If I had to take 5 players back from IR, it would go like this:
Grant
Finley
Jolly
Neal
And if we had these four players we would be nasty.
If I had to take 5 players back from IR, it would go like this:
Grant
Finley
Jolly
Neal
And if we had these four players we would be nasty.
Jolly got injured on suspension?Originally Posted by JustinHarrell
Seriously, though - you would take Grant over Finley. Really? Did you notice other teams were game planning for Finley and not so much for Grant?
I don't know. Losing Grant destroyed our run game. I know Finley is a better player. Jennings picked up the slack. Nobody picked up the slack left by Grant.
It hurt, but it didn't destroy anything. The 2010 Packers are rushing for 14 less yards per game than the 2009 Packers with Grant.
Really?? Wow.
No longer the member of any fan clubs. I'm tired of jinxing players out of the league and into obscurity.
He is messing with your head. 14 yards per game is more than you think. The 2009 version of the Packers had 230 more yards after 15 games. It averaged 4.3 yards per carry versus 2010's 3.9. And Rodgers has also had more attempts and yards per game this year. Its a bad thing when the QB has to make up for some of the run game.
And 14 additional yards per game would move the Packers from 22nd this year to 13th in yards per game.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
A better comparison to last year would be the frequency of the run game. What percentage of plays were runs vs. passes last year. How about this year?
Or even better, how often are we able to use play action this year compared to last?
Losing Grant was teh bigger loss because without a run game half the playbook is irrelevant since you can't use it anyway. Finley's strength was attacking the safeties. He'd be a real asset Sunday against the Bears Tampa-2 defense. He's a bigger playmaker than Grant, but not quite as important to the efficiency of our offense. We'd like to be a passing team, but that's not as easy without a complementary run game. A steady run game is the catalyst for this offense. Losing Grant is the far bigger blow IMO.
Chuck Norris doesn't cut his grass, he just stares at it and dares it to grow
How about comparing the number of sacks - doesn't the run game prevent sacks? Finley was being game-planned for - a guy dedicated over the top and underneath help. he was a mismatch for both LBs, Corners, and Safeties. If Grant were some world-beater running back, I'd say losing him was a big deal. If the Packers had an O-line that could efficiently run block, I'd also say it was a big deal. Look who the Patriots trot out there to run the ball and how often they run it. Just enough to keep the defense honest. Also, with Finley in there, the Packers would likely have
huge gaps in the run game simple due to Finley being able to clear out a LB and Safety. I'd much rather have Finley back than Grant. Much more dangerous weapon, teams have to gameplan, he alters the entire defensive scheme. All that, versus Grant, who can run downhill a little bit. If you notice in 2008, with Grant, but not an up-to-speed Finley, a lot of teams were only playing 7 in the box, defending the pass, daring the Packers to run. Not as though they feared the running of Grant, eh?
It was easy to do that early in the season since we would line up in shotgun, empty backfield, half the time.
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote