Ryan Grant vs. Marshawn Lynch (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

Ignoring current legal issues, M. Lynch is easily the better dynasty RB at this point, right? That's what everyone seems to think.

I posted this in another thread and thought it would be interesting to discuss. I've done this in the past and it's amazing to me how far apart perceptions can really be in what otherwise appear to be much closer situations.

Ryan Grant's current value is quite low and most are down on him. The interesting thing about it to me is that Grant, despite a torrid 2nd half of 2007, was still being taken in the 2nd round of most drafts in 2008 with Lynch in virtually every top 10 and even some top 5. So, most people expected more from Lynch than from Grant going into this year. Let's look at what Grant did in 2008 to cause everyone to be so down on him.

Ryan Grant in 2008 == 312 carries/1203 rushing yds/4 TDs and 18 rec/116 yds/1 TD. Grant had a 3.9 ypc and had 4 games of 100+ rushing yds

Those rushing totals were good enough for 9th overall in the NFL. His YPC was not very good at 3.9 ypc, but then again neither was Forte's this year (3.9 ypc) or LT's (3.8 ypc). Not a very exciting stat line. I agree I was hoping for better for him. However, it's not a complete bomb especially given some of his issues this year (not in training camp, hurt hamstring, terrible O-line, new QB).

Now, let's look at M. Lynch.

Marshawn Lynch in 2007 == 280 carries/1115 rushing yds/7 TDs and 18 rec/184 yds/0 TD. Lynch had a 4.0 ypc and had 3 games of 100+ rushing yds

Those #'s look VERY similar to what Grant just put up. Lynch had 20 less total yds and only 2 more total TDs. Yet, with those very similar stat lines, Lynch was easily considered a top 10 dynasty RB and in fact was ranked in the #6 spot per the polls here at FBG. Some of the "excuses" for his year were that the O-line suffered (like Grant's this year) and that it was only his 1st year (Grant only played half a season before 2008).

Fast forward to this year, and Lynch did do a little bit better, but not really by much. In fact, his carries went down to only 250 despite playing in 2 more games than he did the previous year. His ypc went from 4.0 to 4.1 which remains completely unspectacular. His rushing TD totals went from 7 to 8. Nice, but not awe-inspiring. At least his reception totals went up significantly to 47/300/1. Still, at the same time, his total yds remained almost exactly the same in 2008 vs. 2007 (1336 vs. 1299).

So, at first glance, Lynch caught the ball more than Grant in 2008. Yet, Grant had 30 receptions for 145 yds in 2007 in barely over half a season. So, he's definitely capable of catching the ball. Grant scored 9 TDs in 2007 in barely over half a season. So, he's definitely capable of scoring as well. And Grant's total yds and ypc in his "down" 2008 are on par with Lynch.

Yet, Lynch is widely considered to be better than Grant and seemingly holds much more value. Is that really warranted?

When you look at the age difference, Grant just turned 26 and is only 3 1/4 yrs older than Lynch. He also doesn't have the off-field issues that Lynch does. And Grant has a much better supporting cast at both QB and WR as well as coaching staff.

So, after reading this, I still wonder how such similar stat lines in Grant's 2008 vs. Lynch 2007 cause one RB to vault almost into the top 5 dynasty RB rankings and yet the same stat line for a 2nd year RB doesn't even view him as a decent #2 RB.

 

[Steed]

Better pedigree, better hands, better runner on a worse team. If you put Lynch on GB with Aaron Rodgers and that system, do you think he woulda put up those putrid numbers Grant had?

 

[inzanitee]

Better pedigree, better hands, better runner on a worse team. If you put Lynch on GB with Aaron Rodgers and that system, do you think he woulda put up those putrid numbers Grant had?

I agree, Lynch is better. However, Grant was hurt a decent portion of last season - I don't think you can lay all the blame on Grant for his down year. Let's see what he does this year when he's healthy.

 

[gianmarco]

Better pedigree, better hands, better runner on a worse team. If you put Lynch on GB with Aaron Rodgers and that system, do you think he woulda put up those putrid numbers Grant had?

Disagree on better hands. Disagree on better runner. And yes, I don't think Lynch would have done better at all. At least he has the better pedigree going for him. So does Benson. Now, which #'s were putrid? Grant had 3.9 ypc vs. 4.1 for LynchGrant had 1203 rushing yds vs. 1036 for LynchGrant had 1319 total yds vs. 1336 for LynchThe only thing Lynch did better (at least in 2008) was catch more receptions and score 8 TDs vs. 4 TDs. Considering that Grant scored 8 TDs and caught 30 balls in just over half a season in 2007, he's more than capable of doing the same and actually has a higher upside. So, if you want to call Grant's #'s putrid, then Lynch's should carry a pretty similar description.And most importantly, you don't get to switch the situations. Lynch will remain in Buffalo and Grant will remain in GB. The "what if" game is fun, but if Lynch isn't doing that much better than Grant, whether it's due to talent or to situation or to both, what's the difference? Why would that be a reason for Lynch to carry that much more value unless you expect those things to change in the near future?

 

[gianmarco]

Btw, this isn't meant to be a Grant bandwagon thread and I'm not proposing the guy needs to be vaulted into the top 10 ranking of dynasty RB's. But I think a combination of Grant being undervalued and Lynch being overvalued is resulting in a very large disparity in terms of perception and value where I think they should be much closer to each other (at least by the #'s).

 

[Steed]

It's the age old dynasty tenet of going with the better talent. Lynch's talent was fleshed out in the 1st round. Grant was a UFA that landed in the right spot at the right time.

Every scouting report will tell you that Grant is an uncreative collision runner. 2007 was fresh legs.

Lynch put up similar numbers in a worse situation. If that situation gets nominally better, Lynch's numbers will take flight. We've seen his floor.

You also discount the 3 year age difference between the two, when in RB years that can be half of a career.

 

[gianmarco]

It's the age old dynasty tenet of going with the better talent. Lynch's talent was fleshed out in the 1st round. Grant was a UFA that landed in the right spot at the right time.Every scouting report will tell you that Grant is an uncreative collision runner. 2007 was fresh legs. Lynch put up similar numbers in a worse situation. If that situation gets nominally better, Lynch's numbers will take flight. We've seen his floor.You also discount the 3 year age difference between the two, when in RB years that can be half of a career.

Well, I guess we just disagree on a few things.--I don't agree that Lynch is a better talent. I think he's an average talent. Grant didn't impress me much in 2008, but I loved what I saw in 2007. At this point, pedigree doesn't factor much at all for me since these guys have been in the league 2 yrs. --I don't agree that Lynch's situation was far worse. Green Bay's O-line was absolutely atrocious in 2008. It wasn't even very good in 2007. I like Green Bay's situation going forward, but in comparing the running situation in 2008 in GB vs. Buffalo, they are much closer to me than they are to you--I don't agree 2007 was fresh legs.--I don't think Lynch's #'s will take flight if his situation improves. I think he has a safe floor but I also think he has limited upside. I think he has fantasy RB#2 written all over him for his career--I'm not discounting the 3 year age difference. It's definitely there. But there's a much bigger difference in comparing a 26 yo RB vs. a 29 yo RB than there is comparing a 23 yo RB vs. 26 yo RB. Considering the higher turnover at RB, both of these guys have just as good a chance to have fantasy relevance in 3 yrs. Beyond that, I don't care, at least not at RB.

 

[Steed]

If you want to compare situations, I'd say the line play b/n the 2 is a wash.

You can't say the same when you compare Rodgers/Jennings/Driver/Lee to Edwards/Evans/Reed/Royal.

