And you all thought Ryan Grant sucked...

[channtheman]

Rk Name/ Team Att Yds Avg TD Long Fumbles 100-YdGms
1 Cedric Benson, Cin 164 720 4.39 5 28 1 3
2 Adrian Peterson, Min 138 687 4.98 8 64 2 2
3 Steven Jackson, StL 143 635 4.44 0 58 2 3
4 Thomas Jones, NYJ 122 602 4.93 7 71 2 3
5 Chris Johnson, Ten 95 596 6.27 2 91 1 2
6 Ryan Grant, GB 118 495 4.19 3 37 0 1

Grant is 6th in the league in rushing after 6 games. It's amazing what a good game can do for you. Actually looking at those stats it says Grant hasn't fumbled but his fumble in the Cincy game was costly. Maybe they are incorrect.

[Packgator]

Grant is 6th in the league in rushing after 6 games.

Packers with the # 6 RB (yards). The # 2 rated QB (rating). The # 5 defense (pts. per game). Throw in # 8 offense (pts. per game) and I'd say those are some pretty impressive stats in four big time categories.

[Partial]

Does anyone else find that as eye-opening as I do? Grant does suck, and I feel like he hasn't gotten many shots up until this week.

I guess this is a good thing. He ran hard this weekend and if that continues going forward it will alleviate a lot of our offensive woes.

[Guiness]

I'm not knocking Grant - I feel he's a slightly above average back. But in the last two weeks, the slugging was comparatively easy. Detroit had OL playing DL for lack of bodies, and Cleveland, was, well, Cleveland.

I don't think you can look at his numbers and say he's a top 10 back right now.

[sharpe1027]

Having almost no carries by any other back is part of the reason our running game seems poor, but Grant's numbers are still decent. Also, one big game really helps.

[ThunderDan]

Rk Name/ Team Att Yds Avg TD Long Fumbles 100-YdGms
1 Cedric Benson, Cin 164 720 4.39 5 28 1 3
2 Adrian Peterson, Min 138 687 4.98 8 64 2 2
3 Steven Jackson, StL 143 635 4.44 0 58 2 3
4 Thomas Jones, NYJ 122 602 4.93 7 71 2 3
5 Chris Johnson, Ten 95 596 6.27 2 91 1 2
6 Ryan Grant, GB 118 495 4.19 3 37 0 1

Grant is 6th in the league in rushing after 6 games. It's amazing what a good game can do for you. Actually looking at those stats it says Grant hasn't fumbled but his fumble in the Cincy game was costly. Maybe they are incorrect.

Thanks for the information and the time to post actual stats.

I think Grant's suckiness has more to do with the O-line than Grant. While I don't believe that Grant is an elite back he is servicable.

[Sparkey]

Still not a big fan of Grant. He is an average back, he still has no wiggle in him and seems to have heavy feet. Is slow to accelerate from a dead stop and, and seems to run with his eyes closed.

Rumors were the Pack were desperately trying to acquire a good back via trade last week. (Cowboy rumor as well) Grant needs big lanes to run through because he can not consistently make people miss. That saying about a line can make a r-back look good and a r-back can make the line look good. I have yet to see Ryan Grant make the O-Line look good.

He is what he is. Doesn't mean I want him to struggle because that would mean the Pack are struggling.

[Scott Campbell]

There's no timeshare in our backfield. It's not that impressive.

[Bossman641]

Grant is 6th in the league in rushing after 6 games. It's amazing what a good game can do for you. Actually looking at those stats it says Grant hasn't fumbled but his fumble in the Cincy game was costly. Maybe they are incorrect.

Grant's fumble came on a pass. As these are purely rushing statistics, I'm guessing that is why it shows him with no fumbles.

My problem with Grant is that it seems like he doesn't even try to make people miss. Even when he gets to the second level he just gets low and runs into the safety. Sure, it gets him an extra 3-4 yards, but he is not big enough to flat out run people over.

It gave me some hope that he actually made an attempt to elude Pool (and succeeded) on his long run. Hoping we see more of that in the future.

[retailguy]

If this thread isn't a flashing billboard screaming "stats aren't the entire answer/picture", I don't know what is.

If Grant is a top 10 back, then I'm Brad Pitt.

There is nothing about this offense that is "top 10 anything" right now. Back to back games against Detroit and Cleveland will help you pad those stats. :idea:

I'll take the wins, that's for sure, but it doesn't ease my worries about this team at all.

Let's see what the stats from Sunday's game look like on Monday, ok? If those stats look good, and we get another W, then I'll start believing.

TJ Lang against Jared Allen, is a lot different than TJ Lang against Wimbley/Coleman....

[bobblehead]

If this thread isn't a flashing billboard screaming "stats aren't the entire answer/picture", I don't know what is.

If Grant is a top 10 back, then I'm Brad Pitt.

There is nothing about this offense that is "top 10 anything" right now. Back to back games against Detroit and Cleveland will help you pad those stats. :idea:

I'll take the wins, that's for sure, but it doesn't ease my worries about this team at all.

Let's see what the stats from Sunday's game look like on Monday, ok? If those stats look good, and we get another W, then I'll start believing.

TJ Lang against Jared Allen, is a lot different than TJ Lang against Wimbley/Coleman....

I agree RG, stats don't mean shit :shock: Truthfully though, just like I said in the other thread they do matter. Maybe not the entire story, but they matter. For 2 weeks MM has committed to the run a bit more, Grant and the OL has been able to catch a rythm and suddenly things look a lot brighter.

Is RG a top 10 back....probably not, but he is obviously capable of getting the job done when the blocks are there. He also has hands of stone. And like someone said, we don't split carries at all.

All of the information is telling, but stats do matter and those of us (myself to an extent) who said RGrant SUCKS have to backpeddle a bit. Is he a stud...no, but he obviously can still get 'er done when the carries are there and the line is adequate.

Like you said, this week will tell us a lot. I actually expect to win a tough one, maybe lose a tough one, but we will be in this game the whole way without any doubt on my part. And I stand by what I said earlier, we are a top 10 team, but not a top 5 team.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Grant's only as good as his O-line. And the more they grow the better he'll be. Not a top ten by any means, but good lines do wonders for average to above-average backs. I think back to the teams of the mid-late 90's. Neither Bennett nor Levens was great. But they were combined with a really good line and a feared passing attack. Team game!!!

[Zool]

He's not the best back in the league but he doesn't "suck". Shit though, the guy was picked up for a 6th round pick. You can't have all-pro caliber people at every position.

