Interesting article on broken tackles

[Bossman641]

Don't have time to discuss, but I thought this article was insightful and provides some good backup for those who think Grant is nothing special.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/12716/tracing-broken-tackles-in-the-nfc-north

[mission]

Don't have time to discuss, but I thought this article was insightful and provides some good backup for those who think Grant is nothing special.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/12716/tracing-broken-tackles-in-the-nfc-north

Pretty much what most of us have been saying all along. It doesn't take a group of scientists to see that Ryan Grant just doesn't make many people miss.

He's consistent, you can count on him -- I'd rather have him than a lot of guys -- but the whole AP comparisons were really just getting out of hand. :)

[packerbacker1234]

Don't have time to discuss, but I thought this article was insightful and provides some good backup for those who think Grant is nothing special.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/12716/tracing-broken-tackles-in-the-nfc-north

Pretty much what most of us have been saying all along. It doesn't take a group of scientists to see that Ryan Grant just doesn't make many people miss.

He's consistent, you can count on him -- I'd rather have him than a lot of guys -- but the whole AP comparisons were really just getting out of hand. :)

Ryan Grant is just the right sort of guy for a passing team. He's consistent, doesn't turn it over, he's alright in the passing game, decent blocker... just isn't spectacular. Lets the passing game be the highlight of the team and supplements it well.

Really, I couldn't ask for more from Grant. He fits with us nicely.

[channtheman]

Don't have time to discuss, but I thought this article was insightful and provides some good backup for those who think Grant is nothing special.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/12716/tracing-broken-tackles-in-the-nfc-north

Pretty much what most of us have been saying all along. It doesn't take a group of scientists to see that Ryan Grant just doesn't make many people miss.

He's consistent, you can count on him -- I'd rather have him than a lot of guys -- but the whole AP comparisons were really just getting out of hand. :)

Clearly Grant is so far above and beyond AP that the comparisons are just asinine. :lol:

Honestly though, I think that you can compare the two. I don't think AP is as good as advertised, though he is good. His fumbling problem is huge knock against him.

[Joemailman]

Don't have time to discuss, but I thought this article was insightful and provides some good backup for those who think Grant is nothing special.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/12716/tracing-broken-tackles-in-the-nfc-north

Pretty much what most of us have been saying all along. It doesn't take a group of scientists to see that Ryan Grant just doesn't make many people miss.

He's consistent, you can count on him -- I'd rather have him than a lot of guys -- but the whole AP comparisons were really just getting out of hand. :)



Ryan Grant is just the right sort of guy for a passing team. He's consistent, doesn't turn it over, he's alright in the passing game, decent blocker... just isn't spectacular. Lets the passing game be the highlight of the team and supplements it well.

Really, I couldn't ask for more from Grant. He fits with us nicely.

It would be nice if he were a better pass receiver. He's average-at-best there. That's the only real negative with him.

[Scott Campbell]

Hmmm. This metric would seem to favor backs with poor "vision" that have to get yardage by running though people instead of seeing holes and utilizing their blocks.

[packerbacker1234]

Hmmm. This metric would seem to favor backs with poor "vision" that have to get yardage by running though people instead of seeing holes and utilizing their blocks.

Thats part of it too I'm sure. Backs that can break tackles are great to ahve, backs with good vision who can avoid contact are better.

[The Leaper]

Grant is a mediocre RB...he's just fortunate to play on a team with a high octane passing game, otherwise he'd be lucky to get 800 yards a year.

I've seen Ryan Grant...it isn't that he has great "vision" to see holes and utilize blocks. The guy goes down way too easily on first contact, which is why he doesn't break any tackles. In the NFL, you have to break tackles as a RB to be an elite back...unless you have an uber OL. Clearly, we don't have that OL...so Grant is SOL.

[packerbacker1234]

Grant is a mediocre RB...he's just fortunate to play on a team with a high octane passing game, otherwise he'd be lucky to get 800 yards a year.

I've seen Ryan Grant...it isn't that he has great "vision" to see holes and utilize blocks. The guy goes down way too easily on first contact, which is why he doesn't break any tackles. In the NFL, you have to break tackles as a RB to be an elite back...unless you have an uber OL. Clearly, we don't have that OL...so Grant is SOL.

4.4 ypc is good numbers. AP and Stephen Jackson both had 4.4 ypc last season as well. Are below average guys?

Grant looked good second half of the year after Green showed up. I definitely would not mind us bringing Green back if that keeps a fire under his ass. Green was running hard for us, even in limited time due to the pulled hammy.

[Bossman641]

Didn't intend to turn this into another thread about Grant. I was more surprised at the offense's low ranking in broken tackles. Between Jennings and Driver I thought there would be more.

Also, I am impressed, but not surprised, by how solid the defense was in making the tackle.

[Packgator]

"Interesting article on broken tackles"

I thought this was a thread about Tauscher and Clifton.

[Guiness]

4.4 ypc is good numbers. AP and Stephen Jackson both had 4.4 ypc last season as well. Are below average guys?



Say it along with me...
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

Grant is a good back, and fits our scheme well, although a better receiver would be good. But despite what the #'s say, he's not SJ or AP.

