Great article on insider

[bobblehead]

I can't link, since its subscription, and I can't copy, but I can paraphrase what a coach told Cliff Christl.

Grant lacks vision and cut ability and is basically just a guy. We could pick up a lot of guys off the street to do what he does. (were you one of the rats who was demanding TT pay him?).

Questioned whether campen was the OLines problem. Said 6 of 28 run plays were blocked well. Every week we turn a guy into a pro bowler. Little had 2 sacks in the first quarter and we can only get 3 guys in patterns cuz the OLine is so bad. Said the pack tried to line up and play football for two series and found out they couldn't. Had to roll ARod out constantly.

Said Rodgers is tough as nails and playing well. The big plays show he and the recievers are doing pretty good. (he didn't mention the gimme drops in recent weeks). Also said kuhn had a good game, but still never destroys anyone in blocking, simply stalemates them.

Said our Nose can't demand a double, and hawk and barnett can't get off blocks very well. Said kampman often looks lost and Clay Mathews is going to be a real player in a year. Said hawk is never going to be good in the passing game and Bishop made some plays in the limited time he was given.

Said the secondary has no depth. We get problems at safety and Chillar ends up playing there. Chillar lost a footrace for a touchdown covering a guy he shouldn't be covering (ha, you were wrong waldo, chillar is no safety at all). Actually the guy said chillar played pretty well there overall, but it was a tough position to put him in covering TE's man to man.

Mentioned that we still don't seem to hear Al Harris' name....which is good for a CB.

I liked the article, it actually mirrored the packerrats boards. Seems the bunch of us have some knowledge and read what is happening similar to a guy who for whatever reason they decided to interview.

[CaptainKickass]

What coach?

[Fritz]

"Seems the bunch of us have some knowledge and read what is happening similar to a guy who for whatever reason they decided to interview."

So when the papers did interviews with "a scout from an opposing team" or "a respected NFC personnel man," and said the Packers look like a real force, are adapting well to the 3-4, look like the o-line is maturing, and all of that during the pre-season, does that mean others of us "have some knowledge" that you didn't? I don't think so.

Just because some anonymous interviewee agrees with some of the things you're saying doesn't mean you "have some knowledge" that others don't. It means you have a different point of view.

And you could be right. Or wrong. But one interview doesn't validate your point of view and turn it into "knowledge."

[bobblehead]

What coach?

Eric Baranczyk, he was a coach and player at UW La Crosse. Not sure how brilliant he is though, he is coaching in high school now. But I did like most of his observations.

[bobblehead]

"Seems the bunch of us have some knowledge and read what is happening similar to a guy who for whatever reason they decided to interview."

So when the papers did interviews with "a scout from an opposing team" or "a respected NFC personnel man," and said the Packers look like a real force, are adapting well to the 3-4, look like the o-line is maturing, and all of that during the pre-season, does that mean others of us "have some knowledge" that you didn't? I don't think so.

Just because some anonymous interviewee agrees with some of the things you're saying doesn't mean you "have some knowledge" that others don't. It means you have a different point of view.

And you could be right. Or wrong. But one interview doesn't validate your point of view and turn it into "knowledge."

I wasn't tooting my own horn...I meant WE have some knowledge. I'm not the one who has been anti Barnett, but many have and this guy agrees. I also have some egg on my face as I thought out OLine was going to be pretty good, but others were proven right in that they are playing for shit.

When I said a bunch of us, I meant the board as a whole, not myself. The only thing I feel very vindicated on at the moment is that paying Grant after his 8 good games was a bad idea. Otherwise, this team is proving me wrong at every turn. I hope we turn it around against the purple wave, but we are looking like we are going to get killed atm.

[Partial]

I was preaching that Grant sucks in the game thread. Everyone got on top of me in a mean, vicious way telling me how wrong and dumb I was. Turns out the professionals and I see eye to eye.

[Fritz]

"Seems the bunch of us have some knowledge and read what is happening similar to a guy who for whatever reason they decided to interview."

So when the papers did interviews with "a scout from an opposing team" or "a respected NFC personnel man," and said the Packers look like a real force, are adapting well to the 3-4, look like the o-line is maturing, and all of that during the pre-season, does that mean others of us "have some knowledge" that you didn't? I don't think so.

Just because some anonymous interviewee agrees with some of the things you're saying doesn't mean you "have some knowledge" that others don't. It means you have a different point of view.

And you could be right. Or wrong. But one interview doesn't validate your point of view and turn it into "knowledge."

I wasn't tooting my own horn...I meant WE have some knowledge. I'm not the one who has been anti Barnett, but many have and this guy agrees. I also have some egg on my face as I thought out OLine was going to be pretty good, but others were proven right in that they are playing for shit.

When I said a bunch of us, I meant the board as a whole, not myself. The only thing I feel very vindicated on at the moment is that paying Grant after his 8 good games was a bad idea. Otherwise, this team is proving me wrong at every turn. I hope we turn it around against the purple wave, but we are looking like we are going to get killed atm.

Then I misinterpreted your post. Doh!

[Fritz]

I was preaching that Grant sucks in the game thread. Everyone got on top of me in a mean, vicious way telling me how wrong and dumb I was. Turns out the professionals and I see eye to eye.

I apologize to Bobble head for my misinterpretation of his post. However, I reiterate my point but I direct it to Partial:



"Seems the bunch of us have some knowledge and read what is happening similar to a guy who for whatever reason they decided to interview."

So when the papers did interviews with "a scout from an opposing team" or "a respected NFC personnel man," and said the Packers look like a real force, are adapting well to the 3-4, look like the o-line is maturing, and all of that during the pre-season, does that mean others of us "have some knowledge" that you didn't? I don't think so.

Just because some anonymous interviewee agrees with some of the things you're saying doesn't mean you "have some knowledge" that others don't. It means you have a different point of view.