[Deputy Nutz]

Rk Name/ Team Att Yds Avg TD Long Fumbles 100-YdGms

6 Ryan Grant, GB 118 495 4.19 3 37 0 1

Grant is 6th in the league in rushing after 6 games. It's amazing what a good game can do for you. Actually looking at those stats it says Grant hasn't fumbled but his fumble in the Cincy game was costly. Maybe they are incorrect.

Those stats would be nice but you have to agree when half of his yards come against the Lions and the Browns they aren't all that impressive. We are also watching the NFL game switch to a combination of two running backs that usually share the work load. Grant is the only ball carrier for the Pack right now. His average is also inflated over the past two weeks.

[Packgator]

There's no timeshare in our backfield. It's not that impressive.

He has the same or fewer attempts per game (19.7) as three of the five ahead of him in yards.

Cedric Benson........23.4
Adrian Peterson.....19.7
Steven Jackson......20.4
Thomas Jones.......17.4
Chris Johnson........15.8
Ryan Grant............19.7

Team rushing yards per game is a different story. The Packers rank 13th in total rushing yards with 118 per game. Tha drop off would seem to be a backup problem. Maybe A. Green will help boost that stat.

[Scott Campbell]

There's no timeshare in our backfield. It's not that impressive.

He has the same or fewer attempts per game (19.7) as three of the five ahead of him in yards.

Cedric Benson........23.4
Adrian Peterson.....19.7
Steven Jackson......20.4
Thomas Jones.......17.4
Chris Johnson........15.8
Ryan Grant............19.7

Team rushing yards per game is a different story. The Packers rank 13th in total rushing yards with 118 per game. Tha drop off would seem to be a backup problem. Maybe A. Green will help boost that stat.


The only guy ahead of him that's in a time share situation is Chris Johnson, and he's not sharing it much with Lendale White this season.

[Brandon494]

He's not the best back in the league but he doesn't "suck". Shit though, the guy was picked up for a 6th round pick. You can't have all-pro caliber people at every position.

Agreed and its not like he is running behind the best of O-lines. We are 4-0 this season when Grant runs 16+ times this season. There is no reason why he should not be getting the ball atleast 20 times a game.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Was having a tough time finding this: how far down the list does his average of 4.19 rank?

[rbaloha1]

RG is a good back but needs a running lane which he always locates. Not an elite back due to a lack of top end speed and ability to find yards if no lane exists.

[mmmdk]

Can Grant run vs Vikings come sunday? Our passing game needs to set up the run then Grant could have a sweet game. Grant is the answer this season; next season is still far away.

[channtheman]

Was having a tough time finding this: how far down the list does his average of 4.19 rank?

Grant is ranked 26th in the league with his YPC average.

[gbgary]

i've never had a problem with grant...the zone blocking scheme, on the other hand, i have had a problem with. i like the power type scheme better.

[cheesner]

Team rushing yards per game is a different story. The Packers rank 13th in total rushing yards with 118 per game. Tha drop off would seem to be a backup problem. Maybe A. Green will help boost that stat.
Our #2 backup, BJ, has been out until recently. I suspect he will start to get more carries as the season progresses.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Was having a tough time finding this: how far down the list does his average of 4.19 rank?

Grant is ranked 26th in the league with his YPC average.

Thanks. That is rather troubling to me: need to get more rushing yards on first down so AR does not have to drop back take time for plays to set up in order to make long throws. I thought I saw that AR's YPA was the highest in the league (not sure though). I think there's some young blood on the line that have played poorly, but their best football is still ahead of them!

[channtheman]

Was having a tough time finding this: how far down the list does his average of 4.19 rank?

Grant is ranked 26th in the league with his YPC average.

Thanks. That is rather troubling to me: need to get more rushing yards on first down so AR does not have to drop back take time for plays to set up in order to make long throws. I thought I saw that AR's YPA was the highest in the league (not sure though). I think there's some young blood on the line that have played poorly, but their best football is still ahead of them!

I actually made this topic because I was so surprised to see he was 6th. He doesn't feel like he's rushed for 600 yards or whatever it is. Even against the Browns his 150 yards were the quietest 150 yards I've seen in a while.

He's like Alando Tucker was at Wisconsin if you recall or are a Badger fan. He would average 20 points a game but man he wasn't a game changer. In most games, you would hardly notice him, which was surprising.


Edit: I'm just gonna add in the YPA average if anyone is interested.

1 Correll Buckhalter, Den 47 313 6.66 1 45 2 1
2 Chris Johnson, Ten 95 596 6.27 2 91 1 2
3 Ray Rice, Bal 73 441 6.04 3 50 0 2
4 Ahmad Bradshaw, NYG 80 455 5.69 3 38 2 2
5 Ricky Williams, Mia 70 396 5.66 5 68 1 0
6 Pierre Thomas, NO 56 314 5.61 3 34 0 1
7 Rashard Mendenhall, Pit 78 418 5.36 4 39 2 1
8 Frank Gore, SF 52 273 5.25 3 80 1 1
9 Tashard Choice, Dal 44 225 5.11 2 36 0 0
10 Adrian Peterson, Min 138 687 4.98 8 64 2 2
11 Thomas Jones, NYJ 122 602 4.93 7 71 2 3
12 Brian Westbrook, Phi 41 197 4.80 1 25 0 0
13 Jonathan Stewart, Car 57 273 4.79 2 28 2 1
14 Marion Barber, Dal 72 344 4.78 3 35 0 1
15 Mike Bell, NO 72 343 4.76 2 35 1 1
16 Donald Brown, Ind 46 212 4.61 2 45 1 0
17 Leon Washington, NYJ 72 331 4.60 0 33 1 0
18 Ronnie Brown, Mia 109 491 4.50 7 38 0 2
19 Willis McGahee, Bal 45 202 4.49 5 34 1 0
20 Fred Taylor, NE 45 201 4.47 2 19 0 1
21 Steven Jackson, StL 143 635 4.44 0 58 2 3
22 Cedric Benson, Cin 164 720 4.39 5 28 1 3
23 DeAngelo Williams, Car 105 461 4.39 5 20 2 1
24 Laurence Maroney, NE 61 265 4.34 2 45 0 1
25 Maurice Jones-Drew, Jac 108 463 4.29 8 61 1 2
26 Ryan Grant, GB 118 495 4.19 3 37 0 1

[HarveyWallbangers]

To be fair, a lot of those guys that are ahead of him haven't carried the ball that much. A comparison amongst the top 20 running backs in carries would be more valid. Still, 4.2 would still rank below average. However, I think he has the potential to finish higher than that. For the last few years, we've struggled mightily running the ball early in the season, but have gotten better as the year has gone on.