[Smidgeon]

For top 15 starting running backs, Grant is average. For running backs in general, he's pretty darn good.

[bobblehead]

4.4 ypc is good numbers. AP and Stephen Jackson both had 4.4 ypc last season as well. Are below average guys?



Say it along with me...
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

Grant is a good back, and fits our scheme well, although a better receiver would be good. But despite what the #'s say, he's not SJ or AP.

Statistics NEVER lie, only those that tell you what the statistic means. In this case someone claiming that YPC means the backs are equals. clearly Jamaal Charles of the chiefs who got 1100 yards on 5.9 YPC was superior to chris Johnson last year who only got 5.6 YPC.

[3irty1]

Wanting more than Ryan Grant is damn greedy. He takes most of the yards that are there and doesn't turn it over. Unless you are depending on your running back single handedly winning games for you (which means the rest of your team sucks) Ryan Grant is everything you need.

And really his size:speed ratio is among the best in the biz.

[RashanGary]

Hmmm. This metric would seem to favor backs with poor "vision" that have to get yardage by running though people instead of seeing holes and utilizing their blocks.

I don't know, looking at that metric, it seems to favor the best RBs in the league.

[RashanGary]

I'd call Grant a good, solid starter but not a probowler. He's to RB's what Mark Tauscher is to OL. Reliable, consistent, but not dominant.

[mraynrand]

"Interesting article on broken tackles"

I thought this was a thread about Tauscher and Clifton.

:rs:

That's good stuff

http://www.just-my-opinion.org/wp-content/Groucho-Marx.jpg

[Gunakor]

If Ryan Grant leaves us with 2nd and 6, 3rd and 2 by falling forward for 4 yards on first contact I'm happy. We're not a running team. Grant's job is to chew clock, hold onto the ball, keep the defense honest and leave manageable down and distance. As long as he's getting that job done I could care less how he does it.

[Upnorth]

1 fumble in 282 attempts. A very consistent 4.4 average (due to not many big gains). Considering the style of play, he is what we need. Someone who can break more tackles and big gains would be nice, but Grant's play is not holding us back.
I am more concerned about back up Corner and our DL Depth.

[Pugger]

I don't understand the lack of love for Grant either. He was ranked in the top 10 in the league for RBs at the end of the season. He isnt' elite but there aren't a slew of them in the league these days. The NFL is a passing league now so all you need is a reliable back that will get you some yards, block and not turn the ball over. This sounds like that guy who wears #25...

[The Leaper]

In our pass happy scheme, a RB who can be a threat out of the backfield as a receiver is vital as a safety valve for the QB. Grant is also poor at picking up that 1st down when it is 3rd and 1 or 2...which is critical for any RB.

Sorry...I'm not happy with a mediocre RB. I can name 25 guys in the NFL who would be as productive in our system as Grant is. We can do better...and it isn't like we need to draft someone in the first round or sign a high priced FA to do it. There are loads of talented kids coming out of college these days. Thompson just seems to struggle finding talent at RB in the draft.

[Upnorth]

I can name 25 guys in the NFL who would be as productive in our system as Grant is.
Okay Leaper, who are the 25?

[Bretsky]

I can name 25 guys in the NFL who would be as productive in our system as Grant is.
Okay Leaper, who are the 25?


I was wondering if anybody would call Leap to task here. I've stated many times Grant is a good fit for what we need him to do in our system. I use to view him as a bottom half RB in the 15-22 range. But when I went team to team and looked at who I had to compare him with I had to concede Grant was in the top ten range on the high end and at worst about #15. Either way he belongs in the top half and with our system he probably has more value to GB than most of the other teams.

[The Leaper]

If you need to know...

Clear Upgrades (12)

Chris Johnson
Steven Jackson
Maurice Jones Drew
Adrian Peterson
Ray Rice
Jonathan Stewart
Frank Gore
DeAngelo Williams
Michael Turner
Rashard Mendenhall
Matt Forte

Probable Upgrades/Draws (6)

Marion Barber
Thomas Jones
Cedric Benson
Clinton Portis
Ronnie Brown
Ricky Williams

Not Fully Proven...But Me Likey (7)

Jamaal Charles - talented kid on a bad offense...would shine in GB
Pierre Thomas - not a proven workhorse...but already is a much better receiver than Grant
Ahmad Bradshaw - hasn't had a chance to be a #1 back...but he's been a solid player for the Giants. Probably not better than Grant, but just as good.
Shonn Greene - love the guy...was a big reason the Jets made such a great postseason push.
Felix Jones - highly talented kid...don't know if he can be a workhorse, but I would take a shot on him.
CJ Spiller - rookie...but with a lot of physical ability
Ryan Mathews - rookie...but with a lot of physical ability

There are others who you could toss in the argument as well...but I think these are the 25 best options to replace Grant with and get similar or better production. I'm not saying we should just toss Grant aside...he's capable, just mediocre as a feature back due to his lack of receiving skills and penchant to go down if someone gets merely a finger on him.

[The Leaper]

I was wondering if anybody would call Leap to task here. I've stated many times Grant is a good fit for what we need him to do in our system.

How is a RB with zero receiving skills a good fit for our offense?

