What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why Ryan Grant is so effective (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
From Football Outsiders:

On paper, the Packers’ run offense against the Vikings’ run defense looked like a mismatch. Heading into Sunday’s game, the Vikings ranked second in the league in run defense DVOA, at –32.2%. The Packers ranked 16th in the league in run offense, at –7.5%. Ryan Grant, who had 186 rushing yards in his career heading into Sunday’s game, started at running back for the Packers.

But if it was a mismatch in the Vikings’ favor on paper, it was a mismatch in the Packers’ favor on the field. Grant’s first run went 12 yards, his second run went seven and his third was a 30-yard touchdown. By halftime he had 92 yards and he finished the game with 25 carries for 119 yards as the Packers rolled to a 34-0 win. So how did the Packers run so effectively against such a good run defense?

A big part of it was the offensive game plan and play-calling, which recognized the right times to run and the right way to attack that Vikings defense. The initial 12-yard run from Grant came on a second-and-5 when middle linebacker E.J. Henderson was lined up so far off he line of scrimmage that the Vikings had only five players in the box. Although Henderson did eventually make the tackle, he was in such a bad position from the snap that he couldn’t make it until the Packers had already picked up a big gain.

And why was Henderson lined up so far off the line of scrimmage? Because the Vikings’ entire defensive game plan was to stop the Packers’ passing game. All game long, the Vikings came out in defensive alignments that made clear that they thought their best chance was not to let Brett Favre beat them deep. But Favre had a brilliant day anyway, and as the Packers established the pass to set up the run, Grant was the beneficiary.

Grant’s second run came with the Packers in a strange offensive formation. They had two fullbacks in the backfield, each four yards deep and directly behind each guard, with Grant lined up eight yards behind the line of scrimmage. Any time you have two fullbacks on the field you’re thinking run, but the Vikings still only had seven in the box, and Grant was about five yards past the line before anyone touched him.

Grant’s first two runs succeeded for the simple reason that the Packers had more blockers than the Vikings had defenders, but the third run, the 30-yard touchdown, was more about superior execution than superior scheming. Grant started the play behind fullback Korey Hall, and at the snap Grant followed Hall around the right side. Hall submarined Vikings linebacker Dontarrious Thomas to open up some room, wide receiver Donald Driver and tight end Donald Lee both held their blocks at the point of attack, and wide receiver Koren Robinson ran all the way across the field to block free safety Dwight Smith. It appeared that there was some kind of mistake in the Packers’ blocking assignments — unless the play actually called for right tackle Mark Tauscher to pull to the outside and block nobody — but the blocking from Hall, Driver, Lee, and Robinson got Grant enough space. Grant finished the run by breaking Cedric Griffin’s tackle and high-stepping into the end zone.

Hall is a rookie out of Boise State, where he played linebacker. I’ve been a fan of Hall’s for a long time, and I’m glad to see that he’s found a place in Packers coach Mike McCarthy’s offense, even though he played defense in college. He’s a very promising young player.

Switching a college linebacker to fullback is far from the only way McCarthy has gotten creative with his offense. Earlier I called one formation “strange,” but there’s really no such thing as a strange formation in McCarthy’s offense. The running backs line up all over the place, and McCarthy will go from calling for a full-house backfield on one play to five wide receivers on the next, and the result is a defense that doesn’t know what to expect and is therefore primed to be beaten with draws, delays, counters, and misdirections, which are the kinds of runs that McCarthy called on Sunday. McCarthy got the Green Bay job in 2006, a year after he coordinated a San Francisco 49ers offense that was one of the worst you’ll ever see. That led to some questioning of whether he actually deserved the top job in Green Bay, but there’s no doubt that he’s doing a good job with the Packers.

There was talk last week that one or both of the Packers’ guards, Daryn Colledge and Jason Spitz, were in danger of being benched, but they both had good games Sunday, as did center Scott Wells. On a second-and-7 in the second quarter, Wells, Colledge and Spitz did such a good job clearing out the middle of the Vikings’ defensive line that Grant had no one even close to him when he crossed the line of scrimmage, right up the middle. He picked up eight easy yards. (It should be noted that Vikings defensive tackle Pat Williams was taking a breather on the play, and it’s a lot easier to run up the middle on Minnesota when Williams is off the field.)

Just as the Packers’ successful plays were often a numbers game, so were their failures. On a second-and-five late in the first quarter, Grant ran around the right end, and no one blocked Henderson, who tackled Grant for a loss of two yards. In the second half the Packers’ running attack was much less productive, mostly because they had a big lead and the Vikings knew they had to stop the Packers from gaining yardage on the ground and letting the clock run. On a first-and-10 late in the third quarter, Grant took a pitch in a two-fullback formation and defensive end Ray Edwards ran right through the line to blow up the play two yards behind the line of scrimmage. Two plays later, on third-and-1, Grant tried to run an off-tackle play but had to cut it outside when he was met by three Vikings behind the line of scrimmage, and he was ultimately pushed out of bounds for a two-yard loss.