Huge difference in offensive philosophies too. Grant should have done better in that situation.

 

[gianmarco]

If you want to compare situations, I'd say the line play b/n the 2 is a wash. You can't say the same when you compare Rodgers/Jennings/Driver/Lee to Edwards/Evans/Reed/Royal.Huge difference in offensive philosophies too. Grant should have done better in that situation.

Agreed on point 1.Agreed on point 2.But you're right, the offensive philosophies are different. Buffalo is a run first team. GB was much more pass happy. But I don't think given those 2 situations that Grant should have done much better and that Lynch gets a pass. Passing ranks in attempts/game in 2008:GB 9thBuff 24thRushing ranks in attempts/game in 2008:Buff 13thGB 14thDefensive ranks in 2008:Buff 14thGB 20thThe question becomes does Buff run more because of the lack of a passing game? Probably, although, with a decent defense, they are just more run-oriented even if they had a better cast. In GB, you gotta ask if they passed more because of the deficiencies in run blocking or because they are more pass oriented. Also, most of GB's passing #'s came in losses when they were behind so it's not as if the pass should be opening up the run game.There are many ways to interpret this and, overall, probably limited data to do so. What I do think is that neither has had an ideal situation and both have had O-line issues which trumps everything else, IMO. I just personally think that Grant is better than what most people give him credit for and that Lynch is not as good as most people give him credit for. I think 2009 is going to be very telling in that regard. I've said since last year that Lynch is overrated in terms of the value he commands and 2008 showed that for the most part. He's a #2 RB but I don't see him as ever being a true #1 RB. He's McGahee part II, i.e. a replaceable talent.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Better pedigree, better hands, better runner on a worse team. If you put Lynch on GB with Aaron Rodgers and that system, do you think he woulda put up those putrid numbers Grant had?

Disagree on better runner.

Well, there's your problem...There's no comparison. Stop looking at stats and watch them play.

 

[gianmarco]

Better pedigree, better hands, better runner on a worse team. If you put Lynch on GB with Aaron Rodgers and that system, do you think he woulda put up those putrid numbers Grant had?

Disagree on better runner.

Well, there's your problem...There's no comparison. Stop looking at stats and watch them play.

I have. But thanks for that input.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Better pedigree, better hands, better runner on a worse team. If you put Lynch on GB with Aaron Rodgers and that system, do you think he woulda put up those putrid numbers Grant had?

Disagree on better runner.

Well, there's your problem...There's no comparison. Stop looking at stats and watch them play.

I have. But thanks for that input.

Ok, well, I think you are in the vast majority to think Lynch and Grant are even close in terms of talent. Grant is pretty average. Lynch is top 10 easily and might even be in the 4-6 range among active RBs. He definitely suffers from a lack of exposure, though.

 

[gianmarco]

Better pedigree, better hands, better runner on a worse team. If you put Lynch on GB with Aaron Rodgers and that system, do you think he woulda put up those putrid numbers Grant had?

Disagree on better runner.

Well, there's your problem...There's no comparison. Stop looking at stats and watch them play.

I have. But thanks for that input.

Ok, well, I think you are in the vast majority to think Lynch and Grant are even close in terms of talent. Grant is pretty average. Lynch is top 10 easily and might even be in the 4-6 range among active RBs. He definitely suffers from a lack of exposure, though.

I think you meant minority. And Grant may look average to you, but not to me. And to put Lynch in the top 4-6 in terms of talent is laughable. LTWestySlatonMJDChris JohnsonRonnie BrownForteAPTurnerDeAngeloStewartBarberJacobsPortisS. JacksonGoreThat's a quick list of 16 RB's that I easily think are more talented than Lynch. LT and Westy, even on their last legs, are more talented than Lynch. Top 4-6? And you're telling ME to go watch some games?

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Better pedigree, better hands, better runner on a worse team. If you put Lynch on GB with Aaron Rodgers and that system, do you think he woulda put up those putrid numbers Grant had?

Disagree on better runner.

Well, there's your problem...There's no comparison. Stop looking at stats and watch them play.

I have. But thanks for that input.

Ok, well, I think you are in the vast majority to think Lynch and Grant are even close in terms of talent. Grant is pretty average. Lynch is top 10 easily and might even be in the 4-6 range among active RBs. He definitely suffers from a lack of exposure, though.

I think you meant minority. And Grant may look average to you, but not to me. And to put Lynch in the top 4-6 in terms of talent is laughable. LT

Westy

Slaton

MJD

Chris Johnson

Ronnie Brown

Forte

AP

Turner

DeAngelo

Stewart

Barber

Jacobs

Portis

S. Jackson

Gore

That's a quick list of 16 RB's that I easily think are more talented than Lynch. LT and Westy, even on their last legs, are more talented than Lynch. Top 4-6? And you're telling ME to go watch some games?

http://www.nfl.com/probowl/story?id=09000d...mp;confirm=true

 

[FreeBaGeL]

And most importantly, you don't get to switch the situations. Lynch will remain in Buffalo and Grant will remain in GB. The "what if" game is fun, but if Lynch isn't doing that much better than Grant, whether it's due to talent or to situation or to both, what's the difference? Why would that be a reason for Lynch to carry that much more value unless you expect those things to change in the near future?

You're not looking at this right.Saying that Grant in a good situation did as well as Lynch in a poor situation is NOT an advantage for Grant, it's an advantage for Lynch.Yes, they're not going to switch teams, but this is the NFL we're talking about here and they could easily switch situations. Who's to say that in 2 years, or even next year, Buffalo doesn't have an explosive offense while Green Bay's turns into an offense that can barely pick up a first down? It seems unlikely, but again this is the NFL, and we see this stuff happen all the time for absolutely no perceivable reason. And even if it doesn't change, as you've shown, Lynch can put up just as good of numbers in a bad offense as Grant can in a good one.Situations don't stay the same for long in the NFL, so again showing that a guy can put up the same numbers in a bad offense as a guy can in a good offense is definitely a big fat checkmark for the guy playing in the bad offense, not the other way around.

 

[gianmarco]

Better pedigree, better hands, better runner on a worse team. If you put Lynch on GB with Aaron Rodgers and that system, do you think he woulda put up those putrid numbers Grant had?

Disagree on better runner.

Well, there's your problem...There's no comparison. Stop looking at stats and watch them play.

I have. But thanks for that input.

Ok, well, I think you are in the vast majority to think Lynch and Grant are even close in terms of talent. Grant is pretty average. Lynch is top 10 easily and might even be in the 4-6 range among active RBs. He definitely suffers from a lack of exposure, though.

I think you meant minority. And Grant may look average to you, but not to me. And to put Lynch in the top 4-6 in terms of talent is laughable. LT

Westy

Slaton

MJD

Chris Johnson

Ronnie Brown

Forte

AP

Turner

DeAngelo

Stewart

Barber

Jacobs

Portis

S. Jackson

Gore

That's a quick list of 16 RB's that I easily think are more talented than Lynch. LT and Westy, even on their last legs, are more talented than Lynch. Top 4-6? And you're telling ME to go watch some games?

http://www.nfl.com/probowl/story?id=09000d...mp;confirm=true

lol@that link.So you're saying Thomas Jones is in the top 4-6 RB's in the league in terms of talent because he made the Pro Bowl too? Is that seriously your counter to my list in terms of talented RB's?

 

[gianmarco]

And most importantly, you don't get to switch the situations. Lynch will remain in Buffalo and Grant will remain in GB. The "what if" game is fun, but if Lynch isn't doing that much better than Grant, whether it's due to talent or to situation or to both, what's the difference? Why would that be a reason for Lynch to carry that much more value unless you expect those things to change in the near future?

You're not looking at this right.Saying that Grant in a good situation did as well as Lynch in a poor situation is NOT an advantage for Grant, it's an advantage for Lynch.Yes, they're not going to switch teams, but this is the NFL we're talking about here and they could easily switch situations. Who's to say that in 2 years, or even next year, Buffalo doesn't have an explosive offense while Green Bay's turns into an offense that can barely pick up a first down? It seems unlikely, but again this is the NFL, and we see this stuff happen all the time for absolutely no perceivable reason. And even if it doesn't change, as you've shown, Lynch can put up just as good of numbers in a bad offense as Grant can in a good one.Situations don't stay the same for long in the NFL, so again showing that a guy can put up the same numbers in a bad offense as a guy can in a good offense is definitely a big fat checkmark for the guy playing in the bad offense, not the other way around.

Yes, you're right in how to look at it. Lynch in a bad situation doing the same as Grant in a good situation would be a check mark for Lynch. But I don't think Lynch's situation was that much worse than Grant, especially looking at the O-line. I think Grant's situation could easily improve by leaps and bounds with a healthy, improved O-Line. So, not only do I think their situations in terms of holding them back from a rushing standpoint are similar, but I also think that GB is more likely to improve in a shorter time. I didn't explain that well.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Better pedigree, better hands, better runner on a worse team. If you put Lynch on GB with Aaron Rodgers and that system, do you think he woulda put up those putrid numbers Grant had?

Disagree on better runner.

Well, there's your problem...There's no comparison. Stop looking at stats and watch them play.

I have. But thanks for that input.

Ok, well, I think you are in the vast majority to think Lynch and Grant are even close in terms of talent. Grant is pretty average. Lynch is top 10 easily and might even be in the 4-6 range among active RBs. He definitely suffers from a lack of exposure, though.

I think you meant minority. And Grant may look average to you, but not to me. And to put Lynch in the top 4-6 in terms of talent is laughable. LT

Westy

Slaton

MJD

Chris Johnson

Ronnie Brown

Forte

AP

Turner

DeAngelo

Stewart

Barber

Jacobs

Portis

S. Jackson

Gore

That's a quick list of 16 RB's that I easily think are more talented than Lynch. LT and Westy, even on their last legs, are more talented than Lynch. Top 4-6? And you're telling ME to go watch some games?

http://www.nfl.com/probowl/story?id=09000d...mp;confirm=true :(

lol@that link.So you're saying Thomas Jones is in the top 4-6 RB's in the league in terms of talent because he made the Pro Bowl too? Is that seriously your counter to my list in terms of talented RB's?

The Pro Bowl line ups are usually guys that had very statistically solid years, or guys with a lot of talent. Right? Lynch surely didn't put great numbers...Also, the Pro Bowl is, for the most part, a popularity contest, right? That also helps to justify my claim that MOST people would rank Lynch above Grant in talent.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to argue the actual topic, as you obviously have your mind made up. However, I think the fact that Lynch made the Pro Bowl while getting very limited coverage on a lousy, small market team speaks volumes.

 

[Brutis]

I'd take lynch over grant, easily

 

[Ron_Mexico]

I'd take lynch over grant, easily

insightful.

 

[Brutis]

I'd take lynch over grant, easily

insightful.

Sorry, its pretty cut and dry imo

 

[gianmarco]

Better pedigree, better hands, better runner on a worse team. If you put Lynch on GB with Aaron Rodgers and that system, do you think he woulda put up those putrid numbers Grant had?

Disagree on better runner.

Well, there's your problem...There's no comparison. Stop looking at stats and watch them play.

I have. But thanks for that input.

Ok, well, I think you are in the vast majority to think Lynch and Grant are even close in terms of talent. Grant is pretty average. Lynch is top 10 easily and might even be in the 4-6 range among active RBs. He definitely suffers from a lack of exposure, though.

I think you meant minority. And Grant may look average to you, but not to me. And to put Lynch in the top 4-6 in terms of talent is laughable. LT

Westy

Slaton

MJD

Chris Johnson

Ronnie Brown

Forte

AP

Turner

DeAngelo

Stewart

Barber

Jacobs

Portis

S. Jackson

Gore

That's a quick list of 16 RB's that I easily think are more talented than Lynch. LT and Westy, even on their last legs, are more talented than Lynch. Top 4-6? And you're telling ME to go watch some games?

http://www.nfl.com/probowl/story?id=09000d...mp;confirm=true

lol@that link.So you're saying Thomas Jones is in the top 4-6 RB's in the league in terms of talent because he made the Pro Bowl too? Is that seriously your counter to my list in terms of talented RB's?

The Pro Bowl line ups are usually guys that had very statistically solid years, or guys with a lot of talent. Right? Lynch surely didn't put great numbers...Also, the Pro Bowl is, for the most part, a popularity contest, right? That also helps to justify my claim that MOST people would rank Lynch above Grant in talent.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to argue the actual topic, as you obviously have your mind made up. However, I think the fact that Lynch made the Pro Bowl while getting very limited coverage on a lousy, small market team speaks volumes.

Actually, the actual tppic and point has been lost in this. Legal troubles aside, if I were given the choice between Lynch and Grant in a dynasty league, I would probably take Lynch too (simply in terms of production, not trade value. Trade value Lynch is the obvious choice). However, my initial point was that their #'s are actually very similar, yet the #'s for Lynch made him almost a top 5 RB going into 2008 and those same #'s for Grant probably don't even get him in the top 20. And, even factoring in the age difference and their different situations, I don't believe those values should be so different. We all have a tendency to overrate and underrate certain players. I think as a whole, Lynch is very overrated. I think, as a whole, Grant is very underrated. In the end, the production both of these guys put up are likely going to be very similar.

It's the same way I feel Roy Williams is amazingly overrated. I think more people are catching on, but the guy is STILL being sought as a 15-20 range WR for some reason.

So in a dynasty, I use these types of situations to move a guy like Lynch and get a guy like Grant and gain value in that perceived difference when in actuality there may be very little difference in terms of production or even long-term outlook.

Again, this isn't a "Grant is better than Lynch" thread even though it's turned out that way. My subjective opinion about their talent, although I included it later on, is not what this was actually about. In fact, when you look at the list I put above of most talented RB's, notice that Grant isn't on there as well. I'm not advocating him as an elite guy by any means. Just that in terms of production per dollar, Grant is by far a better value and can easily give you the same end result.

 

[JamesTheScot]

And most importantly, you don't get to switch the situations. Lynch will remain in Buffalo and Grant will remain in GB. The "what if" game is fun, but if Lynch isn't doing that much better than Grant, whether it's due to talent or to situation or to both, what's the difference? Why would that be a reason for Lynch to carry that much more value unless you expect those things to change in the near future?

You're not looking at this right.Saying that Grant in a good situation did as well as Lynch in a poor situation is NOT an advantage for Grant, it's an advantage for Lynch.

Yes, they're not going to switch teams, but this is the NFL we're talking about here and they could easily switch situations. Who's to say that in 2 years, or even next year, Buffalo doesn't have an explosive offense while Green Bay's turns into an offense that can barely pick up a first down? It seems unlikely, but again this is the NFL, and we see this stuff happen all the time for absolutely no perceivable reason. And even if it doesn't change, as you've shown, Lynch can put up just as good of numbers in a bad offense as Grant can in a good one.

Situations don't stay the same for long in the NFL, so again showing that a guy can put up the same numbers in a bad offense as a guy can in a good offense is definitely a big fat checkmark for the guy playing in the bad offense, not the other way around.

The problem is the next few years could just as easily track along the same course as last year for both players.What would it take for Buffalo to suddenly develop into an explosive offense?

Good draft picks? Look at this class and consider that it can take a couple of seasons for rookies to develop.

Good free agent signings? Possible, but look at this year's crop of FA's and Buffalo's (un)willingness to outspend the rest of the field to acquire FA's. And it can take them a year to acclimate to the new system.

A change in coaching or coordinators that brings in a new scheme? Maybe, but how long will it take for that to happen. And if it does, the odds that a coaching change works for the better are probably more slim than they are that the change results in no difference or a change for the worse. Not to mention that a drastic scheme change may take a season or two for the players to become fluent.

Trying to figure out what the league will be doing in 3 years is almost worthless IMHO. We can't even predict who is going to drop out of the top 10 RB list next year. So how much MORE speculative is it to predict what will be happening 3 years from now to establish who has more value this year?

I think Grant is better positioned for a rebound over the next 1-2 seasons than is Lynch. He is also, as Gianmarco pointed out, a better value than Lynch is as far as rankings go. If Lynch were valued as cheaply as Grant, I might be tempted to gamble on him, or his talent and youth. But you are going to have to pay more immediately on the front end for the glimmer of hope that Buffalo turns it around enough in the next five years to pay off on the back end. To me it looks like Grant is the smarter buy at this time. Having to wait 2-3 seasons hoping that everything falls just right for Lynch to surge seems like a poor choice considering the price you will have to pay for him.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

And most importantly, you don't get to switch the situations. Lynch will remain in Buffalo and Grant will remain in GB. The "what if" game is fun, but if Lynch isn't doing that much better than Grant, whether it's due to talent or to situation or to both, what's the difference? Why would that be a reason for Lynch to carry that much more value unless you expect those things to change in the near future?

You're not looking at this right.Saying that Grant in a good situation did as well as Lynch in a poor situation is NOT an advantage for Grant, it's an advantage for Lynch.

Yes, they're not going to switch teams, but this is the NFL we're talking about here and they could easily switch situations. Who's to say that in 2 years, or even next year, Buffalo doesn't have an explosive offense while Green Bay's turns into an offense that can barely pick up a first down? It seems unlikely, but again this is the NFL, and we see this stuff happen all the time for absolutely no perceivable reason. And even if it doesn't change, as you've shown, Lynch can put up just as good of numbers in a bad offense as Grant can in a good one.

Situations don't stay the same for long in the NFL, so again showing that a guy can put up the same numbers in a bad offense as a guy can in a good offense is definitely a big fat checkmark for the guy playing in the bad offense, not the other way around.

The problem is the next few years could just as easily track along the same course as last year for both players.What would it take for Buffalo to suddenly develop into an explosive offense?

Good draft picks? Look at this class and consider that it can take a couple of seasons for rookies to develop.

Good free agent signings? Possible, but look at this year's crop of FA's and Buffalo's (un)willingness to outspend the rest of the field to acquire FA's. And it can take them a year to acclimate to the new system.

A change in coaching or coordinators that brings in a new scheme? Maybe, but how long will it take for that to happen. And if it does, the odds that a coaching change works for the better are probably more slim than they are that the change results in no difference or a change for the worse. Not to mention that a drastic scheme change may take a season or two for the players to become fluent.

Trying to figure out what the league will be doing in 3 years is almost worthless IMHO. We can't even predict who is going to drop out of the top 10 RB list next year. So how much MORE speculative is it to predict what will be happening 3 years from now to establish who has more value this year?

I think Grant is better positioned for a rebound over the next 1-2 seasons than is Lynch. He is also, as Gianmarco pointed out, a better value than Lynch is as far as rankings go. If Lynch were valued as cheaply as Grant, I might be tempted to gamble on him, or his talent and youth. But you are going to have to pay more immediately on the front end for the glimmer of hope that Buffalo turns it around enough in the next five years to pay off on the back end. To me it looks like Grant is the smarter buy at this time. Having to wait 2-3 seasons hoping that everything falls just right for Lynch to surge seems like a poor choice considering the price you will have to pay for him.

You quoted my post, but I'm not convinced you read it.

 

[Steed]

While you may be correct that Lynch may not be a #1 fantasy RB, rather a very good #2 RB (ie 13-16 range), you are overrating Ryan Grant's dynasty value because he put up similar numbers in the short term. Grant won't be in the league much longer as a starter whereas Lynch could very well follow McGahee's footsteps as a starter somewhere else. His pedigree warrants another look by another team if he doesn't work out in Buffalo.

In the end, if a RB isn't a top 5 talent, he'll probably get pushed down the ranks by a talented rookie crop but so will everyone behind him.

Remember this article where Grant's talent level gets exposed?

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

Starting to pay the price

Grant proving unworthy of huge contract he signed

Posted: Oct. 25, 2008

Green Bay - It's looking more and more as if Brett Favre got the last laugh on the Green Bay Packers in at least one regard.

The furor created by Favre's return to football in early August was a contributing factor why the club would go against its own successful business principles and cave in during negotiations with Ryan Grant.

With each passing week, Grant is demonstrating that he's not a difference-maker at running back and shouldn't even be a featured ball carrier. And every time that Grant goes nowhere, the Packers are kicking themselves for misevaluating one of their own players and compounding the error by negotiating his contract extension under pressure.

Bubba Franks in 2005. Robert Ferguson in 2004. Cletidus Hunt in 2003. Bernardo Harris in 2001. Antonio Freeman and George Koonce in 1999.

They represent the precious few mistakes made by the Packers over the last decade in terms of deciding which of their own players deserved lucrative extensions. The Packers owe much of their sustained run of winning to their success in this area.

Then Favre and the media circus came to town three months ago, and it's almost as if the front office went brain-dead in its dealings with Grant.

Grant should understand that much of his four-year, $18 million extension, which could swell to about $30 million based on an extraordinary incentive package, is the result of Favre. Last year, Favre minimized the attention defenses could bring to Grant which, in turn, artificially inflated his rushing statistics. This year, the Packers gave in at the bargaining table when Grant's agent delivered a diatribe in the media and eventually reached the conclusion that a two-front conflict was too much to withstand.

Presently, Grant ranks 17th among running backs in average salary per year at $4.5 million.

Last week, two executives in personnel for NFC teams took ample time to compare Grant one-on-one against other running backs. According to one scout, Grant ranks 45th. According to the other, Grant ranks 50th.

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

Through seven games, the Packers obviously aren't getting anywhere close to the production they expected from Grant.

Certainly, the situation could improve, especially late in the season when the Packers annually run the ball better. Grant won't be 26 until December, he missed the exhibition season with a hamstring injury and his starting experience is just the equivalent of one full season.

But Grant also appears limited in several critical areas, including run skill, quickness, balance and elusiveness. Those are the factors separating top backs from ordinary ones.

"Running backs, you know about them right away," one of the two NFC scouts said. "It's vision and instincts. Look how they got him. He was the No. 5 guy in New York. That's the reason why."

Despite the fact Grant was three years removed from unrestricted free agency, the Packers decided that asking him to play for the $370,000 exclusive-rights tender this year wasn't right.

In his position as vice president in charge of player finance, Russ Ball researched the situation and reported back to general manager Ted Thompson. They offered Grant a long-term deal with about $4.5 million in the first two years and an incentive package starting at 1,250 yards.

Training camp opened July 27, but Grant stayed home. At the same time, the showdown between Favre and the Packers intensified.

As the week played out, Favre eventually flew into Green Bay on Sunday night, Aug. 3. The Packers had gotten serious with Grant the day before, and agreement was reached late on Aug. 2 after six hours of talks between agent Alan Herman and Ball.