[channtheman]

To be fair, a lot of those guys that are ahead of him haven't carried the ball that much. A comparison amongst the top 20 running backs in carries would be more valid. Still, 4.2 would still rank below average. However, I think he has the potential to finish higher than that. For the last few years, we've struggled mightily running the ball early in the season, but have gotten better as the year has gone on.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/sortableStats?div=NFL&stable=rushing&stat=rushAtt&dir=descending

Grant holds up surprisingly well even when you compare him like that. It's shocking, but 2 straight games against the Lions and the Browns will do that for you I guess.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Player Car Yds Avg Yds/Game
1 Cedric Benson 23.4 720 4.4 102.9
2 Steven Jackson 20.4 635 4.4 90.7
3 Adrian Peterson 19.7 687 5.0 98.1
4 Ryan Grant 19.7 495 4.2 82.5
4 Michael Turner 19.7 403 3.4 67.2
6 Larry Johnson 18.9 358 2.7 51.1
7 Ronnie Brown 18.2 491 4.5 81.8
7 Kevin Smith 18.2 348 3.2 58.0
9 Mike Bell 18.0 343 4.8 85.8
9 Maurice Jones-Drew 18.0 463 4.3 77.2
11 DeAngelo Williams 17.5 461 4.4 76.8
12 Thomas Jones 17.4 602 4.9 86.0
13 Brandon Jacobs 17.1 464 3.9 66.3
13 Clinton Portis 17.1 490 4.1 70.0
15 Knowshon Moreno 16.5 381 3.8 63.5
16 Jamal Lewis 16.4 280 3.4 56.0
17 Chris Johnson 15.8 596 6.3 99.3
18 Steve Slaton 15.6 341 3.1 48.7
19 Matt Forte 15.3 318 3.5 53.0
20 Marshawn Lynch 15.2 174 2.9 43.5
20 LaDainian Tomlinson 15.2 211 3.5 52.8

Amongst the top 20 RBs in carries/game (21 because of the ties), Grant's 4.2 average puts him 9th out of 21. I'm surprised. His YAC is actually slightly above average.

[sharpe1027]

For kicks, the list modified to remove those with less than half of Grant's carries:

1 Chris Johnson, Ten 95 596 6.27 2 91 1 2
2 Ray Rice, Bal 73 441 6.04 3 50 0 2
3 Ahmad Bradshaw, NYG 80 455 5.69 3 38 2 2
4 Ricky Williams, Mia 70 396 5.66 5 68 1 0
5 Rashard Mendenhall, Pit 78 418 5.36 4 39 2 1
6 Adrian Peterson, Min 138 687 4.98 8 64 2 2
7 Thomas Jones, NYJ 122 602 4.93 7 71 2 3
8 Marion Barber, Dal 72 344 4.78 3 35 0 1
9 Mike Bell, NO 72 343 4.76 2 35 1 1
10 Leon Washington, NYJ 72 331 4.60 0 33 1 0
11 Ronnie Brown, Mia 109 491 4.50 7 38 0 2
12 Steven Jackson, StL 143 635 4.44 0 58 2 3
13 Cedric Benson, Cin 164 720 4.39 5 28 1 3
14 DeAngelo Williams, Car 105 461 4.39 5 20 2 1
15 Laurence Maroney, NE 61 265 4.34 2 45 0 1
16 Maurice Jones-Drew, Jac 108 463 4.29 8 61 1 2
17 Ryan Grant, GB 118 495 4.19 3 37 0 1

[Maxie the Taxi]

I'm co-founder of the Ryan Grant Fan Club. I always liked him. Still do. I predicted he'd get 200 yards last week. He was 50 short. I guess by that measure some would say he "sucks."

How many of the other backs on the stat list above Grant would do better if they were Packers? McCarthy/Thompson like big, smart, one-cut backs. They don't draft big name RB's. I was hoping they'd draft Ray Rice. They didn't. So, like someone said, it is what it is.

[Mr. T]

i've never had a problem with grant...the zone blocking scheme, on the other hand, i have had a problem with. i like the power type scheme better.
I have to agree. Sherman was more successful running a power scheme than McCarthy with ZBS. I also feel this scheme is more suited to GB's climate. Hard to cut in snow, mud, or ice.

[3irty1]

I'm sick of hearing about the scheme. This is a professional football team. I want to be able to run every type of play there is and well.

[bobblehead]

i've never had a problem with grant...the zone blocking scheme, on the other hand, i have had a problem with. i like the power type scheme better.
I have to agree. Sherman was more successful running a power scheme than McCarthy with ZBS. I also feel this scheme is more suited to GB's climate. Hard to cut in snow, mud, or ice.

seriously guys, the broncos and Falcons have run ZBS with great success over the years. The Broncos had the rep for plugging in any 6th round pick to get 1500 yards for awhile. The ZBS is a great system when implemented properly, the problem isn't the scheme, its the execution.

[gbgary]

i've never had a problem with grant...the zone blocking scheme, on the other hand, i have had a problem with. i like the power type scheme better.
I have to agree. Sherman was more successful running a power scheme than McCarthy with ZBS. I also feel this scheme is more suited to GB's climate. Hard to cut in snow, mud, or ice.

yup. and my favorite, and i believe the most successful, runs green and grant have had were the up the gut, quick-hitters. i don't like the tip-toeing around the zbs tends to have.

[gbgary]

i've never had a problem with grant...the zone blocking scheme, on the other hand, i have had a problem with. i like the power type scheme better.
I have to agree. Sherman was more successful running a power scheme than McCarthy with ZBS. I also feel this scheme is more suited to GB's climate. Hard to cut in snow, mud, or ice.

seriously guys, the broncos and Falcons have run ZBS with great success over the years. The Broncos had the rep for plugging in any 6th round pick to get 1500 yards for awhile. The ZBS is a great system when implemented properly, the problem isn't the scheme, its the execution.

i hear ya.

[Maxie the Taxi]

i've never had a problem with grant...the zone blocking scheme, on the other hand, i have had a problem with. i like the power type scheme better.
I have to agree. Sherman was more successful running a power scheme than McCarthy with ZBS. I also feel this scheme is more suited to GB's climate. Hard to cut in snow, mud, or ice.

yup. and my favorite, and i believe the most successful, runs green and grant have had were the up the gut, quick-hitters. i don't like the tip-toeing around the zbs tends to have.

I hope they run Grant up the gut Sunday. Run right at the Williams. Running Grant wide isn't pretty.