Perhaps the most troubling part of the second half for the Packers is that rookie second-round draft pick Brandon Jackson looked like he was in over his head. Jackson ran the ball four times Sunday, and on three of those runs he was tackled behind the line of scrimmage. The Packers were relying on production from Jackson this season, but he looks too indecisive and doesn’t hit the hole quickly enough.

Those second-half struggles against a defense that was playing the run indicate that the best hope for the Packers’ running game is Favre continuing to throw deep effectively enough that opposing defenses have no choice but to play pass first. The Packers’ running game probably isn’t good enough to win games in January if Favre has an off day, but it’s good enough to complement the passing game and make the Packers a real threat in the playoffs.

This indicates to me that:

(a) Farve's fine play will continue to force teams to play their safeties back.

(b) The Packers don't trust Brandon Jackson at all.

If you add these facts to an easy FF playoff schedule, Ryan Grant becomes an ELITE rb to have, possibly top 5 the rest of the way...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because the Vikings’ entire defensive game plan was to stop the Packers’ passing game. All game long, the Vikings came out in defensive alignments that made clear that they thought their best chance was not to let Brett Favre beat them deep.

Thanks for the "breakdown" Football Outsiders. I hope your not paying for this info.

 
Because the Vikings’ entire defensive game plan was to stop the Packers’ passing game. All game long, the Vikings came out in defensive alignments that made clear that they thought their best chance was not to let Brett Favre beat them deep.

Thanks for the "breakdown" Football Outsiders. I hope your not paying for this info.
I hope your not paying whoever taught you grammar.I thought it was a great read, regardless of whether or not he paid for it. I appreciate it being posted. Of all the crap posted in these forums and you decide to attack this?

To the OP - :bag: and thanks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because the Vikings’ entire defensive game plan was to stop the Packers’ passing game. All game long, the Vikings came out in defensive alignments that made clear that they thought their best chance was not to let Brett Favre beat them deep.

Thanks for the "breakdown" Football Outsiders. I hope your not paying for this info.
I hope your not paying whoever taught you grammar.I thought it was a great read, regardless of whether or not he paid for it. I appreciate it being posted. Of all the crap posted in these forums and you decide to attack this?

To the OP - :goodposting: and thanks.
:mellow:
 
Because the Vikings’ entire defensive game plan was to stop the Packers’ passing game. All game long, the Vikings came out in defensive alignments that made clear that they thought their best chance was not to let Brett Favre beat them deep.

Thanks for the "breakdown" Football Outsiders. I hope your not paying for this info.
I hope your not paying whoever taught you grammar.I thought it was a great read, regardless of whether or not he paid for it. I appreciate it being posted. Of all the crap posted in these forums and you decide to attack this?

To the OP - :goodposting: and thanks.
Power Monster? No, say it aint so :mellow: :popcorn: :popcorn:

 
Because the Vikings’ entire defensive game plan was to stop the Packers’ passing game. All game long, the Vikings came out in defensive alignments that made clear that they thought their best chance was not to let Brett Favre beat them deep.

Thanks for the "breakdown" Football Outsiders. I hope your not paying for this info.
I hope your not paying whoever taught you grammar.I thought it was a great read, regardless of whether or not he paid for it. I appreciate it being posted. Of all the crap posted in these forums and you decide to attack this?

To the OP - :goodposting: and thanks.
:mellow:
:popcorn: :popcorn: :lmao:
 
Because the Vikings’ entire defensive game plan was to stop the Packers’ passing game. All game long, the Vikings came out in defensive alignments that made clear that they thought their best chance was not to let Brett Favre beat them deep.

Thanks for the "breakdown" Football Outsiders. I hope your not paying for this info.
I hope your not paying whoever taught you grammar.I thought it was a great read, regardless of whether or not he paid for it. I appreciate it being posted. Of all the crap posted in these forums and you decide to attack this?

To the OP - :goodposting: and thanks.
calm down there sparky. There was no attack here.The fact is that anyone who watched the game could tell the Vikes LBs were dropping back once the ball was snapped. If a drunken fan on his couch can see that, I am sure an NFL coach saw the same thing. I dont need a 15 paragraph breakdown to tell me why Grant was effective. It was painfully obvious.

 
Didn't cost me anything. Go to Footballoutsiders.com, lots of good info there.

I didn't see that game, and I own Grant, but didn't start him last week because EVERY expert said the Minn defense was too tough against the run; also, I didn't quite fully believe yet in Grant.