Not only did Grant get almost double what the Packers had been offering in the first two years, the trigger point for his incentive package dropped to a more attainable 1,000 yards.

Ball must be held at least partially responsible for the deal, his first major negotiation in Green Bay, because he did the talking with Herman. But the decision to up the ante so significantly rests primarily on Thompson.

"Any time running backs come in and they seem like they got you over a barrel, teams tend to cave in," one of the two NFC personnel men said. "I just didn't understand why they did it so early. They outperformed their contract, and you want to make them happy. But why not get to the halfway point of the year and then we'll talk? Let's just make sure."

But with the heat from Favre scorching Thompson & Co., the organization felt trapped and decided it was impossible to deal with overwhelming negativity on two fronts. Often labeled as "cheap" for their salary-cap surplus, the Packers deluded themselves into thinking they knew for sure how good Grant was, lost their poise and decided just to pay somebody.

Grant and Herman made off with millions more than the Packers' evaluation had led them to offer back when Favre was retired and their thinking was clear.

Fortunately for the Packers, they have a safety valve. If they don't like Grant anymore than they do now, he can easily be released.

If Grant plays 16 games this season, he'll be paid $4.25 million. Last year, the Packers got him for the bargain-basement sum of $310,000.

Grant is due a $2.5 million roster bonus in mid-March. His base salary in 2009 is just $750,000, but it would swell by $500,000 if he gains 1,000 yards this year, by $1.5 million if he gains 1,250 yards and by $2.5 million if he gains 1,500 yards.

Because of their advantageous cap situation, the Packers didn't have to give Grant a signing bonus. If they were to cut him before mid-March, it is believed that their cap responsibility for Grant would end immediately.

In other words, no harm, no foul. They would have paid Grant a total of $4.56 million to have him in their backfield for two years, there would be no cap penalties and they'd have to draft, trade for or sign another back.

Plus, Kregg Lumpkin, Brandon Jackson and DeShawn Wynn would still be around. Grant, who was behind Julius Jones and Darius Walker in his final two seasons at Notre Dame, has no better background than theirs. Who's to say they might not be as good as Grant given his opportunity?

One-year wonders abound at the position, particularly in the Denver zone scheme that produced Olandis Gary (1,159 yards in 1999, 839 in his last five seasons) and Tatum Bell (1,025 in '06, now out of football).

Some other backs who flashed for one season were Charles White and Cleveland Gary with the Rams during the John Robinson era, Rashaan Salaam as a rookie with Chicago in 1995 and Michael Bennett with Minnesota in 2002.

Even when Grant was ripping off 100-yard games down the stretch last season, some personnel people never warmed to his ability level. One scout kept saying that defenses totally were geared to stop Favre, and that the threat of the play-action pass kept safeties out of the box. Plus, defensive coordinators hadn't had time to really study him.

Certainly, Grant did have some wide, wide lanes through which to run. And run he did, breaking free for 15 carries of 20 yards or more.

Grant clocked 40 yards in 4.43 seconds at the combine in 2005. For a big man, speed probably is his best attribute. Although one scout saluted Aaron Rodgers' performance, he also said, "You don't respect him the same way yet as Favre." As for the offensive line and other personnel on offense, it's a push from last season to this season.

With 464 yards, Grant is well on his way to 1,000. But he has needed the fourth-most carries (137) in the National Football League to get them, and his 3.4 average is tied for 60th among the 65 backs with 100 or more yards.

Among those same backs with 100 or more yards, Grant is tied for 30th in average yards after contact (2.1), according to Stats LLC. Among backs with 50 or more carries, Stats LLC data shows Grant tied for seventh in most carries for minus yardage.

Grant's receiving output - four catches, 8 yards - illustrates the one-dimensional nature of his game. Last year, he did catch 30 passes for 145 yards, but his 4.83 average was the lowest by a Green Bay back with at least 100 yards receiving since Jim Taylor (4.81) in 1962.

The two NFC scouts were asked to compare Grant with 89 other backs. The injury factor largely was discounted.

Among starters, Grant was judged better by both men over just three: Detroit's Kevin Smith, Cincinnati's Chris Perry and Denver's Selvin Young.

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

Thirteen backups were given a 2-0 vote over Grant: Dallas' Felix Jones, Minnesota's Chester Taylor, Carolina's Jonathan Stewart, Atlanta's Jerious Norwood, Arizona's Tim Hightower, New England's Laurence Maroney, Miami's Ricky Williams, Baltimore's Le'Ron McClain, Jacksonville's Maurice Jones-Drew, Tennessee's LenDale White, San Diego's Darren Sproles, Pittsburgh's Mewelde Moore and Oakland's Justin Fargas.

And there were 15 backups that split 50-50 against Grant: the Giants' Derrick Ward and Ahmad Bradshaw, Washington's Ladell Betts and Shaun Alexander, Tampa Bay's Warrick Dunn, Carnell Williams and Bennett, San Francisco's DeShaun Foster, the Jets' Leon Washington, Pittsburgh's Rashard Mendenhall, Indianapolis' Dominic Rhodes, Denver's Michael Pittman, Oakland's Michael Bush, Baltimore's Ray Rice and San Diego's Jacob Hester.

Grant also can be dinged for his eight fumbles (two officially were charged to Favre), converting 6 of 13 third-and-1's, being indecisive in his cuts, failing to see holes and almost never making the safety miss anymore.

The great backs seldom are able to explain how they do it. They just do.

Grant surely isn't one of them even though the Packers decided to pay him like it.

 

[gianmarco]

While you may be correct that Lynch may not be a #1 fantasy RB, rather a very good #2 RB (ie 13-16 range), you are overrating Ryan Grant's dynasty value because he put up similar numbers in the short term. Grant won't be in the league much longer as a starter whereas Lynch could very well follow McGahee's footsteps as a starter somewhere else.

You're right, I might be overrating Grant's dynasty value. None of this is 100% and a lot of it is my opinion. But, my opinion is that most of the fantasy world is underrating his dynasty value. Again, he ran for 1200+ yds in 2008 behind a terrible O-line. He logged over 300 carries. He's shown in 2007 that he can be a receiving back as well logging in 30 receptions in a little over half a year. He just turned 26. He's on an offense that can be dynamic. And looking at his "poor" #'s in 2008 in a vacuum, they are essentially the same #'s that when applied to someone else are good enough to warrant top 5 dynasty RB consideration. So, they can't be THAT bad. I think a big reason for people being down on Grant is the fact that he only scored 4 TDs in 2008. So I might be wrong on Grant and he may very well lose the starting job as early as this year or next. But from what I've seen from him both in 2007 and 2008 makes me think that's not the case. If I had to bet, I wouldn't be too concerned about putting $ on him cracking the top 10 over Lynch in 2009 even without Lynch missing games. I also would personally gamble on a guy like Grant who I view as having higher upside (mostly based on what he did in 2007) vs. the steady but unspectacular #2 RB that Lynch is. That's more a matter of personal preference, but I think Grant has that kind of upside. I guess we'll see what 2009 has in store for us.

 

[JamesTheScot]

You quoted my post, but I'm not convinced you read it.

If that's what you think, perhaps the comprehension problem is yours, not mine.

 

[Captain_Apocalypse]

To me the thing here is value. Especially on a dynasty team. Is Lynch that much better than Grant? With the situations and numbers looking very similar the arguement can be made that they hold similar value, just from a situational/numbers point of view. Once you step outside the numbers and situation it is pretty easy to see that the FF community at large thinks Lynch is a MUCH better dynasty value than Grant. To me this entierly about name and pedigree. Sure, he may be one of those guys whose name and pedigree get him a chance at starting somewhere else down the line, and he may get a longer look than other backs, be given a better chance to succeed based on draft position, etc...that IMO is what gives him more value.

As far as talent, thats hard to judge, some see it one way, some see it another, IMO it doesn't really matter in this case since the numbers and situations are similar enough that an arguement could be made either way. Also FF doesn't award points for "talent".

I personally would not want Lynch on my team due to his bad attitude. He has had 2 run-ins with the law, and to me he has a certain amount of risk because of that that I would not want to carry on my roster. He could be suspended at any time, and depending on what stupid things he gets involved in that could really drop his value as well.

However, it would be stupid IMO to not take him over Ryan Grant in a draft due to his perceived value. Like I said, I wouldn't hold him on my team though, I would try my best to move him. The question then becomes: What can I get for Lynch? As far as Lynch vs. Grant, I could see possibly being able to trade Lynch for Grant and maybe a second round rookie pick. (if you can get someone to bite, and you possibly could given Lynch's perceived value, Grant and a first is a huge win.) On the other hand I doubt you could even trade Grant for Lynch straight across to anyone.

It's all about perceived value, not actual value. To me they both carry similar amount of risk for a similar reward, but Lynch has a much higher value.

 

[treat88]

Just that in terms of production per dollar, Grant is by far a better value and can easily give you the same end result.

I agree with everyone who argues that Lynch is a more naturally talented runner than Grant.I also agree with the quote.Given the short shelf life the position has and the number of variables that go into each offensive situation, I would rather have Grant in the 4-6 round range than Lynch in the 1-3 round range over the next couple of years.

 

[Birdie048]

There are many ways to interpret this and, overall, probably limited data to do so. What I do think is that neither has had an ideal situation and both have had O-line issues which trumps everything else, IMO. I just personally think that Grant is better than what most people give him credit for and that Lynch is not as good as most people give him credit for. I think 2009 is going to be very telling in that regard. I've said since last year that Lynch is overrated in terms of the value he commands and 2008 showed that for the most part. He's a #2 RB but I don't see him as ever being a true #1 RB. He's McGahee part II, i.e. a replaceable talent.

That is the best description of Lynch I can see in this thread! Buff threats it's RB as a commodity and to be disposed of when they are done using them and their skills. Lynch is close to that point due to his off field issues and Fred Jackson will be receive the monetary reward for his performance on the field and being in the right place at the right time. I own Grant & Fred Jackson. I am very happy as Grant as my RB3 but I do not consider him RB1 caliber. Lynch could clearly be RB1 if he could keep Fred Jackson off the field more. Too much of a RBBC IMO for Lynch to be Top 5.

Talent? I see Lynch having better overall physical tools, but Grant appears to have more heart for the game. Lynch is more about "ME" in a TO sense of self-worth.

Lynch may have more talent, but in the long run, Grant will out produce him.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Given the short shelf life the position has and the number of variables that go into each offensive situation, I would rather have Grant in the 4-6 round range than Lynch in the 1-3 round range over the next couple of years.

Assuming that GB doesn't draft a RB in round 1, there's no way Grant is falling into the round 4-6 range come August.

 

[moderated]

Again, he ran for 1200+ yds in 2008 behind a terrible O-line.

He also was running in one of the better passing offenses in the league who defenses respected. Grant doesn't even know what 8 men in the box is since he's never seen it in GB.The line was weak, but not near as bad as your making it out to be and having defenses concentrating on the pass and not the run made it very easy for a RB in GB.Look at Brandon Jackson, he did far more with his carries then Ryan Grant did behind the so called "terrible" O-Line.

 

[gianmarco]

Given the short shelf life the position has and the number of variables that go into each offensive situation, I would rather have Grant in the 4-6 round range than Lynch in the 1-3 round range over the next couple of years.

Assuming that GB doesn't draft a RB in round 1, there's no way Grant is falling into the round 4-6 range come August.

Startup PPR league going on now4.9 for Grant.

2.9 for Lynch.

The 1.3 rookie pick went right before Grant.

I don't see that changing much. And this is AFTER the news of the law troubles or Lynch goes even higher than that.

Now, this is just one draft, but I honestly don't think it's far off from what we'll see in other drafts as well. So is 4.9 vs. 2.9 the true difference between the 2? That's the point of this thread.

 

[treat88]

Given the short shelf life the position has and the number of variables that go into each offensive situation, I would rather have Grant in the 4-6 round range than Lynch in the 1-3 round range over the next couple of years.

Assuming that GB doesn't draft a RB in round 1, there's no way Grant is falling into the round 4-6 range come August.

Fair enough.I would say the same thing if we rewrote it to read the 2-5 round range, since I would project that Lynch will go at least a round before Grant in most start-up dynasty drafts.

 

[moderated]

Brandon Jackson

45 rushes/248 yards/5.5 YPC

Behind the same "terrible" o-line Grant had.

 

[gianmarco]

Brandon Jackson45 rushes/248 yards/5.5 YPCBehind the same "terrible" o-line Grant had.

Jamaal Charles -- 65/357/5.3 YPC behind the vaunted KC O-lineT. Bell -- 44/249/5.7 ypcJJ Arrington -- 31/187/6.0 ypcJerome Harrison -- 34/286/7.2 ypcMan, all these backup RB's are STUDS. I wonder why they aren't starting given how awesome they are on limited carries. Not only that, but the KC, Denver, Arizona, and Cleveland O-Lines have to be at the top of the league in run protection. Right? Considering Brandon Jackson had 7 or less carries in all but 2 games this year, surely you don't think his #'s indicate that GB's O-line wasn't bad, do you?

 

[moderated]

Brandon Jackson45 rushes/248 yards/5.5 YPCBehind the same "terrible" o-line Grant had.

Jamaal Charles -- 65/357/5.3 YPC behind the vaunted KC O-lineT. Bell -- 44/249/5.7 ypcJJ Arrington -- 31/187/6.0 ypcJerome Harrison -- 34/286/7.2 ypcMan, all these backup RB's are STUDS. I wonder why they aren't starting given how awesome they are on limited carries. Considering Brandon Jackson had 7 or less carries in all but 2 games this year, surely you don't think his #'s indicate that GB's O-line wasn't bad, do you?

I was just stating how ridiculous it is to try to twist stats and blame the o-line on Grant's horrid performance in 08' when he was running against defenses who were focused on the passing game, not the run.Watching every game Grant played last year i can tell you he looked bad, really bad. He had no vision and ran into his blockers backs when there were holes he could hit. I don't know any Packer fans who were happy with him.He just isn't good, stats can be twisted any which way, they don't tell the whole story. The whole story is that he has been running in a potent offense where a RB has a ton of room and he still looks bad.

 

[moderated]

Brandon Jackson45 rushes/248 yards/5.5 YPCBehind the same "terrible" o-line Grant had.

Jamaal Charles -- 65/357/5.3 YPC behind the vaunted KC O-lineT. Bell -- 44/249/5.7 ypcJJ Arrington -- 31/187/6.0 ypcJerome Harrison -- 34/286/7.2 ypcMan, all these backup RB's are STUDS. I wonder why they aren't starting given how awesome they are on limited carries. Considering Brandon Jackson had 7 or less carries in all but 2 games this year, surely you don't think his #'s indicate that GB's O-line wasn't bad, do you?