And you could be right. Or wrong. But one interview doesn't validate your point of view and turn it into "knowledge."

[Cheesehead Craig]

What coach?

Eric Baranczyk, he was a coach and player at UW La Crosse. Not sure how brilliant he is though, he is coaching in high school now. But I did like most of his observations.

So some HS coach starts talking about the Packers and suddenly it's gospel? This is ridiculous.

[Waldo]

We get problems at safety and Chillar ends up playing there. Chillar lost a footrace for a touchdown covering a guy he shouldn't be covering (ha, you were wrong waldo, chillar is no safety at all). Actually the guy said chillar played pretty well there overall, but it was a tough position to put him in covering TE's man to man.

You don't see the coaches getting Bishop in the game by playing him at S.

Did I not suggest just last week that Chillar could play SS on base downs and ILB on pass downs?

I guess the coaches see him the same way I do. :wink:

Why shouldn't Chillar be covering a backup TE? That is normal for LB's.

Face it, Chillar got burned, he had a crap game. It happens.

[PlantPage55]

I disagree with him heavily on Pickett. Pickett has been doing an above average job, IMO.

[PackerTimer]

I was preaching that Grant sucks in the game thread. Everyone got on top of me in a mean, vicious way telling me how wrong and dumb I was. Turns out the professionals and I see eye to eye.

Since when have high school coaches become professionals.

[PackerTimer]

What coach?

Eric Baranczyk, he was a coach and player at UW La Crosse. Not sure how brilliant he is though, he is coaching in high school now. But I did like most of his observations.

So some HS coach starts talking about the Packers and suddenly it's gospel? This is ridiculous.

Yeah some high school hack is dead on re Grant, Pickett, Hawk, Barnett, etc, but our coaches, what the hell do they know?

[Cleft Crusty]

Every week my doppelganger over at the UrinalScented interviews a high school football coach for his insights into the professional game of football. Let's think about this. A retired columnist conveys the ramblings of your high school coach who apparently is incapable of writing and/or using a word processor. And we're supposed to think this is great insight? Maybe next the UrinalScented can go and interview a mechanic down at Earl's garage for insight into how GM can improve their assembly plant in Lordstown, OH.

[HarveyWallbangers]

What coach?

Eric Baranczyk, he was a coach and player at UW La Crosse. Not sure how brilliant he is though, he is coaching in high school now. But I did like most of his observations.

Not to rain on this parade, but I was thoroughly unimpressed with Baranczyk when I had JSO Insider.

[Waldo]

From what I've seen, Pickett has been doing well.

Here is the play that I've seen us struggle against:

When they try to single block Pickett and run through the A gaps, he makes the play. When they single block Pickett and run off tackle, we're giving up bigger runs.

That hopefully will be corrected in time. As they trust a single blocked Pickett to make the play in the middle, watching the G's immediately head for the second level should be a key for the S's to head for the flats, don't worry about the middle.

Our S's have been late getting to the edges (especially the SS's).

And dammit, Poppinga has broken outside contain way too many times this year. Every single time he was left completely unblocked, the play went the other way, he chased it, the back cut back and had daylight. Our long run of the year....20 yards by SJ around the defensive right corner, 100% Pops fault. Clay should be starting, he has the speed to make up for that, he can win a quick burst footrace with most elite RB's. Plus he hasn't been nearly as poorly out of position.

Against AD, I really hope Clay plays all snaps, only our DB's are faster than Clay in a short burst (man is it noticable on the field too, that kid can fly); against a speedy back like AD, speed is a necessity.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Grant lacks vision and cut ability and is basically just a guy. We could pick up a lot of guys off the street to do what he does.

Grant is nothing special as a #1 back, He'd be a #2 on many teams.
But he's certainly the best back the packers have been able to draft or sign for three years, so he's not chopped liver as Coach Cleats suggests.


Questioned whether campen was the OLines problem. Said 6 of 28 run plays were blocked well.

I got confused by this, I thought your first sentence meant that Coach was defending Campen. I guess he is on the dump Campen bandwagon.

Hell, who among us is qualified to say whether the problem with the Oline is with coaching or TT's talent eye? Maybe Cleff Crusty, but that's it.


Said the secondary has no depth.

No shit, Sherlock. Except I got no problem with Williams at #3 corner, if he considers the nickle "depth."

[HarveyWallbangers]

Questioned whether campen was the OLines problem. Said 6 of 28 run plays were blocked well.

I got confused by this, I thought your first sentence meant that Coach was defending Campen. I guess he is on the dump Campen bandwagon.

Hell, who among us is qualified to say whether the problem with the Oline is with coaching or TT's talent eye? Maybe Cleff Crusty, but that's it.

Here is his quote:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/62487892.html


Eric Baranczyk provides his analysis (again on Insider): "I can't believe that the Packers can't get that offensive line with all the second-, third- and fourth-round draft picks they have and the experience some of those guys have now to be more technically sound and to play at a higher level. Out of the 28 carries by running backs, I counted six that were blocked well and most of those were in the fourth quarter. A lot of times coaches have to try and overcome lousy talent; but it's also true that sometimes players have to overcome lousy coaching."

[SkinBasket]

I was preaching that Grant sucks in the game thread. Everyone got on top of me in a mean, vicious way telling me how wrong and dumb I was. Turns out the professionals and I see eye to eye.

From the way this thread is going, I don't think you want to align yourself with this guy, Partial.

Also, where should we FedEx the box of tissues to?

[hoosier]

I was preaching that Grant sucks in the game thread. Everyone got on top of me in a mean, vicious way telling me how wrong and dumb I was. Turns out the professionals and I see eye to eye.

In another thread you wrote that you would be turning over a new leaf and no longer engaging in uncivil back and forths with other posters. If I can offer you some unsolicited advice, it would be that reminding others that you were right and they were wrong is equally unproductive. The same goes for rehashing how everyone else in the forum wronged you. Just let the evidence speak for itself.

[mraynrand]

Turns out the professionals....


Here he is, Eric Baranczyk:professional assistant high school coach
http://graphics2.jsonline.com/graphics/packer/img/insider/sep05/eric.jpg

[cheesner]

I can't link, since its subscription, and I can't copy, but I can paraphrase what a coach told Cliff Christl.

Grant lacks vision and cut ability and is basically just a guy. We could pick up a lot of guys off the street to do what he does. (were you one of the rats who was demanding TT pay him?).

Nope.

But I am one of those who thinks Christl should have retired about 20 years ago. He does not have a deep understanding of football and appears to loathe the Packers - always wanting to put an underlying tone of contempt for the players, coaches, and the management. He typically takes a negative slant on all of his articles.

[mraynrand]

I can't link, since its subscription, and I can't copy, but I can paraphrase what a coach told Cliff Christl.

Grant lacks vision and cut ability and is basically just a guy. We could pick up a lot of guys off the street to do what he does. (were you one of the rats who was demanding TT pay him?).

Nope.

But I am one of those who thinks Christl should have retired about 20 years ago. He does not have a deep understanding of football and appears to loathe the Packers - always wanting to put an underlying tone of contempt for the players, coaches, and the management. He typically takes a negative slant on all of his articles.

The article in question isn't by Cristl - he is channeling the thoughts of a professional assistant high school football coach who can't write.

[cheesner]

We get problems at safety and Chillar ends up playing there. Chillar lost a footrace for a touchdown covering a guy he shouldn't be covering (ha, you were wrong waldo, chillar is no safety at all). Actually the guy said chillar played pretty well there overall, but it was a tough position to put him in covering TE's man to man.

You don't see the coaches getting Bishop in the game by playing him at S.

Did I not suggest just last week that Chillar could play SS on base downs and ILB on pass downs?

I guess the coaches see him the same way I do. :wink:


In all due respect, Waldo, who would you rather agree with you:

- a staff of NFL coaches for a team who are not even in first place in their division
- or a man who has risen thru the ranks to the highest position an assistant coach can aspire to (in the ENTIRE school district) for a team that is the reigning conference champions? They beat Spooner 26-7 you know.

[Waldo]

I wonder what his night job is, bartender? Perhaps where Cliffy likes to hang out?

The Urinal could have a couple of guys that they pay $20 a week to give them some game notes. Guys the reporters met at the bar that seemed to know something about football. As employees of the paper (even as contractors), a title would have to be assigned. Like scout. The reporters could then quote them or paraphrase them, and refer to them as scouts, and be legit. Misleading, they aren't really people employed by teams to grade players, but scouts nonetheless. Sad but true.

And I've always been under the impression that when they quote "scouts", they don't know shit about football and fixate on the type of shit that a scout wouldn't fixate on. Cliche type stuff. And the same stuff that the broadcasters latched on to. Like they were watching broadcast tape and not coaches tape (which a legit scout would surely have access to). That the scouts they quote really are just some Joe Schmos they met, that thy pay a couple bucks for their effort and the ability to call them scout.

Did anyone perhaps read that article that quoted some scouts saying that Colledge can't play LT because he isn't athletic enough. :lol:

Athleticism is surely not DC's problem.

[Sparkey]

...

[Tyrone Bigguns]

please tell me cheesner that you aren't suggesting Eric B is in anyway comparable with an NFL coach....fuck, the guy isn't even coaching D3 college ball.

[cheesner]

The article in question isn't by Cristl - he is channeling the thoughts of a professional assistant high school football coach who can't write.

I don't get insider, but my understanding is he wrote the article. Here is how his interview probably went:

CHRYSTL: How do you rate Ted Thompson?

Assist Coach: He is an excellent GM with fantastic skills. Makes great analysis and picks the right guy in the draft time and time again. And he is only going to get better as he learns all the nuances of his position. He may draft a clunker here an there, but they are usually high risk/reward picks and are worth it. Packers are fortunate to have him, the only GM I would like over TT is the guy from NE.

CHRYSTL (Writing notes): "TT needs to learn what he is doing. He drafts clunkers. Packers need to go after another GM - maybe guy from NE"

[cheesner]

please tell me cheesner that you aren't suggesting Eric B is in anyway comparable with an NFL coach....fuck, the guy isn't even coaching D3 college ball.

Anyone can coach college ball at the division 3 level.


We are talking Ashwaubenon High here. The big time.

[falco]

In another thread you wrote that you would be turning over a new leaf and no longer engaging in uncivil back and forths with other posters. If I can offer you some unsolicited advice, it would be that reminding others that you were right and they were wrong is equally unproductive. The same goes for rehashing how everyone else in the forum wronged you. Just let the evidence speak for itself.

just like a fat chick's diet, partials "new leaf" is always starting tomorrow.

[pbmax]

Grant lacks vision and cut ability and is basically just a guy. We could pick up a lot of guys off the street to do what he does. (were you one of the rats who was demanding TT pay him?).
He also speculates that this is not the same Grant as 2007, that all he can do is cut and run but he has no burst left. Speculation follows that he has lost some burst to the injury. As for Partial Says He Sucks < Just A Guy < Stephen Jackson (the point of comparison in the article), there is a lot of room between those three levels.


Said 6 of 28 run plays were blocked well.
His summation of the O Line only contained this revelation. He gives Barbre no credit for holding Little off during the sack when Rodgers held the ball for quite a long time. He pins the decision to chip Little with Lee to this problem, but I think they were in expanded protection before that sack. I could be wrong, don't have the tape.


Said our Nose can't demand a double, and hawk and barnett can't get off blocks very well. Said kampman often looks lost and Clay Mathews is going to be a real player in a year. Said hawk is never going to be good in the passing game and Bishop made some plays in the limited time he was given.
He did say this about Pickett and I agree. But Pickett is not asked to two gap every play, so it becomes a game to figure out what he is supposed to do and discern when he fails. Pickett has made good hay on a technique where he leverages his shoulder into the center and forces a stalemate with one free arm and leg to make a play. This clogs a gap and gives you half a nose to tackle with. That is progress I would think. Also, possibly, anatomically impossible.

He says Kampman looks "strange" with his back to the LOS "like a fish out of water". No specific criticism of him in coverage but he does say they lack a consistent pass rush from the OLBs, which I think is mostly correct.

[packerbacker1234]

Hard to say Grant sucks, then mention how only 6 runs wre actually blocked well.

Not only that, isn't he average 3.8 yards a carry? How is that bad? That means on three runs, he would average a first down.

So, I am a bit lost here.

[PlantPage55]

At least the scout isn't spouting the popular JSO comment section bullshit about how "TT has ignored building the line" - he sees how many upper draft picks have been added. Putting aside whether TT has hit on the picks or not - you can't say he has ignored the line. That is a lie.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I was preaching that Grant sucks in the game thread. Everyone got on top of me in a mean, vicious way telling me how wrong and dumb I was. Turns out the professionals and I see eye to eye.

While I said i was done with your trolling, Ty is going to take this opportunity to instruct you...in the hope that it will be constructive. Ty doubts it...prove Ty wrong.

1. You said he sucks. Eric said he is just a guy. There is a big difference between what you said and what he said. Now, perhaps your point woulda been made, you woulda seemed logical, and you wouldn't have inflamed everybody against you if you had simply said "grant is exceedingly average, pedestrian"....that is a more sane approach, and more accurate. Cause if Grant sucks..then what does Samkon Gado do?

2. The forum notes your ability to jump on Grant, yet the professional notes that the line only successfully blocked 6 out of 28 runs well. This would have been a perfect time for you to admit your assesment of the line was off...and that while Grant in your opinion was "average/pedestrian" he surely wasn't helped by the crappy job his line is doing. See, then you come across as fair..and you still get to promote Grant as average.

3. Now, we all see you noting the professional as credible to support your view of Grant. What we don't see is you now coming clean and noting the professional's opinion of Rodgers..which pretty much assails your viewpoint...playing well and tough as nails. No injury, no horrible...PLAYING WELL.

Now, you have a choice..you can act like partial 1.0 and continue to selectively pull info from a professional that agrees with you...or you can be partial 2.0 and say...hmm, if i'm going to use this guy...i gotta use all of him..cause if i don't, then i'm just bsing.

Your choice.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

please tell me cheesner that you aren't suggesting Eric B is in anyway comparable with an NFL coach....fuck, the guy isn't even coaching D3 college ball.

Anyone can coach college ball at the division 3 level.


We are talking Ashwaubenon High here. The big time.

D3 coaches can't even spell ashwa..."fuckit, i'm not recruiting the kid"

[pbmax]

Hard to say Grant sucks, then mention how only 6 runs wre actually blocked well.
It does mark the difference between Stephen Jackson and Grant. Jackson plays behind a line not much better (if at all), but often found a hole on his own.

There is no reason not to continue to look for RBs to supplant Grant. Contract or no, he is eminently replaceable.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hard to say Grant sucks, then mention how only 6 runs wre actually blocked well.
It does mark the difference between Stephen Jackson and Grant. Jackson plays behind a line not much better (if at all), but often found a hole on his own.

There is no reason not to continue to look for RBs to supplant Grant. Contract or no, he is eminently replaceable.

You are underestimating the Ram's line...which has more veterans on it. And, for what it's worth..more high picks.

[mraynrand]

please tell me cheesner that you aren't suggesting Eric B is in anyway comparable with an NFL coach....fuck, the guy isn't even coaching D3 college ball.

Anyone can coach college ball at the division 3 level.


We are talking Ashwaubenon High here. The big time.

D3 coaches can't even spell ashwa..."fuckit, i'm not recruiting the kid"

Assistant high school coaches can't spell - or write - either - that's why they have sort-of-retired columnists do it for them.

[Partial]

I was preaching that Grant sucks in the game thread. Everyone got on top of me in a mean, vicious way telling me how wrong and dumb I was. Turns out the professionals and I see eye to eye.

While I said i was done with your trolling, Ty is going to take this opportunity to instruct you...in the hope that it will be constructive. Ty doubts it...prove Ty wrong.

1. You said he sucks. Eric said he is just a guy. There is a big difference between what you said and what he said. Now, perhaps your point woulda been made, you woulda seemed logical, and you wouldn't have inflamed everybody against you if you had simply said "grant is exceedingly average, pedestrian"....that is a more sane approach, and more accurate. Cause if Grant sucks..then what does Samkon Gado do?

2. The forum notes your ability to jump on Grant, yet the professional notes that the line only successfully blocked 6 out of 28 runs well. This would have been a perfect time for you to admit your assesment of the line was off...and that while Grant in your opinion was "average/pedestrian" he surely wasn't helped by the crappy job his line is doing. See, then you come across as fair..and you still get to promote Grant as average.

3. Now, we all see you noting the professional as credible to support your view of Grant. What we don't see is you now coming clean and noting the professional's opinion of Rodgers..which pretty much assails your viewpoint...playing well and tough as nails. No injury, no horrible...PLAYING WELL.

Now, you have a choice..you can act like partial 1.0 and continue to selectively pull info from a professional that agrees with you...or you can be partial 2.0 and say...hmm, if i'm going to use this guy...i gotta use all of him..cause if i don't, then i'm just bsing.

Your choice.

1. There is not just a difference between just a guy and sucking in my opinion. If you want to debate that, go ahead, but I will not.\

2. I didn't even read the article skimmed the first post, I don't have that sort of time.

3. Professional opinions are supporting my theory of Rodgers being average. See the article of Scouts opinions by Bob McGinn averaging out to 19 and than more this off-season.

That is all.

[Partial]

I was preaching that Grant sucks in the game thread. Everyone got on top of me in a mean, vicious way telling me how wrong and dumb I was. Turns out the professionals and I see eye to eye.

In another thread you wrote that you would be turning over a new leaf and no longer engaging in uncivil back and forths with other posters. If I can offer you some unsolicited advice, it would be that reminding others that you were right and they were wrong is equally unproductive. The same goes for rehashing how everyone else in the forum wronged you. Just let the evidence speak for itself.

To be frank, it's unfair the standard that I'm held to compared to others. I have been personally attacked 40+ times in the past several days. How many times have I personally attacked? Once.

It's just funny how I can say something and everyone goes "that guy is an idiot", then when a trained professional says it they say "Like Shattner, I can get behind that".

[falco]

That is all.

promise?

[Partial]

That is all.

promise?

This is 6-7 in the past day. Can we please ban this spammer?

[Iron Mike]

We are talking Ashwaubenon High here. The big time.

My nephew played HS ball at Ashwaubenon....would you value HIS opinion as to the efficacy of Baranczyk's ability to evaluate talent??

[sheepshead]

Turns out the professionals....


Here he is, Eric Baranczyk:professional assistant high school coach
http://graphics2.jsonline.com/graphics/packer/img/insider/sep05/eric.jpg

Is this guy still around? Next.

[sheepshead]

That is all.

promise?

This is 6-7 in the past day. Can we please ban this spammer?


:shock:

[MichiganPackerFan]

Grant is a solid athlete. He's usually only as good as his offensive line. Has a couple good runs when gets outside from time to time. Can't create. Not a special player.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I was preaching that Grant sucks in the game thread. Everyone got on top of me in a mean, vicious way telling me how wrong and dumb I was. Turns out the professionals and I see eye to eye.

While I said i was done with your trolling, Ty is going to take this opportunity to instruct you...in the hope that it will be constructive. Ty doubts it...prove Ty wrong.

1. You said he sucks. Eric said he is just a guy. There is a big difference between what you said and what he said. Now, perhaps your point woulda been made, you woulda seemed logical, and you wouldn't have inflamed everybody against you if you had simply said "grant is exceedingly average, pedestrian"....that is a more sane approach, and more accurate. Cause if Grant sucks..then what does Samkon Gado do?

2. The forum notes your ability to jump on Grant, yet the professional notes that the line only successfully blocked 6 out of 28 runs well. This would have been a perfect time for you to admit your assesment of the line was off...and that while Grant in your opinion was "average/pedestrian" he surely wasn't helped by the crappy job his line is doing. See, then you come across as fair..and you still get to promote Grant as average.

3. Now, we all see you noting the professional as credible to support your view of Grant. What we don't see is you now coming clean and noting the professional's opinion of Rodgers..which pretty much assails your viewpoint...playing well and tough as nails. No injury, no horrible...PLAYING WELL.

Now, you have a choice..you can act like partial 1.0 and continue to selectively pull info from a professional that agrees with you...or you can be partial 2.0 and say...hmm, if i'm going to use this guy...i gotta use all of him..cause if i don't, then i'm just bsing.

Your choice.

1. There is not just a difference between just a guy and sucking in my opinion. If you want to debate that, go ahead, but I will not.\

2. I didn't even read the article skimmed the first post, I don't have that sort of time.

3. Professional opinions are supporting my theory of Rodgers being average. See the article of Scouts opinions by Bob McGinn averaging out to 19 and than more this off-season.

That is all.

Dude,

PB, myself and thousands others would tell you that there is a difference between jag and sucking. So, partial 1.0 Fail.

2. Just skimmed and found the part that suited you. Perhaps if you havent read it and digested it, you shouldn't be using it...as it makes you look stupid. Partial 1.0 Fail.

3. Not professional opinions, we are talking specifically this article. And, the offseason isn't relevant...as your contention is now. And, far more articles about him being part of the top young qbs...see the SI Peter king article. Partial 1.0 Fail.

Given the chance, you would rather not turn over the new leaf, but would ask us to do so. Gave you a chance to look smart and look like you were growing. Fail.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Grant is a solid athlete. He's usually only as good as his offensive line. Has a couple good runs when gets outside from time to time. Can't create. Not a special player.

100% in agreement.

That doesn't mean he sucks. It means he is average to slightly above average.

[Waldo]

Guys who have traits that I wish Grant had:

Adrian Peterson
Chris Johnson
Steven Jackson
Maurice Jones-Drew
Ronnie Brown
Frank Gore
Michael Turner
Felix Jones
Marion Barber
Brandon Jacobs
Knowshon Moreno
Clinton Portis
Thomas Jones
DeAngelo Williams
Leon Washington
Matt Forte
Darren McFadden
Joseph Addai
Brian Westbrook
Reggie Bush
Michael Bush
Darren Sproles
LenDale White
Beanie Wells
Marshawn Lynch
Cedric Benson

Cadillac probably belongs on there too.

Unfortunately, most teams have at least one of those guys.

"average"

Grant IMO is a stopgap. He is a marginal starter at best.

[falco]

Hard to argue that we shouldn't be looking to upgrade the RB position as soon as possible.

[Sparkey]

I remember reading once where an o line coach said great o-lines can make a rb look good and great rb's can make an o-line look good.

Sadly, we have neither.

[Lurker64]

Waldo, think the Packers might be targeting either Jahvid Best or C.J. Spiller in the upcoming draft? Both of them seem to have skillsets that would complement our current stable of backs well (and they're players that I personally like), but they're first round guys and the party line on the benefits of the ZBS is that it doesn't require you to spend premium picks on OL or RBs, so I don't know if Thompson would do it, particularly in a draft that's stocked with Safeties and DTs.

It's really hard to get a good look at the RBs this early, since almost all of the RBs worth a damn in the draft are juniors.

[falco]

Hard to say what pick we should target in the first round next year. I think we probably need to invest a pick in a franchise lineman, but we could also use a playmaking RB or someone decent to line up next to Collins.

[Waldo]

Waldo, think the Packers might be targeting either Jahvid Best or C.J. Spiller in the upcoming draft? Both of them seem to have skillsets that would complement our current stable of backs well (and they're players that I personally like), but they're first round guys and the party line on the benefits of the ZBS is that it doesn't require you to spend premium picks on OL or RBs, so I don't know if Thompson would do it, particularly in a draft that's stocked with Safeties and DTs.

It's really hard to get a good look at the RBs this early, since almost all of the RBs worth a damn in the draft are juniors.

Or younger.

That true Sophomore that Alabama has, Mark Ingram, that kid is going to be a superstar. NFL size, compact, shifty, powerful, and fast.

It's not hard to figure out why Coffee came out early, which many people said was a bad idea at draft time. Nope. Ingram is WAY better than Coffee.

[Waldo]

Hard to say what pick we should target in the first round next year. I think we probably need to invest a pick in a franchise lineman, but we could also use a playmaking RB or someone decent to line up next to Collins.

OR an elite DE prospect, or an OLB prospect, or an elite ILB prospect, possibly a CB (which Ted values very highly).

I don't think that Ted values safeties very highly, not nearly as much as CB's.

Impressive though that it appears that Clay is a hit (I'm extremely impressed with him), 1st round 3-4 OLB's seem to be no better than a 50-50 proposition.

[Partial]

Hard to say what pick we should target in the first round next year. I think we probably need to invest a pick in a franchise lineman, but we could also use a playmaking RB or someone decent to line up next to Collins.

OR an elite DE prospect, or an OLB prospect, or an elite ILB prospect, possibly a CB (which Ted values very highly).

I don't think that Ted values safeties very highly, not nearly as much as CB's.

Impressive though that it appears that Clay is a hit (I'm extremely impressed with him), 1st round 3-4 OLB's seem to be no better than a 50-50 proposition.

Your Power Rankings in your blog would be very close to how I see it. Kudos on a job well done. I would flop the Pack and Falcons but htats about it.

[Waldo]

Hard to say what pick we should target in the first round next year. I think we probably need to invest a pick in a franchise lineman, but we could also use a playmaking RB or someone decent to line up next to Collins.

OR an elite DE prospect, or an OLB prospect, or an elite ILB prospect, possibly a CB (which Ted values very highly).

I don't think that Ted values safeties very highly, not nearly as much as CB's.

Impressive though that it appears that Clay is a hit (I'm extremely impressed with him), 1st round 3-4 OLB's seem to be no better than a 50-50 proposition.

Your Power Rankings in your blog would be very close to how I see it. Kudos on a job well done.

Thanks.

I like the results I'm getting out of that program. I've got ideas to tweak it, but I'm not so sure that it is worth it. The verification that I am getting with games is good enough to lead many pick 'em leagues.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Guys who have traits that I wish Grant had:

Adrian Peterson
Chris Johnson
Steven Jackson
Maurice Jones-Drew
Ronnie Brown
Frank Gore
Michael Turner
Felix Jones hurt again
Marion Barber
Brandon Jacobs
Knowshon Moreno
Clinton Portis
Thomas Jones (not many were praising him in prior years)
DeAngelo Williams
Leon Washington (3rd down back and not a 3 down type player)
Matt Forte (1 year player, let's not go down that road till he is proven)
Darren McFadden (what has he proven, though I like him)
Joseph Addai (on the outs...you don't draft a 1st round back if he is doing the job)
Brian Westbrook (special player, but always hurt)
Reggie Bush (great athlete, but hardly a great rb)
Michael Bush (what?, what has he done)
Darren Sproles
LenDale White
Beanie Wells (what has he done)
Marshawn Lynch
Cedric Benson (LOL. Until last year no packer fan woulda ever wanted him)

Cadillac probably belongs on there too. (LOL. Has been hurt. 1 year does not a career make)

Unfortunately, most teams have at least one of those guys.

"average"

Grant IMO is a stopgap. He is a marginal starter at best.

Grant is average. We definitely need a good line for him to be good. ty has never been on his bandwagon.

But, your list is highly speculative and you have guys that are no better (addai) and guys who are 3rd down backs (washington) and guys who have proven NOTHING (wells, bush, etc.).

You are better than this...and don't need to rely on this level of bs to get your point across.

[falco]

I don't think Waldo was saying they were all around better - just that each had some trait that Grant is lacking.

[Rastak]

I don't think Waldo was saying they were all around better - just that each had some trait that Grant is lacking.


That seemed obvious to me as well....

[Lurker64]

I think Waldo's list was not "backs who are better than Grant" but "backs who have traits that he wishes Grant has."

Reggie Bush certainly isn't a good RB, but you certainly wish that Grant had his athletic ability.

[Waldo]

I do believe in having multiple complimentary backs unless you have a special back.

Injuries suck, I'm not one to really bash a guy for them though. That is why most teams have more than 1 good RB.

Grant pales next to Addai and Forte as a receiver.

Felix is crazy explosive, a big play waiting to happen.

Thomas has great vision and plays with a ton of heart.

Leon is the mighty mite that can.

Run DMC is very explosive, always a big play threat.

Reggie is a great #2 player, not a bellcow, but he's a darn good receiver, X factor player.

Michael Bush runs with a ton of power. Like Brandon Jacobs jr. Same with Beanie.