Obviously, that was a mistake. The article pinpoints why, so I thought it was worthwhile. There are still lots of experts who don't regard Grant very highly (notably at ESPN.) But for me, he's got a permanent spot in my starting lineup now.

 
Because the Vikings’ entire defensive game plan was to stop the Packers’ passing game. All game long, the Vikings came out in defensive alignments that made clear that they thought their best chance was not to let Brett Favre beat them deep.

Thanks for the "breakdown" Football Outsiders. I hope your not paying for this info.
I hope your not paying whoever taught you grammar.I thought it was a great read, regardless of whether or not he paid for it. I appreciate it being posted. Of all the crap posted in these forums and you decide to attack this?

To the OP - :lmao: and thanks.
calm down there sparky. There was no attack here.The fact is that anyone who watched the game could tell the Vikes LBs were dropping back once the ball was snapped. If a drunken fan on his couch can see that, I am sure an NFL coach saw the same thing. I dont need a 15 paragraph breakdown to tell me why Grant was effective. It was painfully obvious.
Do you watch every game each week? I certainly don't. :lmao:

 
Because the Vikings’ entire defensive game plan was to stop the Packers’ passing game. All game long, the Vikings came out in defensive alignments that made clear that they thought their best chance was not to let Brett Favre beat them deep.

Thanks for the "breakdown" Football Outsiders. I hope your not paying for this info.
I hope your not paying whoever taught you grammar.I thought it was a great read, regardless of whether or not he paid for it. I appreciate it being posted. Of all the crap posted in these forums and you decide to attack this?

To the OP - :sadbanana: and thanks.
calm down there sparky. There was no attack here.The fact is that anyone who watched the game could tell the Vikes LBs were dropping back once the ball was snapped. If a drunken fan on his couch can see that, I am sure an NFL coach saw the same thing. I dont need a 15 paragraph breakdown to tell me why Grant was effective. It was painfully obvious.
Was a good post and you tried to rip him. Take the crap elsewhere. Much better than the, "commish needs help", crap that has taken over the sp. Add something to the topic or get out of the way.I think Grant will be a big part of the Pack as the weather changes. The o-line seems real good at pass protection and it seems they are finally gelling on the run blocking. This guy looks much stronger and decisive than Jackson. Wish I had him in my dynasty leagues.

 
calm down there sparky. There was no attack here.The fact is that anyone who watched the game could tell the Vikes LBs were dropping back once the ball was snapped. If a drunken fan on his couch can see that, I am sure an NFL coach saw the same thing. I dont need a 15 paragraph breakdown to tell me why Grant was effective. It was painfully obvious.
Did you ever think that maybe, just maybethere are people out there that did not watch the game ? :thumbdown:
 
I apologize to anyone who took my post the wrong way. It was not ment to be an attack on the OP. Having watched most of the Packers game this season, it is very obvious that teams respect the pass a ton. I forget that not everyone gets to see the games.

 
I apologize to anyone who took my post the wrong way. It was not ment to be an attack on the OP. Having watched most of the Packers game this season, it is very obvious that teams respect the pass a ton. I forget that not everyone gets to see the games.
Relax. If you didn't mean to attack me, you're the first one around here...Back to topic: from the highlight I saw of the 30 yard TD run, it looks like Grant has more quicks than he's been given credit for. He's been described as a slower, heavy duty back. As I noted before, ESPN continues to be critical. Here's a quote from Christopher Harris, "The Big Rotowski":Don't get blinded by Grant's big day against the Vikings; he's not a great player, and he took advantage of perhaps the league's premier underperforming defense.(Really? I thought the Vikings did a great job containing LT the week before.)
 
Now here is the Footballguys discussion: they all seem to like Grant, though not as much as I do:

[sorry, that was too much of an excerpt of our subscriber content to post. Added a link to the subscriber article for those interested.]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Limp Ditka said:
tribecalledjeff said:
Max Power said:
Because the Vikings’ entire defensive game plan was to stop the Packers’ passing game. All game long, the Vikings came out in defensive alignments that made clear that they thought their best chance was not to let Brett Favre beat them deep.

Thanks for the "breakdown" Football Outsiders. I hope your not paying for this info.
I hope your not paying whoever taught you grammar.I thought it was a great read, regardless of whether or not he paid for it. I appreciate it being posted. Of all the crap posted in these forums and you decide to attack this?

To the OP - :lmao: and thanks.
:shrug:
do you think that this was not intentional?sarcasm meter down?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice article and pretty much was the same thing I saw that game.

And for someone who mentioned who did not see that?

Plenty of people think the sound running that game set up the passing.