[Brandon494]

i've never had a problem with grant...the zone blocking scheme, on the other hand, i have had a problem with. i like the power type scheme better.
I have to agree. Sherman was more successful running a power scheme than McCarthy with ZBS. I also feel this scheme is more suited to GB's climate. Hard to cut in snow, mud, or ice.

yup. and my favorite, and i believe the most successful, runs green and grant have had were the up the gut, quick-hitters. i don't like the tip-toeing around the zbs tends to have.

I hope they run Grant up the gut Sunday. Run right at the Williams. Running Grant wide isn't pretty.

I don't see Grant running up the middle against the Williams boys. I'd run him right at Allen with Quin Johnson blocking out the backfield. Lang has already showed he is a better run blocker than Clifton.

[Maxie the Taxi]

That would work for me too. I just don't like those running plays that take so long to develop. The quick-openers are my favorites.

[Gunakor]

i've never had a problem with grant...the zone blocking scheme, on the other hand, i have had a problem with. i like the power type scheme better.
I have to agree. Sherman was more successful running a power scheme than McCarthy with ZBS. I also feel this scheme is more suited to GB's climate. Hard to cut in snow, mud, or ice.

yup. and my favorite, and i believe the most successful, runs green and grant have had were the up the gut, quick-hitters. i don't like the tip-toeing around the zbs tends to have.

I hope they run Grant up the gut Sunday. Run right at the Williams. Running Grant wide isn't pretty.

I don't see Grant running up the middle against the Williams boys. I'd run him right at Allen with Quin Johnson blocking out the backfield. Lang has already showed he is a better run blocker than Clifton.

+1, and running Grant right at Allen will go a long ways in keeping Rodgers' jersey clean as well. They should have done that a month ago too.

[MJZiggy]

That would work for me too. I just don't like those running plays that take so long to develop. The quick-openers are my favorites.

I prefer the ones where our guy breaks free and runs for a touchdown, but that's just me :mrgreen:

[Maxie the Taxi]

That would work for me too. I just don't like those running plays that take so long to develop. The quick-openers are my favorites.

I prefer the ones where our guy breaks free and runs for a touchdown, but that's just me :mrgreen:

I swear, most all of Grant's TD runs seem to come on quick-openers.

[ND72]

77 carries - 337 yards against St. Louis, Detroit & Cleveland

41 carries - 158 yards again Chicago, Cincinatti, & Minnesota.

So what that tells me is Grant is good against poor teams, and average to below average against good teams.

Numbers don't always tell you the real truth...unless you break it down like this.

[Maxie the Taxi]

67 carries - 337 yards against St. Louis, Detroit & Cleveland

41 carries - 158 yards again Chicago, Cincinatti, & Minnesota.

So what that tells me is Grant is good against poor teams, and average to below average against good teams.

Numbers don't always tell you the real truth...unless you break it down like this.

Problem is you'd have to do a similar breakdown for all the leading NFL backs. And does your breakdown necessarily reflect on Grant or on the OL or both?

[ND72]

Grant
77 carries - 337 yards against St. Louis, Detroit & Cleveland (4.38 ypc)
41 carries - 158 yards again Chicago, Cincinatti, & Minnesota. (3.85 ypc)

Adrian Peterson
54 carries - 335 yards vs. St. Louis, Detroit, & Cleveland (6.20 ypc)
84 carries - 352 yards vs. Baltimore, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, & San Fran (4.19 ypc)


Totals
138 carries - 687 yards - 5.0 ypc - 8 TD in 7 Games for AP
118 carries - 495 yards - 4.2 ypc - 3 TD in 6 Games for Grant


Peterson had 2 less yards, on 23 less carries against the 3 "bad" teams.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Well, the other problem is that Grant is not Adrian Peterson and neither is anybody else. Peterson is in a class by himself.

[pbmax]

67 carries - 337 yards against St. Louis, Detroit & Cleveland

41 carries - 158 yards again Chicago, Cincinatti, & Minnesota.

So what that tells me is Grant is good against poor teams, and average to below average against good teams.

Numbers don't always tell you the real truth...unless you break it down like this.
41 for 158 is a 3.85 yard per carry average. I think its more the number of attempts against these good teams that worries me. That's an average of just under 14 a game.

I have become convinced that McCarthy is not going to change his run calling strategy. He is going to run a certain percentage for each down and distance situation. And if its 3rd and medium or longer, you are getting a pass 100% of the time (except for clock killing purposes).

So since they are completing a high percentage of passes, the only way attempts are going up regularly is keeping down and distance nice and normal. And that means penalties and sacks must stop.

[Brandon494]

Grant
77 carries - 337 yards against St. Louis, Detroit & Cleveland (4.38 ypc)
41 carries - 158 yards again Chicago, Cincinatti, & Minnesota. (3.85 ypc)

Adrian Peterson
54 carries - 335 yards vs. St. Louis, Detroit, & Cleveland (6.20 ypc)
84 carries - 352 yards vs. Baltimore, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, & San Fran (4.19 ypc)


Totals
138 carries - 687 yards - 5.0 ypc - 8 TD in 7 Games for AP
118 carries - 495 yards - 4.2 ypc - 3 TD in 6 Games for Grant


Peterson had 2 less yards, on 23 less carries against the 3 "bad" teams.

We all know Ryan Grant is not a top back so whats the point of comparing him to the best back in the game?

[ND72]

Grant
77 carries - 337 yards against St. Louis, Detroit & Cleveland (4.38 ypc)
41 carries - 158 yards again Chicago, Cincinatti, & Minnesota. (3.85 ypc)

Adrian Peterson
54 carries - 335 yards vs. St. Louis, Detroit, & Cleveland (6.20 ypc)
84 carries - 352 yards vs. Baltimore, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, & San Fran (4.19 ypc)


Totals
138 carries - 687 yards - 5.0 ypc - 8 TD in 7 Games for AP
118 carries - 495 yards - 4.2 ypc - 3 TD in 6 Games for Grant


Peterson had 2 less yards, on 23 less carries against the 3 "bad" teams.

We all know Ryan Grant is not a top back so whats the point of comparing him to the best back in the game?

Maxie told me too... 8-)

[Partial]

67 carries - 337 yards against St. Louis, Detroit & Cleveland

41 carries - 158 yards again Chicago, Cincinatti, & Minnesota.

So what that tells me is Grant is good against poor teams, and average to below average against good teams.

Numbers don't always tell you the real truth...unless you break it down like this.
41 for 158 is a 3.85 yard per carry average. I think its more the number of attempts against these good teams that worries me. That's an average of just under 14 a game.