Sure...Grant knows our offense and is thus more valuable to us currently. There are only 10-14 RBs who I think you can argue would be a definitive upgrade over Grant. However, there are plenty of guys who probably offer just as much if you gave them a chance in our offense.

I'm not saying we have to dump Grant...just that I don't think Grant is a guy you look at as being untouchable. He has some serious flaws in his game that hinder our offense. We should be looking to upgrade our starting RB position when possible.

[Gunakor]

Ryan Grant is the starting RB for the highest scoring Packers team in franchise history. One of the biggest reasons the Packers scored so many points is because they didn't turn the ball over. It had to be one of the lowest turnover totals for a 16 game season in franchise history as well. Grant doesn't turn the ball over at all. Really. I mean like never. He'd be a quality addition to ANY team in the NFL. Everybody's looking for that reliable back that will get you a consistent 4 yards and never fumble no matter how many times you put the ball in his hands.

If we're looking to upgrade the starting RB position, the new guy had better have the same tight grip on the football that Grant has or it isn't really an upgrade at all.

[Pugger]

The only "serious flaw" in his game is he isn't a reciever out of the backfield. With all of our WRs and TEs do we really need Grant to do more than he already is?

[Fritz]

I always like the safety-valve option of a running back slipping out of the backfield.

To that degree is Brandon Jackson a better fit? Better blocker, better receiver (I think). He just doesn't run as well.

[Upnorth]

Leaper I agree that Johnson, Jackson, Peterson, Gore and Rice are all upgrades.
Leaper, you complain about Grants Stone hands.
Grant had 25 Receptions and 1 fumble.

Mendenhall had 25 receptions , 3 fumbles.
Turner 5 receptions, 4 fumbles, 2 lost
Williams, 29 receptions, 3 fumbles
Stewart, 18 recpetions, 3 fumbles, 2 lost

So these 5 are on your clear upgrades. 3 had less receptions and more fumbles. Williams is the only one with more receptions but still lost 3 fumbles. Based on pass catchiong is that really such an upgrade?
When it comes to rushing I would take Grants consistent 4 over any of these announcer darlings in a heartbeat.

Also you have Matt Forte as a clear upgrade. Did you know he fumbled 6 times and lost 3 last year? Did you know his rushing average was 3.6 ypc?
However he did make 57 receptions, so he is much better at making catches as a running back.

[RashanGary]

Grant is a good player. After the top players, he's right in the pack of really good RB's.

If something better comes along, fine, nab it up. Until then, I'm satisfied with Grant. He can get the job done.

[HarveyWallbangers]

If you need to know...

Clear Upgrades (12)

Chris Johnson
Steven Jackson
Maurice Jones Drew
Adrian Peterson
Ray Rice
Jonathan Stewart
Frank Gore
DeAngelo Williams
Michael Turner
Rashard Mendenhall - NOPE
Matt Forte - NOT A CHANCE

Probable Upgrades/Draws (6)

Marion Barber
Thomas Jones
Cedric Benson
Clinton Portis
Ronnie Brown
Ricky Williams

Mendenhall and Forte are CLEAR upgrades? Hardly. In fact, I'd take Grant over Forte. Mendenhall is close, but he fumbles more too much. At one point, I would have taken Barber, but not anymore. He isn't the same player he was when he came into the league. His physical running style has already taken a toll. Benson? What? He's had one good year, and Grant had more yards and receptions and had a better yards/carry average in Benson's best year. Portis? Not anymore. His 2176 career carries has taken its toll. Williams? He's 33 and how could you trust him enough to take him over Grant? Ronnie Brown? No. He can't stay healthy. For me, that would put Grant at #12.

[get louder at lambeau]

How is a RB with zero receiving skills a good fit for our offense?.

Grant caught a higher percentage of passes thrown to him than 10 of the 12 guys on your "Clear Upgrades" list, and averaged more yards per reception than half the guys on that same list.

[Guiness]

Quick! Rename this the 'Lotsa Grant Love' thread :mrgreen:

I think the problem with Grant has always been that he can't carry a team, win a game the way an 'elite' back can take control. It's hard to judge - when the O-line struggles, he seems to disappear. But don't all backs? When first contact is in the backfield, how many backs can still manage to succeed? Barry Sanders has been gone a long time...

[The Leaper]

The fumble fetish some of you people have is downright hilarious.

Ahman Green...fumbles and all...is head and shoulders above Ryan Grant as a running back. In his prime, I'd take him in an instant over Grant.

Knocking a RB for having 3 or 4 fumbles a year is ludicrous. Grant himself had 4 fumbles in 2008. So are you going to rip him a new one for that?

[The Leaper]

Grant caught a higher percentage of passes thrown to him than 10 of the 12 guys on your "Clear Upgrades" list, and averaged more yards per reception than half the guys on that same list.

Grant had a mere 25 receptions as the workhorse back for the Packers. That is an extremely low number for a guy on the field for as many plays as Grant is. It was even worse in 2008...18 measley receptions.

If you want to jump on the "Grant is a decent receiver" bandwagon...so be it. You are going to look funny being the only person on the bandwagon though.

[The Leaper]

Mendenhall and Forte are CLEAR upgrades? Hardly. In fact, I'd take Grant over Forte.