What Cedric did to the Pack is something we haven't seen since Green. It wasn't just ineptness causing constant missed tackles.

The Caddy looks darn good this year too.

What special trait does Grant bring?

He's not shifty
He sucks in the passing game
He's not good at breaking tackles
He rarely bowls guys over
His vision isn't great
He isn't much of a big play threat
He has no x factor to his game

[Cheesehead Craig]

I said it before, this team is missing Brandon Jackson.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I do believe in having multiple complimentary backs unless you have a special back.

Injuries suck, I'm not one to really bash a guy for them though. That is why most teams have more than 1 good RB.

Grant pales next to Addai and Forte as a receiver.

Felix is crazy explosive, a big play waiting to happen.

Thomas has great vision and plays with a ton of heart.

Leon is the mighty mite that can.

Run DMC is very explosive, always a big play threat.

Reggie is a great #2 player, not a bellcow, but he's a darn good receiver, X factor player.

Michael Bush runs with a ton of power. Like Brandon Jacobs jr. Same with Beanie.

What Cedric did to the Pack is something we haven't seen since Green. It wasn't just ineptness causing constant missed tackles.

The Caddy looks darn good this year too.

What special trait does Grant bring?

He's not shifty
He sucks in the passing game
He's not good at breaking tackles
He rarely bowls guys over
His vision isn't great
He isn't much of a big play threat
He has no x factor to his game

So, the problem lies with not having the complimentary backs. If Bjack was that player then you have less of a problem with grant, right.

Injuries: I'm not bashing, just acknowledging that certain guys can't be counted on no matter how great their talent. And, the most important thing a player can bring is being active...so the team knows what they are getting.

Run DMC: Ok. So what. He hasn't done it yet. He didn't do it last year. And, this year he has a 3.6 average. So, the potential of breaking one is better...even if he doesn't do it? Ridiculous.

Felix Jones; Awesome. He can break away outta the chair he is sitting in. He played 6 games last year. And, now he is out again. You really seem to value promise rather than production.

Thomas: vision..ok. Heart..please leave that bs outta evals. Ty hates that bs...like gritty and gutty. That is way to freaking subjective. Can Ty say Grant plays with a ton of heart also?

Wash: Sure. But, so what. Your feature back rarely is like him. That is bj's role. Let's compare Grant to the other team's grant back.

M.Bush: I'm not going to listen or respect you when you are pulling this kind of bs. 122 total attempts. Please talk to us when he is a featured back.

Wells: Same as Bush. Look, you may like how they run...but the name of the game is production. 16 rushes. He can't even beat out Hightower. Bwhah.

R. Bush: Yes, he is a talented player. But, he wouldn't help us run the ball...unless you've decided that we won't running inside anymore.

Benson: That wasn't the point. It is ridiculous to talk about him as no one...not one person on this board woulda advocated signing him. Ty took plenty of heat defending him....don't recall you on this board doing so when everybody was essentially saying he sucked and was a knucklehead.
Grant: Again, i'm not here to defend him. I never thought he was great. Never advocated paying him big dollars, etc.

Caddy: He has 114 yards in 3 games. That is certainly something to write home about. He played in 10 games the past 2 years...and had less than a 4 yard average the past 3.

Grant: Well, one special trait is that he suits up and totes the rock. But, in your world, that isn't important. You'd rather have guys that have special skills but only play 6 games or don't produce.

Ridiculous.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I said it before, this team is missing Brandon Jackson.

Ty would agree.

[Waldo]

Other than health, what is one single thing that Grant is good at? One special trait he has?

Even average or bad backs have a special trait.

Ty you are completely missing my point.

A trait. Why should he be our starter.

Poppinga is a jag. No special traits. Ruvell Martin was a jag. No special traits. Cole was a jag. No special traits.

Our starting RB is a jag. No special traits.

LB's don't crash the gaps on most RB's the second they get the ball. They usually get the respect to wait for the plant/cut. Grant doesn't get that respect. They can render him useless by crashing the gaps, and he has no tools to burn their overpursuit. Why do you think our OL looks so pathetic, why it seems he is running into a wall of defenders every time? Defenses play Grant the way they play a noodle armed backup QB. Zero respect. No threat to get burned.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Other than health, what is one single thing that Grant is good at? One special trait he has?

Even average or bad backs have a special trait.

Ty you are completely missing my point.

A trait. Why should he be our starter.

Poppinga is a jag. No special traits. Ruvell Martin was a jag. No special traits. Cole was a jag. No special traits.

Our starting RB is a jag. No special traits.

LB's don't crash the gaps on most RB's the second they get the ball. They usually get the respect to wait for the plant/cut. Grant doesn't get that respect. They can render him useless by crashing the gaps, and he has no tools to burn their overpursuit. Why do you think our OL looks so pathetic, why it seems he is running into a wall of defenders every time? Defenses play Grant the way they play a noodle armed backup QB. Zero respect. No threat to get burned.

Grant has excellent speed. there, i've named a trait.

And, Health is a big trait.

Again, you are missing my point..don't ask me to defend him.

[The Leaper]

I agree with the notion that Grant is an average starting RB. His subpar receiving skills are a real drawback right now...because we could sure use a RB that could threaten defenses in the flat as a dump off option to keep pass rushes at bay. Sure, he plays every week and works his ass off. He's not hurting the team...but he doesn't seem like a very good fit for this team right now.

Can Grant be a 1400 yard back behind a solid OL with a high powered aerial attack? Sure. So can about 40 other guys in the NFL. Did you watch Steven Jackson on Sunday? That is a stud RB who produces even when much of the team around him is average at best. Stick Grant on the Rams and he's lucky to get to 900 yards and 6 TDs.

I also agree that Campen has to be at least part of the problem. This OL has gone nowhere in the last 4-5 years...and Campen has to be held accountable for that.