I have become convinced that McCarthy is not going to change his run calling strategy. He is going to run a certain percentage for each down and distance situation. And if its 3rd and medium or longer, you are getting a pass 100% of the time (except for clock killing purposes).

So since they are completing a high percentage of passes, the only way attempts are going up regularly is keeping down and distance nice and normal. And that means penalties and sacks must stop.

Where are you getting the down and distance data. That would be interesting to peek at.

[ND72]

67 carries - 337 yards against St. Louis, Detroit & Cleveland

41 carries - 158 yards again Chicago, Cincinatti, & Minnesota.

So what that tells me is Grant is good against poor teams, and average to below average against good teams.

Numbers don't always tell you the real truth...unless you break it down like this.
41 for 158 is a 3.85 yard per carry average. I think its more the number of attempts against these good teams that worries me. That's an average of just under 14 a game.

I have become convinced that McCarthy is not going to change his run calling strategy. He is going to run a certain percentage for each down and distance situation. And if its 3rd and medium or longer, you are getting a pass 100% of the time (except for clock killing purposes).

So since they are completing a high percentage of passes, the only way attempts are going up regularly is keeping down and distance nice and normal. And that means penalties and sacks must stop.

I agree with this 100%. I think my bigger problem is McCarthy's running game is so damn predictable, espcially against certain teams. When we play Minnesota, it's like McCarthy is so bent to show we can run righ tat them, that when we can't, he just throws it.

PLUS...watch closely sometime. When we run a zone play, Grant is at 7 yards, any pass play, or any other running play, he is at 5 yards....YES, I decided to actually break down packer tape when I was working on some football stuff. When we run a play action pass, Grant is ALWAYS at 4 yards. And, when we run a zone, we will always run away from the TE, every time. If we are in a double tight set, we will motion one of the TE's away, and run again, away from the TE's...EVERY time.

[pbmax]

67 carries - 337 yards against St. Louis, Detroit & Cleveland

41 carries - 158 yards again Chicago, Cincinatti, & Minnesota.

So what that tells me is Grant is good against poor teams, and average to below average against good teams.

Numbers don't always tell you the real truth...unless you break it down like this.
41 for 158 is a 3.85 yard per carry average. I think its more the number of attempts against these good teams that worries me. That's an average of just under 14 a game.

I have become convinced that McCarthy is not going to change his run calling strategy. He is going to run a certain percentage for each down and distance situation. And if its 3rd and medium or longer, you are getting a pass 100% of the time (except for clock killing purposes).

So since they are completing a high percentage of passes, the only way attempts are going up regularly is keeping down and distance nice and normal. And that means penalties and sacks must stop.

Where are you getting the down and distance data. That would be interesting to peek at.
Its all inference from two of his press conferences. Especially the answer that Bedard tagged as "defensive" this past week. He spoke of running like it was beyond his control in some way, that he would like to do it but was being governed by some other deciding factor that the team had to control, not him. Since its not the score in any of our games so far (except perhaps 3rd Quarter @ Minnesota), it seems to me to be down and distance.

McCarthy seems like he is a numbers guy to me. He talks the field position game, points per possession and down and distance all the time. He also talks about turnovers and Special Teams and how that affects field position and the likelihood of scoring. Not TOP, controlling the clock, a specific pass to run ratio (Dan Henning, I think [maybe Ray Handley], used to put in writing in the play book for Parcells team's that they wanted a 60-40 run-pass split) or one specific set of plays that they must be able to run at all times (like the slant or the screen or Lombardi's sweep).

He plays probabilities. Over the course of the season, this works in your favor. But it can put you in positions where you are not skilled in the specific challenge before you. Like short yardage in 06 and 07. He has addressed these things (for instance a shorter passing game for the Detroit game) but its not the start of his design of his offense.

He runs when his numbers tells him it will be most likely to lead (or get him closer to) a first down. Or a score.

[gbgary]

it's not grant against the better teams...it's the o-line against the better teams. grant doesn't run softer or hit the holes slower against the better teams...it's that the holes are smaller and fewer in number. improve the line and you'll improve the run stats.

[pbmax]

67 carries - 337 yards against St. Louis, Detroit & Cleveland

41 carries - 158 yards again Chicago, Cincinatti, & Minnesota.

So what that tells me is Grant is good against poor teams, and average to below average against good teams.

Numbers don't always tell you the real truth...unless you break it down like this.
41 for 158 is a 3.85 yard per carry average. I think its more the number of attempts against these good teams that worries me. That's an average of just under 14 a game.

I have become convinced that McCarthy is not going to change his run calling strategy. He is going to run a certain percentage for each down and distance situation. And if its 3rd and medium or longer, you are getting a pass 100% of the time (except for clock killing purposes).

So since they are completing a high percentage of passes, the only way attempts are going up regularly is keeping down and distance nice and normal. And that means penalties and sacks must stop.

I agree with this 100%. I think my bigger problem is McCarthy's running game is so damn predictable, espcially against certain teams. When we play Minnesota, it's like McCarthy is so bent to show we can run righ tat them, that when we can't, he just throws it.

PLUS...watch closely sometime. When we run a zone play, Grant is at 7 yards, any pass play, or any other running play, he is at 5 yards....YES, I decided to actually break down packer tape when I was working on some football stuff. When we run a play action pass, Grant is ALWAYS at 4 yards. And, when we run a zone, we will always run away from the TE, every time. If we are in a double tight set, we will motion one of the TE's away, and run again, away from the TE's...EVERY time.
Wow. I am impressed and worried. I am going to watch the game with this post on the computer. Its seems to be inviting a beatdown by opposing scouting. He must have counters to each of these plays, or is that the role of the cutback run?

[MJZiggy]

It comes back to the question of whether Grant improved last week, the o-line improved last week, or the Browns were incredibly that bad.

[pbmax]

It comes back to the question of whether Grant improved last week, the o-line improved last week, or the Browns were incredibly that bad.
The Browns run D is terrible so far. But Grant doesn't need to break away for TDs. We need 4 yards a carry and the passing game will do the rest. I truly believe that if we can cut down on sacks and penalties, M3 will be in a down and distance to run more. And that will make first downs easier to come by; and that will give the passing game a chance to throttle people.

[pbmax]

67 carries - 337 yards against St. Louis, Detroit & Cleveland

41 carries - 158 yards again Chicago, Cincinatti, & Minnesota.

So what that tells me is Grant is good against poor teams, and average to below average against good teams.

Numbers don't always tell you the real truth...unless you break it down like this.
41 for 158 is a 3.85 yard per carry average. I think its more the number of attempts against these good teams that worries me. That's an average of just under 14 a game.

I have become convinced that McCarthy is not going to change his run calling strategy. He is going to run a certain percentage for each down and distance situation. And if its 3rd and medium or longer, you are getting a pass 100% of the time (except for clock killing purposes).

So since they are completing a high percentage of passes, the only way attempts are going up regularly is keeping down and distance nice and normal. And that means penalties and sacks must stop.

Where are you getting the down and distance data. That would be interesting to peek at.
In direct answer to your question, I don't have data on down and distance. I have never even found a reliable source for short yardage info. The only place where I believe it would be found is the Premium Package at Football Outsiders. You get a copy of their database when you sign up for their pay service.

[ND72]

It comes back to the question of whether Grant improved last week, the o-line improved last week, or the Browns were incredibly that bad.
The Browns run D is terrible so far. But Grant doesn't need to break away for TDs. We need 4 yards a carry and the passing game will do the rest. I truly believe that if we can cut down on sacks and penalties, M3 will be in a down and distance to run more. And that will make first downs easier to come by; and that will give the passing game a chance to throttle people.

:bclap:

[retailguy]

If this thread isn't a flashing billboard screaming "stats aren't the entire answer/picture", I don't know what is.

If Grant is a top 10 back, then I'm Brad Pitt.

There is nothing about this offense that is "top 10 anything" right now. Back to back games against Detroit and Cleveland will help you pad those stats. :idea:

I'll take the wins, that's for sure, but it doesn't ease my worries about this team at all.

Let's see what the stats from Sunday's game look like on Monday, ok? If those stats look good, and we get another W, then I'll start believing.

TJ Lang against Jared Allen, is a lot different than TJ Lang against Wimbley/Coleman....

I agree RG, stats don't mean shit :shock: Truthfully though, just like I said in the other thread they do matter. Maybe not the entire story, but they matter. For 2 weeks MM has committed to the run a bit more, Grant and the OL has been able to catch a rythm and suddenly things look a lot brighter.

Is RG a top 10 back....probably not, but he is obviously capable of getting the job done when the blocks are there. He also has hands of stone. And like someone said, we don't split carries at all.

All of the information is telling, but stats do matter and those of us (myself to an extent) who said RGrant SUCKS have to backpeddle a bit. Is he a stud...no, but he obviously can still get 'er done when the carries are there and the line is adequate.

Like you said, this week will tell us a lot. I actually expect to win a tough one, maybe lose a tough one, but we will be in this game the whole way without any doubt on my part. And I stand by what I said earlier, we are a top 10 team, but not a top 5 team.

I didn't say "stats suck" in either thread. I said they don't tell the whole picture. Ryan Grant is not the 6th best back in the NFL. Stats say he is performing that way in a couple of categories.

You don't get into the NFL without talent. NFL worthy talent. Grant has that. Grant isn't, nor will ever be, top 10 NFL talent. Adrian Peterson, Barry Sanders, and Walter Payton, did not need quality offensive lines to be successful. Ryan Grant, along with 9/10ths of the backs to ever play the game, DO need a good line.

We don't have that right now. True to form this line will probably improve as the season goes along. That doesn't make it a good line. It won't be until we play consistently. We aren't. For 3 years in a row, we haven't.

We must be careful in using stats to say "there! It is working!"

It is NOT working yet. This line has a long, long way to go. Ryan Grant will be COMPETENT when that happens. He'll never be GREAT. I'll be happy with COMPETENT. Right now, Grant isn't the problem. After we have a line, then we'll see if he's the problem. He does miss a lot of cuts though, and sometimes is slow as hell. So, a good line might expose him. But, first things first.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It comes back to the question of whether Grant improved last week, the o-line improved last week, or the Browns were incredibly that bad.
The Browns run D is terrible so far. But Grant doesn't need to break away for TDs. We need 4 yards a carry and the passing game will do the rest. I truly believe that if we can cut down on sacks and penalties, M3 will be in a down and distance to run more. And that will make first downs easier to come by; and that will give the passing game a chance to throttle people.

Pretty much got it PB.

Much as we may dislike it, MM is like andy reid. Going to want to pass more than run. Nothing wrong with that.

I tend to agree. I an average line and average penalties would change things dramatically. We can suffer one, but not both.

[Brandon494]

Pretty much got it PB.

Much as we may dislike it, MM is like andy reid. Going to want to pass more than run. Nothing wrong with that.

I tend to agree. I an average line and average penalties would change things dramatically. We can suffer one, but not both.

I wouldn't mind it either but if your going to be like Andy Reid atleast get a RB who can catch out of the backfield. Doesnt have to be Brian Westbrook but thats something this offense could really use. Brandon Jackson was suppose to be that type of back but looks like he will be nothing more than a 3rd stringer.

[The Leaper]

I agree with the viewpoint that Grant is "serviceable". He is not good enough to be a workhorse back for a team like he is for us. What really eats me is his inability to provide a threat out of the backfield as a receiver. That was what allowed Dorsey Levens to be such a threat despite his subpar speed.

Pointing out that he is 6th in the NFL in rushing after feasting on the bounty of Detroit and Cleveland doesn't impress me much. I'm guessing there is next to no chance he is a top 12 back in rushing by year end...in spite of the fact that he is a workhorse back, while most other teams employ some kind of platoon at the position.

I'm glad he stepped up against Cleveland...and hopefully he and the OL can take this momentum into the Viking game and slow their pass rush a little. However, this doesn't mean that Grant suddenly has become an elite RB.

[Brandon494]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuCgDXPcOxI&feature=player_embedded

Here is a video from the Brown's game where if Grant cuts to the right he is off to the races....instead he runs right into his tackle. :roll:

[pbmax]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuCgDXPcOxI&feature=player_embedded

He is a video from the Brown's game where if Grant cuts to the right he is off to the races....instead he runs right into his tackle. :roll:
I remember that play and I think I made one of my 14 vision jokes about Grant after it. But the replay shows that Lee never cut off the backside pursuit, And the pursuit almost gets him at the LOS. Not Lee's worst block, he had a tough angle on the guy. Lang probably should have struck that end harder or longer. He was on the LB before the LB saw Grant.

Because Grants original hole wasn't (watch the FB go between RG and center) open, he moved one gap over and then had to squeeze past Lee and his dancing partner. At this point, Grant has not looked downfield, so he doesn't see the opening to the right until he is clear of the LOS and the bodies. He has already decided to break off Lang's block to the left but the backer spins Lang and ends up right where Grant has been aiming for. Grant is stumbling a little, which makes me think Lee's guy hit his leg.