I was just stating how ridiculous it is to try to twist stats and blame the o-line on Grant's horrid performance in 08' when he was running against defenses who were focused on the passing game, not the run.Watching every game Grant played last year i can tell you he looked bad, really bad. He had no vision and ran into his blockers backs when there were holes he could hit. I don't know any Packer fans who were happy with him.He just isn't good, stats can be twisted any which way, they don't tell the whole story. The whole story is that he has been running in a potent offense where a RB has a ton of room and he still looks bad.

Their line was/is very bad, especially in the run game. He is certainly better then Brandon Jackson.If they need to go another route (which they may need to do) they will need to acquire someone else.

I'm not implying Jackson is the answer, in fact the only reason Grant is a starter is due to there being nobody behind him.Jackson is a solid 3rd down RB, not a feature type. So until they get another RB who can handle 15-20 carries a game Grant will keep the job by default. But in no way is that a reflection of him being good, it's just they don't have another RB who can handle a lot of carries.

 

[Buckna]

Much of the difference in value is risk. As many have said, Lynch has a first round pedigree, is younger and will likely get a chance to play for another team if he bombs out in Buffalo or if his contract runs out and he wants to leave.

Grant was an undrafted FA and traded 2 years later for a 6th round pick. If Grant bombs out, it's likely he'll be sacking groceries somewhere. GB thought so much of him that their contract extension was heavily incentive laden and contained very little guaranteed money (and the rumor is most GM's believe this contract to have been a terrible mistake as per the FoxSports.) It's extremely cheap for GB to cut him as well.

Grant also has a long history of one-hit wonders that took the world by fire and disappeared just as quickly to work against (Samkon Gado ring a bell?) Many a dynasty owner has been bit by those players before.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The difference is that Grant was routinely untouched through the line and then made absolutely nothing happen after he got through it. Burst through the line clean and then no change of direction and no lowered shoulder before going down at first contact.

 

[ninerfanatic492000]

The difference is that Grant was routinely untouched through the line and then made absolutely nothing happen after he got through it. Burst through the line clean and then no change of direction and no lowered shoulder before going down at first contact.

is this a joke????? no RB was hammered in the backfield or at the LOS like Grant was last year. Kevin Smith has more room to run than Grant did.Brandon Jackson only came in as a COP or on 3rd downs. which ended up being a bad idea as he directly lead to Rodgers getting nailed numerous times.yet everyone compares his sampling to Grants.if everyone luvs the way Jackson plays, what the hell do u see when Fred Jackson plays on all downs just not certain situations and generally produces more than Lynch?the 09 season will be more difficult to compare Grant/Lynch..........since u know Lynch's greatness off the field will cut into his playing time.my opinion on Lynch is probably skewed, dirt bags that hit people while driving and flee the scene should have the privilege of playing without a helmet

 

[kurtrudder]

To me the thing here is value. Especially on a dynasty team. Is Lynch that much better than Grant? With the situations and numbers looking very similar the arguement can be made that they hold similar value, just from a situational/numbers point of view. Once you step outside the numbers and situation it is pretty easy to see that the FF community at large thinks Lynch is a MUCH better dynasty value than Grant. To me this entierly about name and pedigree. Sure, he may be one of those guys whose name and pedigree get him a chance at starting somewhere else down the line, and he may get a longer look than other backs, be given a better chance to succeed based on draft position, etc...that IMO is what gives him more value. As far as talent, thats hard to judge, some see it one way, some see it another, IMO it doesn't really matter in this case since the numbers and situations are similar enough that an arguement could be made either way. Also FF doesn't award points for "talent". I personally would not want Lynch on my team due to his bad attitude. He has had 2 run-ins with the law, and to me he has a certain amount of risk because of that that I would not want to carry on my roster. He could be suspended at any time, and depending on what stupid things he gets involved in that could really drop his value as well. However, it would be stupid IMO to not take him over Ryan Grant in a draft due to his perceived value. Like I said, I wouldn't hold him on my team though, I would try my best to move him. The question then becomes: What can I get for Lynch? As far as Lynch vs. Grant, I could see possibly being able to trade Lynch for Grant and maybe a second round rookie pick. (if you can get someone to bite, and you possibly could given Lynch's perceived value, Grant and a first is a huge win.) On the other hand I doubt you could even trade Grant for Lynch straight across to anyone. It's all about perceived value, not actual value. To me they both carry similar amount of risk for a similar reward, but Lynch has a much higher value.

Finally one of the few who seems "to get" the points that gianmarco was trying to make.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Over the course of an entire career FF very much does give points for 'talent.'

If Lynch doesn't get himself booted out of the league or something crazy, I'll bet you that he scores at least 2x as many FF points across the rest of his career as Ryan Grant will.

Grant will be 26 at the start of next season and Lynch will be 23 - so Lynch has eight seasons until he starts one older than 30 years old, while Grant has five. Which would mean I'm wagering that Lynch scores 25% more points per season, or that he plays until he's older than Grant does.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

I scouted Lynch his senior year because I expected to have the #2 rookie pick. Through a lucky circumstance, I ended up with #1 and got Peterson. But I was very high on Lynch.

The Lynch I watched this past season just doesn't seem explosive at all. He is good, but not nearly as good as I thought he would be. He has about average burst, about average speed, but has good lateral movement and does not go down easily.

Ryan Grant is a solid, but unspectacular RB. He has average burst, but pretty good top speed. He has pretty good, but not top end, power, but is a one cut guy with little elusiveness after the first cut.

The Green Bay O-line was PUTRID in run blocking in 2008. Only a stud RB would have had impressive stats behind them... Grant most certainly did not have holes to run through, and he was met by multiple defenders at or behind the line more often than not. Grant can put up very good numbers when he has room to run, but will not make much more out of a play than is there.

I think Lynch is better than Grant and would put up better numbers if in the same situation, though not insanely better numbers.

Lynch is not a top 5 RB in terms of fantasy or talent, more like in the 10-15 range. He is probably overrated,

Grant is solid, and probably underrated.

 

[sho nuff]

Brandon Jackson45 rushes/248 yards/5.5 YPCBehind the same "terrible" o-line Grant had.

Jamaal Charles -- 65/357/5.3 YPC behind the vaunted KC O-lineT. Bell -- 44/249/5.7 ypcJJ Arrington -- 31/187/6.0 ypcJerome Harrison -- 34/286/7.2 ypcMan, all these backup RB's are STUDS. I wonder why they aren't starting given how awesome they are on limited carries. Considering Brandon Jackson had 7 or less carries in all but 2 games this year, surely you don't think his #'s indicate that GB's O-line wasn't bad, do you?

I was just stating how ridiculous it is to try to twist stats and blame the o-line on Grant's horrid performance in 08' when he was running against defenses who were focused on the passing game, not the run.Watching every game Grant played last year i can tell you he looked bad, really bad. He had no vision and ran into his blockers backs when there were holes he could hit. I don't know any Packer fans who were happy with him.He just isn't good, stats can be twisted any which way, they don't tell the whole story. The whole story is that he has been running in a potent offense where a RB has a ton of room and he still looks bad.

Are you still defending this Oline?Is there a reason nearly everyone out there realizes the issues this line had last year but you?Its not twisting things...its the fact the line was not all that good last year.His performance last year was not horrid.Not focused on the run at all last year? Says who? Just isn't that good? Exactly, stats don't tell the whole story...so why did you just post Jackson's stats in limited carries?The whole story is that he was nursing an injury last year and running with a line that did not perform particularly well.He is a decent talent...in a good situation unless it changes this year and Jackson starts getting mroe carries.

 

[sho nuff]

Brandon Jackson45 rushes/248 yards/5.5 YPCBehind the same "terrible" o-line Grant had.