I'll admit that Grant is probably a slightly better runner than Forte. Forte obviously hasn't been blessed with any kind of passing game to help him out, but he's not a great runner regardless. However, he's 3 times the receiver Grant is. The guy catches 60 balls a year.


Mendenhall is close, but he fumbles more too much.

Huh? The guy has THREE FUMBLES IN HIS CAREER...and you are going to give him shit for that? Mendenhall is clearly a superior runner to Grant, and he's just as good of a receiver (not saying much, I know).

Seriously people...get off the fumble argument. Few NFL RBs fumble profusely...and fumbles are as much dumb luck as anything for RBs. Just because Grant only had one last year doesn't mean he's going to do that every year. HE HAD FOUR FUMBLES IN 2008 FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!


At one point, I would have taken Barber, but not anymore. He isn't the same player he was when he came into the league. His physical running style has already taken a toll. Benson? What? He's had one good year, and Grant had more yards and receptions and had a better yards/carry average in Benson's best year. Portis? Not anymore. His 2176 career carries has taken its toll. Williams? He's 33 and how could you trust him enough to take him over Grant? Ronnie Brown? No. He can't stay healthy. For me, that would put Grant at #12.

My point was simply pertaining to guys who could replace Grant in our lineup without any real loss in production. I'm not saying that I want to replace Grant with some of these guys...just that I think these guys could perform equally to Grant in our offense.

[Lurker64]

I very much like Grant's production to cost ratio, as he's getting paid a modest amount by NFL starting RB standards, and he only cost us a sixth round pick to acquire. Moreover, he's good enough that we don't need to reach for a RB at any point in the draft, at least for the next few years.

Certainly, a guy you could upgrade, but Grant is cheap and upgrading him probably wouldn't be.

[get louder at lambeau]

Grant caught a higher percentage of passes thrown to him than 10 of the 12 guys on your "Clear Upgrades" list, and averaged more yards per reception than half the guys on that same list.

Grant had a mere 25 receptions as the workhorse back for the Packers. That is an extremely low number for a guy on the field for as many plays as Grant is. It was even worse in 2008...18 measley receptions.

If you want to jump on the "Grant is a decent receiver" bandwagon...so be it. You are going to look funny being the only person on the bandwagon though.

You realize that we have quite a few good receivers to throw the ball to, right? When they did throw to Grant, he caught a higher percentage than 10 of your 12 "Clear Upgrades" did, and more yards per catch than half of them too, yet you think he has "zero receiving skills". It's not Grant's fault that Rodgers has Jennings, Driver, Jones, Nelson, Finley, etc. to spread the ball around to.

Grant was targeted 30 times. 31 other NFL RBs were targeted 30 times or more. Only 9 of them caught a higher percentage of passes throw to them. Only 12 of them had a higher yards per reception average. Only 3 RBs in the NFL who had 30 or more targets bested Grant in both percentage caught and yards per reception.

[Gunakor]

The fumble fetish some of you people have is downright hilarious.

The pass receiving RB fetish you have is also downright hilarious.

FYI, we don't throw very many passes to our RB's. It's not because they're awful pass catchers, it's because that's the offense we run. So no matter how often Grant is on the field, he's not going to have high reception totals. He's not targeted very often. We don't run screens very much anymore. Rodgers is always looking downfield and throws to WR's and TE's. RB's do not factor very highly in our passing attack. It's schemed that way.

For shits and giggles, why don't you tell us all how many passes Grant DROPPED last season. If he had 25 catches then he couldn't have dropped many at all. Rodgers didn't target him very often. If he caught 25, how many did he drop? This ought to be interesting.


EDIT: Just read the above post. So he dropped 5 out of 30 balls thrown his way. Nothing to get too concerned about IMO. Not exactly hands of stone.

Leap, I think your problem is with the offense we run rather than the RB who starts in it. Schematically, we don't do what you'd like to see us do.

[Tarlam!]

As a fan without an eye for the actual game, I tend to look at stats to be able to compare players. I can't really tell if Grant does his job that much better or worse than his peers anymore than I can tell which of the 3 FBs contribute the most when they're on the paddock.

It's not as obvious for me as, say, when a lineman misses a block and Rodgers gets pressured or hit.

The other thing that I find difficult when trying to make performance judgements is knowing what the play actually calls the players to do. Or, what the coaching staff ask the players to do.

What is easy for my untrained eye to decipher are "big plays", like the one where Grant ran straight through the defense in Dallas a couple of seasons ago. The Packers lost that game, but that was a big play. For my money, I would like a RB that had a bigger share of big plays, despite having a high octane passing attack.

What strikes me about Grant in his interviews is his quiet, but confident demeanor. He's not one to make excuses, doesn't talk a great game and seems to be a natural team mate. If, indeed, that's more than just an image for the public, then he could be marked down as a valuable locker room presence.

There's no question for me, though, that a young Green brought more to the field than Grant.

[Gunakor]

I'm not as concerned with the big play as others. We have plenty of quick strike ability through our passing game if we absolutely need it. Our running game is used to chew clock, not huge chunks of yardage. As long as our running game leaves us with 3rd and 2 and a significant advantage in TOP I have no complaints. Keep that clock ticking, keep those chains moving, keep our offense on the field. If we do that the odds of victory are definitely in our favor, and we'll win an awful lot of football games.