Then second pursuit (Bowens on Havner) gets there to knock him down after he hits Lang. But I think the larger point you make with the video is valid. Vision is not his thing. There were several other times he missed opportunities.

[pbmax]

Wells takes Shaun Rodgers right where he wants to go on this play and locks him up pretty good. But it looks like Rodgers doesn't particularly care about this play.

Colledge has no one to block until a LB crosses the LOS behind him. He has to do a turn to block him and just gets enough to make him a non-factor and open the cut back.

If you freeze the video at 2 seconds, you can see the lane to the left Grant saw after he saw the right side get filled. Problem was two pursuers got their hands on him. There would be two fixes for this: one, get a faster back (or block pursuit better) or two, stutter step and go around Lang and the LB. Grant doesn't have the feet to dance away from Lang.

[denverYooper]

67 carries - 337 yards against St. Louis, Detroit & Cleveland

41 carries - 158 yards again Chicago, Cincinatti, & Minnesota.

So what that tells me is Grant is good against poor teams, and average to below average against good teams.

Numbers don't always tell you the real truth...unless you break it down like this.
41 for 158 is a 3.85 yard per carry average. I think its more the number of attempts against these good teams that worries me. That's an average of just under 14 a game.

I have become convinced that McCarthy is not going to change his run calling strategy. He is going to run a certain percentage for each down and distance situation. And if its 3rd and medium or longer, you are getting a pass 100% of the time (except for clock killing purposes).

So since they are completing a high percentage of passes, the only way attempts are going up regularly is keeping down and distance nice and normal. And that means penalties and sacks must stop.

Where are you getting the down and distance data. That would be interesting to peek at.
In direct answer to your question, I don't have data on down and distance. I have never even found a reliable source for short yardage info. The only place where I believe it would be found is the Premium Package at Football Outsiders. You get a copy of their database when you sign up for their pay service.

You could probably also dl the gamebooks from nfl.com and parse out the play-by-play section from the for a cheap version.

Do you know where FO gets their data?

[Rastak]

Denver, I think they do the same as KC Joiner and watch every play 22 times focusing on each player.

[pbmax]

Denver, I think they do the same as KC Joiner and watch every play 22 times focusing on each player.
They do their own tape breakdown (with an army of reader/volunteers) but they also parse the NFL gamebooks for their weekly writeups. That is where the data for the DVOA rankings comes from.

[Partial]

Denver, I think they do the same as KC Joiner and watch every play 22 times focusing on each player.

Wow, I'm can't decide if this would be an amazing job or an awful job.

[denverYooper]

Denver, I think they do the same as KC Joiner and watch every play 22 times focusing on each player.

Yowza.

[Guiness]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuCgDXPcOxI&feature=player_embedded

He is a video from the Brown's game where if Grant cuts to the right he is off to the races....instead he runs right into his tackle. :roll:
I remember that play and I think I made one of my 14 vision jokes about Grant after it. But the replay shows that Lee never cut off the backside pursuit, And the pursuit almost gets him at the LOS. Not Lee's worst block, he had a tough angle on the guy. Lang probably should have struck that end harder or longer. He was on the LB before the LB saw Grant.

Because Grants original hole wasn't (watch the FB go between RG and center) open, he moved one gap over and then had to squeeze past Lee and his dancing partner. At this point, Grant has not looked downfield, so he doesn't see the opening to the right until he is clear of the LOS and the bodies. He has already decided to break off Lang's block to the left but the backer spins Lang and ends up right where Grant has been aiming for. Grant is stumbling a little, which makes me think Lee's guy hit his leg.

Then second pursuit (Bowens on Havner) gets there to knock him down after he hits Lang. But I think the larger point you make with the video is valid. Vision is not his thing. There were several other times he missed opportunities.

You're right PB, he did make an adjustment when he saw the hole open up, instead of following his lead block, the FB. So he turned a 2yd gain into what, 6-7 yards?

I don't think Lee's man got a hand on him, but he was stumbling when he ran into Lang. More likely the cut into a different hole, then dancing away from Lee's man made him lose his feet. Looks like he's got his head down when he hits Lang, probably stumbling trying to get his feet under him.

Of course, if he had proper pad level, he could've regained his balance :P

[bobblehead]

I agree with this 100%. I think my bigger problem is McCarthy's running game is so damn predictable, espcially against certain teams. When we play Minnesota, it's like McCarthy is so bent to show we can run righ tat them, that when we can't, he just throws it.



My problem with you saying this is that in the first quarter of that game we DID.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/gamecenter/playbyplay/NFL_20091005_GB@MIN

if you look at the play by play in that game you will see we mixed it up early and ran successfully.

[bobblehead]

67 carries - 337 yards against St. Louis, Detroit & Cleveland

41 carries - 158 yards again Chicago, Cincinatti, & Minnesota.

So what that tells me is Grant is good against poor teams, and average to below average against good teams.

Numbers don't always tell you the real truth...unless you break it down like this.
41 for 158 is a 3.85 yard per carry average. I think its more the number of attempts against these good teams that worries me. That's an average of just under 14 a game.

I have become convinced that McCarthy is not going to change his run calling strategy. He is going to run a certain percentage for each down and distance situation. And if its 3rd and medium or longer, you are getting a pass 100% of the time (except for clock killing purposes).

So since they are completing a high percentage of passes, the only way attempts are going up regularly is keeping down and distance nice and normal. And that means penalties and sacks must stop.

I agree with this 100%. I think my bigger problem is McCarthy's running game is so damn predictable, espcially against certain teams. When we play Minnesota, it's like McCarthy is so bent to show we can run righ tat them, that when we can't, he just throws it.

PLUS...watch closely sometime. When we run a zone play, Grant is at 7 yards, any pass play, or any other running play, he is at 5 yards....YES, I decided to actually break down packer tape when I was working on some football stuff. When we run a play action pass, Grant is ALWAYS at 4 yards. And, when we run a zone, we will always run away from the TE, every time. If we are in a double tight set, we will motion one of the TE's away, and run again, away from the TE's...EVERY time.
Wow. I am impressed and worried. I am going to watch the game with this post on the computer. Its seems to be inviting a beatdown by opposing scouting. He must have counters to each of these plays, or is that the role of the cutback run?

I also touched on this after the Minnesota game. I sat with my best friend and called something like 12 of 14 plays correctly (based mostly on formation) including the FB dive for the touchdown. I even pointed out that JAllen had completely stopped thinking about the run by the middle of the second quarter and we needed to run right at him....but never did.