Jamaal Charles -- 65/357/5.3 YPC behind the vaunted KC O-lineT. Bell -- 44/249/5.7 ypcJJ Arrington -- 31/187/6.0 ypcJerome Harrison -- 34/286/7.2 ypcMan, all these backup RB's are STUDS. I wonder why they aren't starting given how awesome they are on limited carries. Considering Brandon Jackson had 7 or less carries in all but 2 games this year, surely you don't think his #'s indicate that GB's O-line wasn't bad, do you?

I was just stating how ridiculous it is to try to twist stats and blame the o-line on Grant's horrid performance in 08' when he was running against defenses who were focused on the passing game, not the run.Watching every game Grant played last year i can tell you he looked bad, really bad. He had no vision and ran into his blockers backs when there were holes he could hit. I don't know any Packer fans who were happy with him.He just isn't good, stats can be twisted any which way, they don't tell the whole story. The whole story is that he has been running in a potent offense where a RB has a ton of room and he still looks bad.

Their line was/is very bad, especially in the run game. He is certainly better then Brandon Jackson.If they need to go another route (which they may need to do) they will need to acquire someone else.

I'm not implying Jackson is the answer, in fact the only reason Grant is a starter is due to there being nobody behind him.Jackson is a solid 3rd down RB, not a feature type. So until they get another RB who can handle 15-20 carries a game Grant will keep the job by default. But in no way is that a reflection of him being good, it's just they don't have another RB who can handle a lot of carries.

Or the fact that he was lights out in 2007 and they believe in what he can do.

 

[sho nuff]

The difference is that Grant was routinely untouched through the line and then made absolutely nothing happen after he got through it. Burst through the line clean and then no change of direction and no lowered shoulder before going down at first contact.

When was he routinely just untouched through the line last year?Not sure you watched the same games I did.

 

[moderated]

Brandon Jackson45 rushes/248 yards/5.5 YPCBehind the same "terrible" o-line Grant had.

Jamaal Charles -- 65/357/5.3 YPC behind the vaunted KC O-lineT. Bell -- 44/249/5.7 ypcJJ Arrington -- 31/187/6.0 ypcJerome Harrison -- 34/286/7.2 ypcMan, all these backup RB's are STUDS. I wonder why they aren't starting given how awesome they are on limited carries. Considering Brandon Jackson had 7 or less carries in all but 2 games this year, surely you don't think his #'s indicate that GB's O-line wasn't bad, do you?

I was just stating how ridiculous it is to try to twist stats and blame the o-line on Grant's horrid performance in 08' when he was running against defenses who were focused on the passing game, not the run.Watching every game Grant played last year i can tell you he looked bad, really bad. He had no vision and ran into his blockers backs when there were holes he could hit. I don't know any Packer fans who were happy with him.He just isn't good, stats can be twisted any which way, they don't tell the whole story. The whole story is that he has been running in a potent offense where a RB has a ton of room and he still looks bad.

Are you still defending this Oline?Is there a reason nearly everyone out there realizes the issues this line had last year but you?Its not twisting things...its the fact the line was not all that good last year.His performance last year was not horrid.Not focused on the run at all last year? Says who? Just isn't that good? Exactly, stats don't tell the whole story...so why did you just post Jackson's stats in limited carries?The whole story is that he was nursing an injury last year and running with a line that did not perform particularly well.He is a decent talent...in a good situation unless it changes this year and Jackson starts getting mroe carries.

My Dear Buddy Sho-Nuff.The line was bad, but by the same token defenses played against the pass more. Rarely if ever did Grant see 8 man fronts.After he has another bad year in 09', if he's given the chance for some reason, then i think you'll see the light.Until then no use in regurgitation everything we went through last season (where i was proven right).Good luck with Grant, hopefully for us Packer fans they sign/draft a real RB to carry the load, otherwise were in for another rough year.

 

[sho nuff]

Brandon Jackson45 rushes/248 yards/5.5 YPCBehind the same "terrible" o-line Grant had.

Jamaal Charles -- 65/357/5.3 YPC behind the vaunted KC O-lineT. Bell -- 44/249/5.7 ypcJJ Arrington -- 31/187/6.0 ypcJerome Harrison -- 34/286/7.2 ypcMan, all these backup RB's are STUDS. I wonder why they aren't starting given how awesome they are on limited carries. Considering Brandon Jackson had 7 or less carries in all but 2 games this year, surely you don't think his #'s indicate that GB's O-line wasn't bad, do you?

I was just stating how ridiculous it is to try to twist stats and blame the o-line on Grant's horrid performance in 08' when he was running against defenses who were focused on the passing game, not the run.Watching every game Grant played last year i can tell you he looked bad, really bad. He had no vision and ran into his blockers backs when there were holes he could hit. I don't know any Packer fans who were happy with him.He just isn't good, stats can be twisted any which way, they don't tell the whole story. The whole story is that he has been running in a potent offense where a RB has a ton of room and he still looks bad.

Are you still defending this Oline?Is there a reason nearly everyone out there realizes the issues this line had last year but you?Its not twisting things...its the fact the line was not all that good last year.His performance last year was not horrid.Not focused on the run at all last year? Says who? Just isn't that good? Exactly, stats don't tell the whole story...so why did you just post Jackson's stats in limited carries?The whole story is that he was nursing an injury last year and running with a line that did not perform particularly well.He is a decent talent...in a good situation unless it changes this year and Jackson starts getting mroe carries.

My Dear Buddy Sho-Nuff.The line was bad, but by the same token defenses played against the pass more. Rarely if ever did Grant see 8 man fronts.After he has another bad year in 09', if he's given the chance for some reason, then i think you'll see the light.Until then no use in regurgitation everything we went through last season (where i was proven right).Good luck with Grant, hopefully for us Packer fans they sign/draft a real RB to carry the load, otherwise were in for another rough year.

At least you admit the line was bad finally. Took you a while.I don't see where you D just played the pass. He did see some 8 man fronts. Funny, all we heard all offseason was how teams would do that and dare see if Rodgers could beat them deep. I think he played about as many 8 man fronts in 2008 as he did in 2007 where teams were most likely playing the pass far more than in 2007.Im already saying he needs to do more this year. He needs to show he is back from the hammy issues. He needs to hold of Jackson and Lumpkin. He needs to show more of that vision he showed in 2007 and at points near the end of 2008.You were not proven right. Your claim was he had little talent, no pedigree and were claiming the line was fine (you now finally admit they were not).What light do I need to see? You see me saying Grant has enough talent and was in a good situation going into last year. The line did not play as well in 2008 as they did in 2007...GRant had the hammy issue and also ran worse himself early on (less vision and aggressive cuts than he did in 2007).Good luck with Grant? I don't own him. Wouldn't mind him in a redraft with the value he might have if people think as you do.Hopefully the Packers will sign/draft more pressing needs than RB.Like the O and Dlines which were far bigger problems than Ryan Grant.

 

[gianmarco]

Now in his 3rd year as a starter (more like 2 1/2), and another very solid year. While last year the TDs were lacking, this year they're right back and that ypc is back up.

2007 -- 188 carries for 956 yds (5.1 ypc) with 8 TDs

2008 -- 312 carries for 1203 yds (3.9 ypc) with 4 TDs

2009 -- 267 carries for 1188 yds (4.4 ypc) with 10 TDs (and 1 1/2 games left to play)

The guy may not be flashy, but this is now the 2nd year in a row finishing top 10 in rushing yds in the NFL and now with the TDs following the yards. He just turned 27 so still has at least a couple years left. He's like Rudi Johnson part II at this point. I think those thinking he was a complete fluke might want to take a closer look. He's not an elite talent but not many can be. I think next year he's going to present nice value again.