While that happens alot, that particular game the pass set up the run. Minny kept dropping back...and the Packers burnt them with the run.

And when teams do try and sneak up (Denver)...Favre can beat them deep.

If the run game keeps up...they will be tough for many teams to beat with that defense backing them up as well.

 
Limp Ditka said:
tribecalledjeff said:
Max Power said:
Because the Vikings’ entire defensive game plan was to stop the Packers’ passing game. All game long, the Vikings came out in defensive alignments that made clear that they thought their best chance was not to let Brett Favre beat them deep.

Thanks for the "breakdown" Football Outsiders. I hope your not paying for this info.
I hope your not paying whoever taught you grammar.I thought it was a great read, regardless of whether or not he paid for it. I appreciate it being posted. Of all the crap posted in these forums and you decide to attack this?

To the OP - :lmao: and thanks.
:shrug:
do you think that this was not intentional?sarcasm meter down?
:mellow:
 
Max Power said:
tribecalledjeff said:
Max Power said:
Because the Vikings’ entire defensive game plan was to stop the Packers’ passing game. All game long, the Vikings came out in defensive alignments that made clear that they thought their best chance was not to let Brett Favre beat them deep.

Thanks for the "breakdown" Football Outsiders. I hope your not paying for this info.
I hope your not paying whoever taught you grammar.I thought it was a great read, regardless of whether or not he paid for it. I appreciate it being posted. Of all the crap posted in these forums and you decide to attack this?

To the OP - :rolleyes: and thanks.
calm down there sparky. There was no attack here.The fact is that anyone who watched the game could tell the Vikes LBs were dropping back once the ball was snapped. If a drunken fan on his couch can see that, I am sure an NFL coach saw the same thing. I dont need a 15 paragraph breakdown to tell me why Grant was effective. It was painfully obvious.
Every team's LBs drop back once the ball is snapped (vs GB), or at least I'd assume so. As people have mentioned, I don't get to watch every game. That doesn't by itself explain why Grant has had success and Jackson hasn't. I certainly feel more confident in Grant now and have no worries that Brand Jackson is going to take any meaningful carries from him. If you don't need a 15 paragraph breakdown on why Grant was effective, skip it and move on. If you want to critique what you feel are worthless postings, please start with something that is actually useless. For example, your response to the OP.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In FBG's Dynasty Rankings, Grant is rated extremely low, behind many backup RB's. I'm not sure that should be the case.

 
timschochet said:
Didn't cost me anything.
I believe that, in order to be gramatically correct, your supposed to say"Don't cost nuthin"(and grab a brew while your at it!)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In FBG's Dynasty Rankings, Grant is rated extremely low, behind many backup RB's. I'm not sure that should be the case.
Dynasty wise though it's still a little early...
Bloom and Tefertiller don't even have him ranked, while players like Michael Pittman, Greg Jones, Michael Bennett, and Mike Bell all make the cut. Choosing one of those guys over a young back that currently has a firm grasp on a starting position doesn't seem like anything other than a mistake to me.
 
In FBG's Dynasty Rankings, Grant is rated extremely low, behind many backup RB's. I'm not sure that should be the case.
Dynasty wise though it's still a little early...
Bloom and Tefertiller don't even have him ranked, while players like Michael Pittman, Greg Jones, Michael Bennett, and Mike Bell all make the cut. Choosing one of those guys over a young back that currently has a firm grasp on a starting position doesn't seem like anything other than a mistake to me.
The same "fim grasp" Gado had on the starters job when he scored 3 TDs in a game against ATL?Settle down.
 
In FBG's Dynasty Rankings, Grant is rated extremely low, behind many backup RB's. I'm not sure that should be the case.
Dynasty wise though it's still a little early...
Bloom and Tefertiller don't even have him ranked, while players like Michael Pittman, Greg Jones, Michael Bennett, and Mike Bell all make the cut. Choosing one of those guys over a young back that currently has a firm grasp on a starting position doesn't seem like anything other than a mistake to me.
The same "fim grasp" Gado had on the starters job when he scored 3 TDs in a game against ATL?Settle down.
There is a difference, though. They're winning. When you're a losing team, nearly all positions are up for grabs unless there is a superstar. On the other hand, when a team is winning, you tend to keep the very good players in their positions.The only way that Grant is not the starter next year, barring injury, is that Green Bay either drafts or trades for a RB of equal or superior value. Since they have greater needs in other areas, I doubt this will now be the case. I think Grant's there at least through next year.
 