[Fritz]

Here's what I don't quite get: if Wells is #63, and the play was supposed to go between center and right guard (where the FB goes), why did Wells appear to block his man toward the right? Or did Rodgers just take him there, thus closing the original hole but allowing the middle to open thanks to the blocking on the left side?

[bobblehead]

If this thread isn't a flashing billboard screaming "stats aren't the entire answer/picture", I don't know what is.

If Grant is a top 10 back, then I'm Brad Pitt.

There is nothing about this offense that is "top 10 anything" right now. Back to back games against Detroit and Cleveland will help you pad those stats. :idea:

I'll take the wins, that's for sure, but it doesn't ease my worries about this team at all.

Let's see what the stats from Sunday's game look like on Monday, ok? If those stats look good, and we get another W, then I'll start believing.

TJ Lang against Jared Allen, is a lot different than TJ Lang against Wimbley/Coleman....

I agree RG, stats don't mean shit :shock: Truthfully though, just like I said in the other thread they do matter. Maybe not the entire story, but they matter. For 2 weeks MM has committed to the run a bit more, Grant and the OL has been able to catch a rythm and suddenly things look a lot brighter.

Is RG a top 10 back....probably not, but he is obviously capable of getting the job done when the blocks are there. He also has hands of stone. And like someone said, we don't split carries at all.

All of the information is telling, but stats do matter and those of us (myself to an extent) who said RGrant SUCKS have to backpeddle a bit. Is he a stud...no, but he obviously can still get 'er done when the carries are there and the line is adequate.

Like you said, this week will tell us a lot. I actually expect to win a tough one, maybe lose a tough one, but we will be in this game the whole way without any doubt on my part. And I stand by what I said earlier, we are a top 10 team, but not a top 5 team.

I didn't say "stats suck" in either thread. I said they don't tell the whole picture. Ryan Grant is not the 6th best back in the NFL. Stats say he is performing that way in a couple of categories.

You don't get into the NFL without talent. NFL worthy talent. Grant has that. Grant isn't, nor will ever be, top 10 NFL talent. Adrian Peterson, Barry Sanders, and Walter Payton, did not need quality offensive lines to be successful. Ryan Grant, along with 9/10ths of the backs to ever play the game, DO need a good line.

We don't have that right now. True to form this line will probably improve as the season goes along. That doesn't make it a good line. It won't be until we play consistently. We aren't. For 3 years in a row, we haven't.

We must be careful in using stats to say "there! It is working!"

It is NOT working yet. This line has a long, long way to go. Ryan Grant will be COMPETENT when that happens. He'll never be GREAT. I'll be happy with COMPETENT. Right now, Grant isn't the problem. After we have a line, then we'll see if he's the problem. He does miss a lot of cuts though, and sometimes is slow as hell. So, a good line might expose him. But, first things first.

I agree, I was making a joke with my first statement cuz I had just argued you weren't giving the D enough credit based on stats in the other thread, but I was coming right back here agreeing with you that stats don't tell the whole story. I was poking fun at myself.

You and I agree mostly, I just happen to think this team is better than you do. I think the D is better than average, and the O is much better than average. Grant needs enough carries, but the OL has sucked and put us in situations that don't help. I do think grant is slightly below average for an NFL starter, but he certainly does have NFL talent....just not enough for him to have held out last year.

[bobblehead]

Here's what I don't quite get: if Wells is #63, and the play was supposed to go between center and right guard (where the FB goes), why did Wells appear to block his man toward the right? Or did Rodgers just take him there, thus closing the original hole but allowing the middle to open thanks to the blocking on the left side?

The second is my take. Wells has great balance and when Rogers adjusted his force Wells took him there as hard as he could. Sometimes you can't force a guy that size where you want him, but if he is off balance you can drive him harder than he wanted in the direction he wanted. In this case it opened the cutback.

Grant on the play showed what he is. Solid, not all world. He did what MM preaches all the time. He made the first cut into the hole and ran downhill. Bummer the guy he ran into wasn't 2 yards left or right as Grant would have been gone, but Grant did his job...one cut and run downhill. I only bag on him when he misses the FIRST cut, you can't ask him to make another one, he would start running too tenatively and never bust a big one.

Big runs come when a guy makes his one cut and has a lane as he opens up full speed....unless its Barry Sanders who can make another 4 cuts before he is done.

edit: If Cliffy were the LT on that play Grant is dropped at the line. With Lang the cutback lane appeared though as he held his ground.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Here's what I don't quite get: if Wells is #63, and the play was supposed to go between center and right guard (where the FB goes), why did Wells appear to block his man toward the right? Or did Rodgers just take him there, thus closing the original hole but allowing the middle to open thanks to the blocking on the left side?

The second is my take. Wells has great balance and when Rogers adjusted his force Wells took him there as hard as he could. Sometimes you can't force a guy that size where you want him, but if he is off balance you can drive him harder than he wanted in the direction he wanted. In this case it opened the cutback.

Grant on the play showed what he is. Solid, not all world. He did what MM preaches all the time. He made the first cut into the hole and ran downhill. Bummer the guy he ran into wasn't 2 yards left or right as Grant would have been gone, but Grant did his job...one cut and run downhill. I only bag on him when he misses the FIRST cut, you can't ask him to make another one, he would start running too tenatively and never bust a big one.

Big runs come when a guy makes his one cut and has a lane as he opens up full speed....unless its Barry Sanders who can make another 4 cuts before he is done.

edit: If Cliffy were the LT on that play Grant is dropped at the line. With Lang the cutback lane appeared though as he held his ground.

Lang really impressed me on that play. He didn't just hold his ground. He got his arms extended and blew his guy several yards back. Granted it was a linebacker. I'm not sure if it's designed or not but I'd love for someone to tell me. IF the run was going to the 2 gap(between center and rg) why are both Spitz and Barbre playing titty-bumps with their men. Now I don't know all the in's-and-out's about zone blocking, but I do know about conventional blocking. Neither one drives his man, they just make contact and stand them up. Now that's not necessarily a bad thing, getting your defender stood up, but they didn't appear to try to drive their man anywhere. They were just content to make contact and stop penetration. Is this by design?

[mmmdk]

Nice thread.

Grant is the best back Packers has right now and I have a feeling Grant wouldn't fall through even in Denver. Grant needs bigger holes as his hips won't let him make those athletic cuts; Grant makes sharp cuts and his burst doesn't kick in before 10 yards or so. A one cut guy...for every 10 yards. With space Grant has speed.