[Fritz]

I love that Grant doesn't fumble (exxcept for that Seattle game). And that's who he is as a player: not a home run hitter, but not a guy who's going to make mistakes to cost you the game.

Given the talent at other positions, this seems good enough for me at this position.

[MJZiggy]

I love that Grant doesn't fumble (exxcept for that Seattle game). And that's who he is as a player: not a home run hitter, but not a guy who's going to make mistakes to cost you the game.

Given the talent at other positions, this seems good enough for me at this position.

I think he redeemed himself in Seattle...

[bobblehead]

I agree with Leaper that Grant could be replaced with about 25 guys in the league and it would be comparable. I disagree that his low fumble rate isn't a big deal. I remember screaming at the TV and throwing shit as Green would fumble on the first play of a series after BF had tossed a pick.

Grant is a solid runner. He is below avg. as a reciever and blocker (pass pro). My biggest gripe isn't that Grant can't run a screen (and he can't), but that MM doesn't call many screens.

This season will be telling for our RB's. Does Grant still get almost all the carries. Does Jackson develope or is it time to give up on him. Is this rookie worth his salt. TC will be fun from the RB stand point.

[3irty1]

Ryan Grant does have some stone hands but we've had some pretty good success running screen plays with him. Probably because nobody knows its coming, unlike when Brandon Jackson is on the field.

[get louder at lambeau]

EDIT: Just read the above post. So he dropped 5 out of 30 balls thrown his way. Nothing to get too concerned about IMO. Not exactly hands of stone.

Actually it means he didn't catch 5 f the 30 passes thrown to him. 3 were drops, according to profootballfocus.com. The other 2 must have been considered off target passes.

[The Leaper]

I disagree that his low fumble rate isn't a big deal.

Honestly, I don't see a low fumble rate as being a huge positive for a RB...especially for a more finesse guy like Grant. If Grant was a bruiser like Steven Jackson and fumbled as infrequently as he does, then you are on to something.

IMO, it's like the 5th or 6th tiebreaker between guys who are very comparable. To me, it's more about avoiding the RB who has a really high fumble rate. I'm fine with any RB who is around 1% or lower in terms of fumbles per touch...and I'm willing to give more physical players a tad of leeway. Here's a list of the career rates for some of the RBs in the league currently:

A Peterson...20/998 = 2.00%
F Gore...22/1,392 = 1.58%
S Jackson...20/1,829 = 1.09%
M Jones-Drew...11/1,043 = 1.06%
T Jones...24/2,569 = 0.93%
L Tomlinson...27/3,410 = 0.79%
R Grant...6/855 = 0.70%
C Benson...7/998 = 0.70%
D Williams...5/861 = 0.58%
C Johnson...4/702 = 0.57%

So, Peterson fumbles a lot. Gore does as well. Those are guys I'd be more wary of...their history tosses up a red flag. Jackson is slightly over 1%...but given his production and style of play, I wouldn't complain. So, Grant really doesn't have some huge advantage over most other RBs in the league...which is why I don't hold his slightly better than average fumble rate in such high esteem.

[Lurker64]

Grant's not great, but he's okay. I think that with the rest of the offense the way it is, we don't really need a running back who's significantly better than okay. All we really need is to be able to run the four minute offense, and to keep defenses honest. McCarthy has sworn up and down that he wants us to be a running team. We're not going to be one, and that's just fine since you don't need to be an elite running team to win championships as recent years have shown, and we're not going to become an elite running team any time soon without lucking in to an elite back.

We were a top 15 rushing team last year, and I don't think we need to be better than that. There are a truly ridiculous number of draft eligible running backs in who could be great in college football this year, so who knows what next season will hold, but I really don't worry about Grant going forward. We didn't have elite rushing when Wolf was building his championship teams either.

[The Leaper]

We didn't have elite rushing when Wolf was building his championship teams either.

No...but Bennett and Levens were much larger threats as receivers out of the backfield. Sure, they weren't going to scare anyone in terms of just running...but their overall games made them a threat. Grant is just way too one-dimensional for me...he's not a threat. He's not a guy who you can take advantage of matchups with. He's just a runner that picks up yardage...mostly that's given to him by blocking. Yawn.

I personally believe the struggles of Peyton Manning in the postseason can be blamed highly on the fact he's never had a strong threat out of the backfield. We think Favre struggles in big games...well Manning's postseason record is abysmal for a guy of his stature. His only Super Bowl ring came in a playoff run that featured a game won with no offensive TDs and where Manning threw double the INTs to TDs in that postseason. Manning didn't win that title...the Colts defense did. At least Favre typically shined in the postseason during his prime...even without the great WRs to work with. That's because the offense had balance and credible threats at ALL positions.

Manning should be cleaning up right now with all the talent on that offense...but Addai is a mediocre RB just like Grant. It hinders that offense. IMO, RBs are more important than WRs...so Grant's mediocrity is a concern to me. You have to effectively utilize your RBs in more ways than just picking up 3-4 yards on a handoff once in awhile to fully develop your offense.