In FBG's Dynasty Rankings, Grant is rated extremely low, behind many backup RB's. I'm not sure that should be the case.
Dynasty wise though it's still a little early...
Bloom and Tefertiller don't even have him ranked, while players like Michael Pittman, Greg Jones, Michael Bennett, and Mike Bell all make the cut. Choosing one of those guys over a young back that currently has a firm grasp on a starting position doesn't seem like anything other than a mistake to me.
The same "fim grasp" Gado had on the starters job when he scored 3 TDs in a game against ATL?Settle down.
There is a difference, though. They're winning. When you're a losing team, nearly all positions are up for grabs unless there is a superstar. On the other hand, when a team is winning, you tend to keep the very good players in their positions.The only way that Grant is not the starter next year, barring injury, is that Green Bay either drafts or trades for a RB of equal or superior value. Since they have greater needs in other areas, I doubt this will now be the case. I think Grant's there at least through next year.
If he goes out this week, runs 12 times for 15 yards, the packers lose, how firm will his grip be?He has no grip. They've had 5 different starting RBs. If Grant even FUMBLES once in the RZ, he's probably benched. He has no job security. You're fooling yourself.
 
In FBG's Dynasty Rankings, Grant is rated extremely low, behind many backup RB's. I'm not sure that should be the case.
Dynasty wise though it's still a little early...
Bloom and Tefertiller don't even have him ranked, while players like Michael Pittman, Greg Jones, Michael Bennett, and Mike Bell all make the cut. Choosing one of those guys over a young back that currently has a firm grasp on a starting position doesn't seem like anything other than a mistake to me.
The same "fim grasp" Gado had on the starters job when he scored 3 TDs in a game against ATL?Settle down.
There is a difference, though. They're winning. When you're a losing team, nearly all positions are up for grabs unless there is a superstar. On the other hand, when a team is winning, you tend to keep the very good players in their positions.The only way that Grant is not the starter next year, barring injury, is that Green Bay either drafts or trades for a RB of equal or superior value. Since they have greater needs in other areas, I doubt this will now be the case. I think Grant's there at least through next year.
If he goes out this week, runs 12 times for 15 yards, the packers lose, how firm will his grip be?He has no grip. They've had 5 different starting RBs. If Grant even FUMBLES once in the RZ, he's probably benched. He has no job security. You're fooling yourself.
even if he does that, he's going to play ahead of Jackson (sucks), Morency (injured and injury prone) and Wynn (on IR IIRC)
 
In FBG's Dynasty Rankings, Grant is rated extremely low, behind many backup RB's. I'm not sure that should be the case.
Dynasty wise though it's still a little early...
Bloom and Tefertiller don't even have him ranked, while players like Michael Pittman, Greg Jones, Michael Bennett, and Mike Bell all make the cut. Choosing one of those guys over a young back that currently has a firm grasp on a starting position doesn't seem like anything other than a mistake to me.
The same "fim grasp" Gado had on the starters job when he scored 3 TDs in a game against ATL?Settle down.
:own3d: His grasp on the starting job is certainly a lot stronger than any back who is currently not starting other than a few injured ones. You can't argue with production, especially against the Vikings defense. Perhaps he's getting those yards because other teams are overplaying the pass, but does it matter why he gets the yards as long as he's getting them? He's been far more consistent than any back that started for the Packers before him this year, and there's no reason to think he's not the odds-on favorite to hold the job into next year barring a newcomer.

I don't think he's the long-term answer, but with every week that goes by short term slowly turns into long term. Next year he'll certainly have to deal with Wynn's return, but considering that he's clearly outproduced Wynn to this point, I'd say Grant's still favored over him. I'd put the odds at 30% Grant still has the job, 15% Wynn comes back and takes it back, 5% they decide to see what they have in Brandon Jackson, and 50% a draft pick or free agent becomes the new starter. Those are just approximations, but I don't think they're that far off, and I don't see how Grant can have less value than at least 20-30 of the backs on the dynasty rankings given those probabilities.

 
RB starters that I think are more secure than Grant

SD

KC

MIN

STL

PIT

IND

BAL

DAL

NYG

MIA

BUF

SF

DET

JAX

WAS

ARI

NYJ

NO

NE

PHI

RB starters that I think are less secure than Grant

CHI

SEA

ATL

CAR

DEN

OAK

TB

TEN

CIN

HOU

CLE

Edit to MCguidance and anyone else: I'm speaking more long term, through the end of this year into next year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RB starters that I think are more secure than Grant

SD

KC - LJ hurt, Priest, 34, in; Smith unproven

MIN - ADP Hurt

STL - Sjax injured this year; sign of things to come?

PIT

IND

BAL

DAL - rbbc (JJ FA)

NYG - BJ running style

MIA - RBrown hurt, Chatman starter

BUF - Lynch Hurt

SF - O is deplorable, Gore injury prone

DET - Lis Franc; reaggravated?

