with the offense line. And don't blame his injury or practice time because that excuse has expired.
That would be a valid argument if i had not been saying he has nop played well also...but i have...over and over and over.Nice try though.
 
So any new excuses? Or are we reheating the same old ones?
Have you watched the offensive line play at all? It is really offensive right now.
shhh...some don't want to hear that...they only want to blame it totally on Grant.
shhh....some don't want to acknowledge that Grant isn't playing as well as he did last year and some of that has nothing to do with the offense line. And don't blame his injury or practice time because that excuse has expired.
That would be a valid argument if i had not been saying he has nop played well also...but i have...over and over and over.Nice try though.
just another one of the sho nuff comments that make you go :confused:
 
So any new excuses? Or are we reheating the same old ones?
Have you watched the offensive line play at all? It is really offensive right now.
Clifton having the worst season of his career, Colledge <> NFL caliber, Wells getting overwhelmed in the run game, Tauscher not quick enough to get down the line for the backside cut block.... they have started Barbre and Tony Moll for chrissakes. there are no holes available. Grant missed one cutback today.. the rest was taking what was available.people who only watch box scores are the kinda people who vote names in to the Pro Bowl every season instead of the players who truly deserve it. :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess Grant must not be that good since it appears all the excuses are targeted at the offensive line. If the offensive line was opening holes then a 3rd string RB could hit those holes. Isn't the sign of a good RB is they can make something out of nothing?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So any new excuses? Or are we reheating the same old ones?
Have you watched the offensive line play at all? It is really offensive right now.
shhh...some don't want to hear that...they only want to blame it totally on Grant.
shhh....some don't want to acknowledge that Grant isn't playing as well as he did last year and some of that has nothing to do with the offense line. And don't blame his injury or practice time because that excuse has expired.
That would be a valid argument if i had not been saying he has nop played well also...but i have...over and over and over.Nice try though.
just another one of the sho nuff comments that make you go :pickle:
Its quite simple. I have not seen anyone, including me, that have not acknowledged that Grant is not playing as well as last year.So your, some don't want to acknowledge it line...is pretty much bogus.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top