Sure, Grant is good enough to have a 10 or 11 win team and make the playoffs every year. Is he good enough to help you win a title? I just don't think so.

[Gunakor]

We didn't have elite rushing when Wolf was building his championship teams either.

No...but Bennett and Levens were much larger threats as receivers out of the backfield. Sure, they weren't going to scare anyone in terms of just running...but their overall games made them a threat. Grant is just way too one-dimensional for me...he's not a threat. He's not a guy who you can take advantage of matchups with. He's just a runner that picks up yardage...mostly that's given to him by blocking. Yawn.

I personally believe the struggles of Peyton Manning in the postseason can be blamed highly on the fact he's never had a strong threat out of the backfield. We think Favre struggles in big games...well Manning's postseason record is abysmal for a guy of his stature. His only Super Bowl ring came in a playoff run that featured a game won with no offensive TDs and where Manning threw double the INTs to TDs in that postseason. Manning didn't win that title...the Colts defense did. At least Favre typically shined in the postseason during his prime...even without the great WRs to work with. That's because the offense had balance and credible threats at ALL positions.

Manning should be cleaning up right now with all the talent on that offense...but Addai is a mediocre RB just like Grant. It hinders that offense. IMO, RBs are more important than WRs...so Grant's mediocrity is a concern to me. You have to effectively utilize your RBs in more ways than just picking up 3-4 yards on a handoff once in awhile to fully develop your offense.

Sure, Grant is good enough to have a 10 or 11 win team and make the playoffs every year. Is he good enough to help you win a title? I just don't think so.

That was a different offense that Levens and Bennett were in. They were actually used as pass receivers out of the backfield. We don't do that a whole lot anymore. We could have a Dorsey Levens or an Ahman Green in their prime lining up behind Rodgers and that wouldn't necessarily translate to greater numbers in the passing game for our RB's.

In order for our RB's to put up gaudy numbers in the passing game Rodgers would have to throw the ball to them more often than he throws to Grant or Jackson. While you obviously believe that the cause for us not utilizing our RB's more in the passing game is that our RB's are horrible pass catchers, I believe that the reason we don't utilitze our RB's more in the passing game is because the gameplans MM puts together don't call for our RB's to be heavily involved in the passing game to begin with. IMO it's the scheme, not a lack of talent.

Think about it. Maybe if Rodgers would target Grant as often as Favre targeted Green, Grant would have 50 catches a season too. It's not like Grant is dropping every pass thrown to him. While Grant didn't have very many catches over the last couple of seasons, he hasn't had very many drops either. He can't catch a ball that isn't thrown to him. He'll never be a threat in the passing game if the scheme doesn't utilize him as a threat in the passing game. Neither would Bennett or Levens or Green have been if the scheme didn't call for them to be. You can bitch about MM's play calling, having only targeted Grant with 30 passes in 2009, but you can't really bitch about Grant dropping just 3 balls all season long.

[Scott Campbell]

I think one of the reasons he took so many sacks in the first half last year was that he didn't check down to the RB early enough.

[The Leaper]

That was a different offense that Levens and Bennett were in. They were actually used as pass receivers out of the backfield. We don't do that a whole lot anymore. We could have a Dorsey Levens or an Ahman Green in their prime lining up behind Rodgers and that wouldn't necessarily translate to greater numbers in the passing game for our RB's.

In order for our RB's to put up gaudy numbers in the passing game Rodgers would have to throw the ball to them more often than he throws to Grant or Jackson. While you obviously believe that the cause for us not utilizing our RB's more in the passing game is that our RB's are horrible pass catchers, I believe that the reason we don't utilitze our RB's more in the passing game is because the gameplans MM puts together don't call for our RB's to be heavily involved in the passing game to begin with. IMO it's the scheme, not a lack of talent.

Sorry...but McCarthy's history of playcalling before coming to Green Bay tells me otherwise. When he had talent at the RB position, he used it.

These are all teams where Mike McCarthy was CALLING THE PLAYS:

Saints 2000: Ricky Williams had 44 catches
Saints 2001: Ricky had 60 catches, Deuce McAllister had 15
Saints 2002: Deuce had 47 catches, FBs had another 15
Saints 2003: Deuce had 69 catches
Saints 2004: Deuce had 34, Aaron Stecker had 29 (yep...Aaron F-ing Stecker was more prolific than Ryan Grant in the passing game)
San Fran 2005: Kevan Barlow had 31, Frank Gore had 15, Maurice Hicks had 12

McCarthy's RBs before he came to Green Bay racked up 60+ catches regularly. And that stayed that way when he first came to GB and had talent.

GB 2006: Green had 46 catches, Herron had 29, Morency had 16
GB 2007: Morency had 30, Grant had 30, BJack had 16
GB 2008: BJack had 30, Grant had 18
GB 2009: Grant had 25, BJack had 21

So, your theory that McCarthy's offensive system chooses to not utilize RBs in the passing game is just flat wrong. He's utilized RBs throughout his career. It's just the past 2 years that are bad. I think Rodgers has to take the blame for a little of that...Favre obviously was far better at speading the ball around due to his knowledge of the offense. However, I don't think you can lay the blame entirely with Rodgers. Grant and company just aren't very good...they aren't threats whatsoever out of the backfield. That's why their numbers aren't called.