JAX - rbbc

WAS

ARI

NYJ - as a homer, who knows?

NO - bush by default, bringing in someone to bang within the tackles?

NE - is anyone ever secure; maroney HAS ZERO TDS

PHI

RB starters that I think are less secure than Grant

CHI -

SEA - writing off SA already?

ATL - Dunn coming on/ Norwood waiting in the wings

CAR - DW is there, just waiting for full load

DEN

OAK

TB - Graham has done a nice job, no?

TEN - LenDale? Isnt he number one?

CIN - rbbc, but one of them is secure

HOU

CLE
Now I am not here to get mired in a debate, but merely to indicate that the strong RB teams are not as solidified as you think; the weak or less secure teams are not as bad as you think. Just a thought, feel free to rip apart.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now here is the Footballguys discussion: they all seem to like Grant, though not as much as I do:

[sorry, that was too much of an excerpt of our subscriber content to post. Added a link to the subscriber article for those interested.]
Jene, you say you added a link here, but I don't see it.
 
Now here is the Footballguys discussion: they all seem to like Grant, though not as much as I do:

[sorry, that was too much of an excerpt of our subscriber content to post. Added a link to the subscriber article for those interested.]
Sorry everybody, I forgot that not everyone here is a subscriber.I do recommend you subscribe to the site, it's money very well spent, especially for topics such as this one- it was part of a "Staff Roundtable" discussion that also included discussion of Selvin Young, Justin Fargas and other topics. Excellent, detailed analysis.

 
In FBG's Dynasty Rankings, Grant is rated extremely low, behind many backup RB's. I'm not sure that should be the case.
Dynasty wise though it's still a little early...
There are career mediocrities ranked ahead of him. There are rookies who have played less than Grant has, or not at all, ranked ahead of him. Regardless of whether he keeps the Green Bay starting job or not, a young guy like Grant with the talent to revitalize a dormant Green Bay rushing attack is worth more in a dynasty league than are quite a number of those listed ahead of him.
 
In FBG's Dynasty Rankings, Grant is rated extremely low, behind many backup RB's. I'm not sure that should be the case.
Dynasty wise though it's still a little early...
Bloom and Tefertiller don't even have him ranked, while players like Michael Pittman, Greg Jones, Michael Bennett, and Mike Bell all make the cut. Choosing one of those guys over a young back that currently has a firm grasp on a starting position doesn't seem like anything other than a mistake to me.
I have to question these rankings as well.The time to jump on the Ryan Grant is now.By the time Bloom and Terf have these guys ranked where they should be,the cost of acquiring them will unfortunately be much higher..
 
Ron_Mexico said:
snorlax said:
In FBG's Dynasty Rankings, Grant is rated extremely low, behind many backup RB's. I'm not sure that should be the case.
Dynasty wise though it's still a little early...
Bloom and Tefertiller don't even have him ranked, while players like Michael Pittman, Greg Jones, Michael Bennett, and Mike Bell all make the cut. Choosing one of those guys over a young back that currently has a firm grasp on a starting position doesn't seem like anything other than a mistake to me.
I have to question these rankings as well.The time to jump on the Ryan Grant is now.By the time Bloom and Terf have these guys ranked where they should be,the cost of acquiring them will unfortunately be much higher..
Sorry about the oversight folks. The price for Grant is at least a first round pick right now.
 
Ron_Mexico said:
snorlax said:
In FBG's Dynasty Rankings, Grant is rated extremely low, behind many backup RB's. I'm not sure that should be the case.
Dynasty wise though it's still a little early...
Bloom and Tefertiller don't even have him ranked, while players like Michael Pittman, Greg Jones, Michael Bennett, and Mike Bell all make the cut. Choosing one of those guys over a young back that currently has a firm grasp on a starting position doesn't seem like anything other than a mistake to me.
I have to question these rankings as well.The time to jump on the Ryan Grant is now.By the time Bloom and Terf have these guys ranked where they should be,the cost of acquiring them will unfortunately be much higher..
Sorry about the oversight folks. The price for Grant is at least a first round pick right now.
# 23 Ryan Grant dominating the chartson his maiden voyage. :)
 
Ron_Mexico said:
snorlax said:
In FBG's Dynasty Rankings, Grant is rated extremely low, behind many backup RB's. I'm not sure that should be the case.
Dynasty wise though it's still a little early...
Bloom and Tefertiller don't even have him ranked, while players like Michael Pittman, Greg Jones, Michael Bennett, and Mike Bell all make the cut. Choosing one of those guys over a young back that currently has a firm grasp on a starting position doesn't seem like anything other than a mistake to me.
I have to question these rankings as well.The time to jump on the Ryan Grant is now.By the time Bloom and Terf have these guys ranked where they should be,the cost of acquiring them will unfortunately be much higher..
It seems it's already a high price in redraft or dynasty. A true featured back that catches passes on a very good team is not easily pried from an owner, regardless of his age. What would you think would be fair as an owner of Grant for a trade? With all of the injuries and the playoffs rapidly approaching, I would think it would take a very good offer to snatch him away. In dynasty I tried R.Curry and a 2nd rounder for him and got shot down faster than T.Henry's bid to be a spokesman for Planned Parenthood. Unless the Pack start having troubles running again and/ or Grant starts fumbling, I see him as the WW gem of the year with the lack of quality RB's out there.
 