Nevertheless...I think this offense can manage with what we have. It will take some creativity and strong gameplanning...but it can be done.

[mraynrand]

Does Campen have a Big Trait?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I agree with the notion that Grant is an average starting RB. His subpar receiving skills are a real drawback right now...because we could sure use a RB that could threaten defenses in the flat as a dump off option to keep pass rushes at bay. Sure, he plays every week and works his ass off. He's not hurting the team...but he doesn't seem like a very good fit for this team right now.

Can Grant be a 1400 yard back behind a solid OL with a high powered aerial attack? Sure. So can about 40 other guys in the NFL. Did you watch Steven Jackson on Sunday? That is a stud RB who produces even when much of the team around him is average at best. Stick Grant on the Rams and he's lucky to get to 900 yards and 6 TDs.

I also agree that Campen has to be at least part of the problem. This OL has gone nowhere in the last 4-5 years...and Campen has to be held accountable for that.

Nevertheless...I think this offense can manage with what we have. It will take some creativity and strong gameplanning...but it can be done.

Which would put him 150 yards behind a stud like Jackson and his 1046 last year. So, even a stud has a hard time with a crappy line. The rams line is at this moment better than ours. For all of Jackson's studliness...he has put up big #s once...and played 12 games 2 years in a row.:oops:

Don't get Ty wrong, grant is slightly above average....but, at least we can count on him. Lots of teams don't even have that. But, yes...his pass catching is a big liability. Ty was never in favor of the big money....but, this board was enamored with Grant..and rebuked anybody who wasn't onboard (the only question really was how much loot to throw his way). this board, maybe all boards..ty doesn't know, loves to fall in love...samkon, grant, sutton. They keep thinking you get something for nothing...and occasionally you do, but generally the best players are drafted. As the old expression goes, "the race isn't always to the strongest or the swiftest, but that is the way to bet."

The best thing you can say about grant is that we got him for practically nothing. His production vs. what we gave up is a feather in TT's cap.

Campen: Would agree.

[bobblehead]

I said it before, this team is missing Brandon Jackson.

Ty would agree.
Thirded...last year I pointed out that Chillar was outplaying our starters, but I also said BJack was outplaying grant in the same post. Bjack is sorely missed right now. And wtf happened to wynn?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I said it before, this team is missing Brandon Jackson.

Ty would agree.
Thirded...last year I pointed out that Chillar was outplaying our starters, but I also said BJack was outplaying grant in the same post. Bjack is sorely missed right now. And wtf happened to wynn?

Ty was wondering that as well. He has some of the traits that Waldo likes. Ty would like to see what he could do.

[Fritz]

When is Brandon Jackson coming back? After the bye?

I would like to see him get some touches.

Next year's draft:

safety

running back

offensive line

[MichiganPackerFan]

I said it before, this team is missing Brandon Jackson.

After a couple seasons of being underwhelmed by grant, I've always wanted to get this guy some game time reps to see what he's got. However, I've started to think that if the coaches won't let him on the field, particularly early last season when Grant was recovering and a green and golden opportunity (like that?!) was there), he's just not a player and it's time to look for other serviceable options with upside.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't think any of our RBs are better than average (Jackson included), but you don't need a special RB to win. However, it would help if our OL played better. After 3 games, we've complained about the OL since we implemented the zone scheme. Hopefully, we improve like the last few years. I'm getting tired of it though.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I don't think any of our RBs are better than average (Jackson included), but you don't need a special RB to win. However, it would help if our OL played better. After 3 games, we've complained about the OL since we implemented the zone scheme. Hopefully, we improve like the last few years. I'm getting tired of it though.

Ty would agree.

The real question is how many non "special" players can you have and still win?

For Ty, and I think yourself and others, we recognize that you don't have to have a great LT...thus a false argument is made when some talk about us not having a great player at that position.

But, can we win (and at what level) with average rbs, avg linemen (not all, but some), etc?

[vince]

I don't think any of our RBs are better than average (Jackson included), but you don't need a special RB to win. However, it would help if our OL played better. After 3 games, we've complained about the OL since we implemented the zone scheme. Hopefully, we improve like the last few years. I'm getting tired of it though.

Ty would agree.

The real question is how many non "special" players can you have and still win?

For Ty, and I think yourself and others, we recognize that you don't have to have a great LT...thus a false argument is made when some talk about us not having a great player at that position.

But, can we win (and at what level) with average rbs, avg linemen (not all, but some), etc?
The answer to that question depends on how many weaknesses your team has. You may have a lot of "special" players and not win because you can't stop the run or are in a position where you have to play a liability in the defensive backfield who is regularly attacked and beaten. Likewise, a team may have few "special" players (who are only thought of as special after team success brings them accolades) but is solid in all aspects of the game, and that team will win a lot of games.

Super Bowl winning teams have some special talents, but they must first have few or no weaknesses that get exploited in any aspect of the game. Also, you noted that the dfference in talent between Grant and a guy like Stephen Davis is significant, but the difference in actual production is far less than the talent difference creates the perception of among most fans.

Grant is a solid one-cut-and-go-north runner with good size and speed, and that is what the zone system accentuates.

[sharpe1027]

When Grant was doing well, he was taking a slight hesitation about 2 yards behind the O-line and then making a decision. I don't see that now, he is often just putting his head down and going where the play is called.

I have a guess that the poor line play goes hand-in-hand with Grant's lack of vision/cut backs this year. When defensive players are consistently shooting into the backfield because of blown blocks, wouldn't a natural response be for the RB to hit the hole faster to avoid big losses and to get what he can out of each play? If, on the other hand, the RB trusts the entire line to at least do an adequate job, he can be a little more patient and let things develop in front of him. I can't know what Grant is thinking, but it seems to make some sense.