[Gunakor]

That was a different offense that Levens and Bennett were in. They were actually used as pass receivers out of the backfield. We don't do that a whole lot anymore. We could have a Dorsey Levens or an Ahman Green in their prime lining up behind Rodgers and that wouldn't necessarily translate to greater numbers in the passing game for our RB's.

In order for our RB's to put up gaudy numbers in the passing game Rodgers would have to throw the ball to them more often than he throws to Grant or Jackson. While you obviously believe that the cause for us not utilizing our RB's more in the passing game is that our RB's are horrible pass catchers, I believe that the reason we don't utilitze our RB's more in the passing game is because the gameplans MM puts together don't call for our RB's to be heavily involved in the passing game to begin with. IMO it's the scheme, not a lack of talent.

Sorry...but McCarthy's history of playcalling before coming to Green Bay tells me otherwise. When he had talent at the RB position, he used it.

These are all teams where Mike McCarthy was CALLING THE PLAYS:

Saints 2000: Ricky Williams had 44 catches
Saints 2001: Ricky had 60 catches, Deuce McAllister had 15
Saints 2002: Deuce had 47 catches, FBs had another 15
Saints 2003: Deuce had 69 catches
Saints 2004: Deuce had 34, Aaron Stecker had 29 (yep...Aaron F-ing Stecker was more prolific than Ryan Grant in the passing game)
San Fran 2005: Kevan Barlow had 31, Frank Gore had 15, Maurice Hicks had 12

McCarthy's RBs before he came to Green Bay racked up 60+ catches regularly. And that stayed that way when he first came to GB and had talent.

GB 2006: Green had 46 catches, Herron had 29, Morency had 16
GB 2007: Morency had 30, Grant had 30, BJack had 16
GB 2008: BJack had 30, Grant had 18
GB 2009: Grant had 25, BJack had 21

So, your theory that McCarthy's offensive system chooses to not utilize RBs in the passing game is just flat wrong. He's utilized RBs throughout his career. It's just the past 2 years that are bad. I think Rodgers has to take the blame for a little of that...Favre obviously was far better at speading the ball around due to his knowledge of the offense. However, I don't think you can lay the blame entirely with Rodgers. Grant and company just aren't very good...they aren't threats whatsoever out of the backfield. That's why their numbers aren't called.

And Grant dropped 3 balls all season. If he's so terrible why is he catching almost every ball thrown at him? If he's catching almost every ball thrown at him, why don't they throw at him more? Why has McCarthy's offensive scheme changed? Again, Grant isn't dropping passes. So what in your opinion is he so bad at as a pass catcher that MM isn't using him as much as others?

[The Leaper]

And Grant dropped 3 balls all season. If he's so terrible why is he catching almost every ball thrown at him? If he's catching almost every ball thrown at him, why don't they throw at him more? Why has McCarthy's offensive scheme changed? Again, Grant isn't dropping passes. So what in your opinion is he so bad at as a pass catcher that MM isn't using him as much as others?

He's not a natural receiver. Sure, he can catch a ball that's coming at him...but that is not the final determinant in whether or not you are a good receiver at the NFL level. A RB who is a good receiver needs to be elusive and make guys miss, because they typically won't have multiple beefy OL guys in front of them blocking like a run play. Grant is horrible at that. He's not shifty. He goes down too easily on first contact. He doesn't seem to have a good grasp of when to release into the flat to become a receiver. Back to the fumbles again...I think at least 2 of his 6 fumbles have come as a receiver, so his fumble rate as a receiver is much higher than as a runner.

Again...Grant isn't someone we must upgrade immediately. I just think that for this offense to truly be capable of dominating any defense, we need more of a multi-purpose threat in our backfield. A guy who can catch 35-40 passes and be a threat on the edge to force LBs to play the entire field.

[Gunakor]

And Grant dropped 3 balls all season. If he's so terrible why is he catching almost every ball thrown at him? If he's catching almost every ball thrown at him, why don't they throw at him more? Why has McCarthy's offensive scheme changed? Again, Grant isn't dropping passes. So what in your opinion is he so bad at as a pass catcher that MM isn't using him as much as others?

He's not a natural receiver. Sure, he can catch a ball that's coming at him...but that is not the final determinant in whether or not you are a good receiver at the NFL level. A RB who is a good receiver needs to be elusive and make guys miss, because they typically won't have multiple beefy OL guys in front of them blocking like a run play. Grant is horrible at that. He's not shifty. He goes down too easily on first contact. He doesn't seem to have a good grasp of when to release into the flat to become a receiver. Back to the fumbles again...I think at least 2 of his 6 fumbles have come as a receiver, so his fumble rate as a receiver is much higher than as a runner.

Again...Grant isn't someone we must upgrade immediately. I just think that for this offense to truly be capable of dominating any defense, we need more of a multi-purpose threat in our backfield. A guy who can catch 35-40 passes and be a threat on the edge to force LBs to play the entire field.