Ron_Mexico said:
snorlax said:
In FBG's Dynasty Rankings, Grant is rated extremely low, behind many backup RB's. I'm not sure that should be the case.
Dynasty wise though it's still a little early...
Bloom and Tefertiller don't even have him ranked, while players like Michael Pittman, Greg Jones, Michael Bennett, and Mike Bell all make the cut. Choosing one of those guys over a young back that currently has a firm grasp on a starting position doesn't seem like anything other than a mistake to me.
I have to question these rankings as well.The time to jump on the Ryan Grant is now.By the time Bloom and Terf have these guys ranked where they should be,the cost of acquiring them will unfortunately be much higher..
It seems it's already a high price in redraft or dynasty. A true featured back that catches passes on a very good team is not easily pried from an owner, regardless of his age. What would you think would be fair as an owner of Grant for a trade? With all of the injuries and the playoffs rapidly approaching, I would think it would take a very good offer to snatch him away. In dynasty I tried R.Curry and a 2nd rounder for him and got shot down faster than T.Henry's bid to be a spokesman for Planned Parenthood. Unless the Pack start having troubles running again and/ or Grant starts fumbling, I see him as the WW gem of the year with the lack of quality RB's out there.
It's difficult to gauge his value, I agree.I owned him earlier in the year, I relectantly droppedhim, and paid the price. I got him back after his week 9 gamefor Ronald Curry, Craig Davis, a 3rd and a 4th. I thought it was a lot to payat the time but it's a RB heavy league and I wanted him back..
 
Have any of you seen this kid play? He is far, far, far from anything special. He is not fast or shifty and he runs in a straight line.

Look, any RB can run through big holes, and maybe there will be a lot of them with teams watching out for Favre, but Grant is not the kind of player who will make anything happen on his own.

Flame away.

 
Have any of you seen this kid play? He is far, far, far from anything special. He is not fast or shifty and he runs in a straight line. Look, any RB can run through big holes, and maybe there will be a lot of them with teams watching out for Favre, but Grant is not the kind of player who will make anything happen on his own.Flame away.
:no: Sure... any RB can run through big holes, RBs like Morency, Wynn and Brandon Jackson ?
 
Have any of you seen this kid play? He is far, far, far from anything special. He is not fast or shifty and he runs in a straight line. Look, any RB can run through big holes, and maybe there will be a lot of them with teams watching out for Favre, but Grant is not the kind of player who will make anything happen on his own.Flame away.
:no: Benson would be a top 5 back in GB
 
Because the Vikings’ entire defensive game plan was to stop the Packers’ passing game. All game long, the Vikings came out in defensive alignments that made clear that they thought their best chance was not to let Brett Favre beat them deep.

Thanks for the "breakdown" Football Outsiders. I hope your not paying for this info.
Seriously, shut up. It was a good read.
 
From Football Outsiders:On paper, the Packers’ run offense against the Vikings’ run defense looked like a mismatch. Heading into Sunday’s game, the Vikings ranked second in the league in run defense DVOA, at –32.2%. The Packers ranked 16th in the league in run offense, at –7.5%. Ryan Grant, who had 186 rushing yards in his career heading into Sunday’s game, started at running back for the Packers. But if it was a mismatch in the Vikings’ favor on paper, it was a mismatch in the Packers’ favor on the field.
dvoa works well here
 
Here is some more interesting stuff on this from Football Outsiders:

While watching Green Bay demolish Minnesota this week, I was very impressed at the ability of the Packers’ offensive line to create holes for former Giants fourth-string back Ryan Grant to run through. When that hole was created, Grant looked every bit the legitimate NFL running back, running with authority and one simple rule: Get to the outside, away from where the Williams lie. That was only furthered once the Packers ran their second shovel pass of the afternoon and Pat Williams pretty much enveloped Grant, but Grant did a very nice job.

I was even more impressed when I considered the quality of the Vikings’ rush defense. Even after last week’s performance, their rushing defense DVOA is a miserly -32.2%, now second in the league behind Baltimore. In the entire DVOA era, that would put the 2007 Vikings rush defense seventh overall. So then, when you take a team that’s been last in the league in raw rushing yardage for most of the year and see their afterthought of a running back go for 119 yards on 4.8 yards per carry, well, it’s time to start doing some research.