So we're talking an additional 5 catches for Grant then. 35 is only 5 more than 30. Kinda funny how it's just a measly 30 catches for our workhorse back but if he had 35 it'd be okay. I bet Rodgers simply spreading the ball around like Favre had would get Grant those 5 additional catches and then some. After all, I didn't hear a peep about this problem with Grant when he was tearing up defenses during the second half of 2007 while Favre was still under center.

Besides, this offense is already capable of scoring against any defense. Last season only one team held us to less than 21 points, the game we beat the Cowboys 17-7. The only team that held us to exactly 21 points was Chicago, having done it twice and losing both times. In all of our losses last season we scored at least 23 points. We scored 35 in a loss to Pittsburgh and 45 in a loss to Arizona. Scoring a lot of points was common. This is an outstanding offense. If our defense holds up their end of the bargain last year and limits opponents to under 21 points we've got a playoff bye and home field advantage. So relax about the offense. They don't do what you'd like them to do, but what they're doing is working. If it ain't broke...

[HarveyWallbangers]

Who were the receivers and tight ends that New Orleans and San Francisco had? I doubt they were comparable to our group. Grant is seldom the primary option on a pass play. Hell, he's not a top four option. I don't think Grant is a great receiver, but most RBs don't really catch balls other than screens and dumpoffs. Grant can usually do that. You don't find too many Marshall Faulks and Brian Westbrooks out there.

[MJZiggy]

Who were the receivers and tight ends that New Orleans and San Francisco had? I doubt they were comparable to our group. Grant is seldom the primary option on a pass play. Hell, he's not a top four option. I don't think Grant is a great receiver, but most RBs don't really catch balls other than screens and dumpoffs. Grant can usually do that. You don't find too many Marshall Faulks and Brian Westbrooks out there.

I was trying to figure out why you'd want to throw to Grant when you have Jennings, Driver, Finley etc. etc. etc.

[Patler]

I personally believe the struggles of Peyton Manning in the postseason can be blamed highly on the fact he's never had a strong threat out of the backfield.


What, the seven years he had with Edgerrin James weren't a strong enough threat out of the backfield? For six of those seasons (in 2001 James played only 6 games) he averaged over 1400 yards rushing and 55 receptions. What more do you want?

...and, in 2001 when James got only 662 yards rushing in six games (with 24 receptions, too) Dominic Rhodes filled in with 1100 yards rushing and 34 receptions, virtually all coming in the 10 games after James was out.

[Scott Campbell]

GB 2007: Morency had 30....




Somewhere out there P just got a chubby.

[The Leaper]

So we're talking an additional 5 catches for Grant then.

No.

I said get 35-40 catches AND be a threat on the edge. Grant neither is nor ever will be a threat on the edge.

Honestly, I'd prefer more catches than 35-40 from our #1 RB...balance is the key to an unstoppable offense. It isn't relying exclusively on your receivers, no matter how good they are. And short tosses to the RB in the flat are a remarkable way to slow down a pass rush.

Your receivers have to be decent blockers in the run game...and your runners have to be decent receivers in the pass game.

[Gunakor]

So we're talking an additional 5 catches for Grant then.

No.

I said get 35-40 catches AND be a threat on the edge. Grant neither is nor ever will be a threat on the edge.

Honestly, I'd prefer more catches than 35-40 from our #1 RB...balance is the key to an unstoppable offense. It isn't relying exclusively on your receivers, no matter how good they are. And short tosses to the RB in the flat are a remarkable way to slow down a pass rush.

Your receivers have to be decent blockers in the run game...and your runners have to be decent receivers in the pass game.

Short passes to a TE slow down a pass rush too. Quick slants to a WR completely eliminate pass rush. You don't NEED your RB to catch a lot of passes or make a living on the edge to have a potent and deadly offense. Again, just look at the 2009 Green Bay Packers as evidence. Or just ignore it, but that's the evidence that disproves your theory as being 100% correct, 100% of the time.

What we have works. It ain't broken. We aren't going to fix something that ain't broken. This is a DEADLY potent offense. We don't need your pass catching RB to make our offense go. Maybe yours, but not ours. Ours is perfectly fine with Ryan Grant as the workhorse back.

Whatever, I'm done with this one Leap. Believe what you want. I know what I saw last year.

[The Leaper]

Whatever, I'm done with this one Leap. Believe what you want. I know what I saw last year.

Yep...lots of sacks allowed. Glad those short passes to the TE and slants to the WRs worked.

[Gunakor]

Whatever, I'm done with this one Leap. Believe what you want. I know what I saw last year.

Yep...lots of sacks allowed. Glad those short passes to the TE and slants to the WRs worked.

461 points scored. 28.8 points per game. I'd say whatever they did worked just fine.

But you'll never see that side of the argument, so just drop it.

[Tarlam!]

You guys are both right. If Grant doesn't turn into a legit receiver threat out of the backfield, the promising double TE sets will offset just fine. Even "just" Finley will be what we had last year.

But take a Ryan Grant and inject some Green genes, couple that with the two TEs and you're unstppable.

You guys are debating a nice problem to have. It's all good if the OL improves on the latter part of last season even further, regardless.

[swede]

But take a Ryan Grant and inject some Green genes...

That's Mr. Green Jeans...

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z236/dsteenswede44/091202_011210_72100293.jpg