In the essay I wrote on fantasy matchups in this year’s book, I explained how matchups had a real effect on fantasy players that ranged anywhere from 15 percent to 33 percent, depending upon the position and intensity of the matchup. The essay unfortunately predicted Alex Smith would outscore Carson Palmer in Week 1, but overall, it’s been pretty accurate when selecting which players to recommend or avoid in my Rotoworld column each week.

Using some of that data, let’s drill down on running backs against those elite-level run defenses, and see how they perform and how unexpected Grant’s performance was on Sunday.

First, to define the dataset, I’ll be looking at the performance of every game where a running back carried the ball 15 or more times from 1996 to 2006, for a total of 3,939 games. Limiting the elite-level defenses to those with a DVOA greater than the Vikings presents serious sample-size issues, so we’ll instead go with an admittedly arbitrary figure of ten percentage points below the Vikings figure, at -22.2% and worse.

There’s a dramatic difference in performance when looking at those elite defenses versus the others, as you might expect. The average running back with 15-plus carries averages just over 15 fantasy points per game in a non-point per reception league against any given defense. Against the elite-level defenses, that falls to 12.3 fantasy points per game, a difference of 18 percent. Grant put up 19.9 fantasy points last week.

Where the difference is more dramatic is in rushing yards. Against the average defense, a runner with 15 or more carries in a game averages 4.18 yards per carry. When those runners come up against the elite defenses, they average 3.16 yards per carry, a full yard lower. Grant averaged 4.8 yards on 25 carries; only 10 of the 110 performances that qualified against the best rush defenses could do better than that.

So then, now that we’ve compiled the data, here’s a list of arguably the most interesting fantasy rushing performances of the era against elite defenses:

1. Steven Jackson, 2006 Week 17, St. Louis vs. Minnesota: I’d argue this one shouldn’t count. It was a meaningless game between two teams who’d been eliminated from playoff contention played in front of a half-empty stadium. It’s also an incredible outlier — Jackson ran for 142 yards, averaged 5.7 yards per carry, and scored four times en route to 40.6 fantasy points; no one else has put up more than 29.6 against defenses of this caliber. The record books count it, though, so it has to be the most impressive performance of the era.

2. Priest Holmes, 2001 Weeks 5 and 8, Kansas City vs. Pittsburgh and San Diego: Back in the glory days of Holmes and the Chiefs’ offensive line, Priest put up mammoth days against both these teams — 331 yards and three scores on 50 carries in the two games combined. Outside of these two games and the Jackson one, the yardage numbers are way down for the rest of these running backs — Larry Johnson has one 120-yard day, Jamal Lewis has a 116-yard day, and no one else can get above 105 yards or so against these elite defenses, no matter how many carries they get.

3. Stephen Davis, 2000 Week 6, Washington vs. Baltimore: Davis’ numbers on the day don’t seem that great: 21 carries for 91 yards with five receiving yards and one touchdown is, really, no big whoop — that is, until you consider that Davis was playing the absurdist Ravens rush defense that put up a -41.3% rushing DVOA against that year. The average yards per carry for the other guys brave enough to run 15 times against the Ravens that year: 2.87, 3.18, 2.94, 2.61, 3.61, 2.75, and 1.44. That makes Davis’ 4.3 look like yeoman’s work.

4. Bam Morris, 1998 Week 12, Kansas City vs. San Diego: Morris gets this for the absolute ugliness of his real-life line as opposed to his rather successful fantasy line: 23 carries, 39 yards, 3 touchdowns. He also threw in two receptions for zero yards in what must’ve been a glorious day for his DPAR. Sometimes, it’s easy to understand why some people hate fantasy football.

5. Eddie George, 1998 Week 2, Tennessee vs. San Diego: This line actually happened before the Curse of 370, but it would sure fit in as a post-peak George line, too: 15 carries, 11 yards. How is that even possible? It’s beautiful and impossible. I get the feeling a montage of George’s runs in this game would make a great Youtube clip.

 
Have any of you seen this kid play? He is far, far, far from anything special. He is not fast or shifty and he runs in a straight line. Look, any RB can run through big holes, and maybe there will be a lot of them with teams watching out for Favre, but Grant is not the kind of player who will make anything happen on his own.Flame away.
:wall: Benson would be a top 5 back in GB
I wouldn't go that far. Grant lacks cutback ability and a lot of his success is due to his situation (O-Line, Favre)but he hits the hole hard and runs hard and I'm not sure anybody says that about Benson.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top