RB Rankings

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AnFNy.DHuCOH9QY7zV3hih7sYNAF?slug=jc-rbrankings053110


15. Green Bay Packers: Ryan Grant has been a solid-yet-unspectacular player over the past two seasons. That’s not a bad thing, but he hasn’t exactly been what he flashed in the second half of the 2007 season, when he helped get the Packers to the NFC championship game. Then again, that’s why he was an undrafted guy long ago. The Packers are content with what they have for now, but Grant is never going to be a huge star and the depth is just so-so.

[bobblehead]

I think lack of depth hurts us here. Lets see how the rookie performs, and Jackson is sort of in a make or break year. Grant is around a 10-15 RB in the league. Do we not run screens because of him or MM????

[HarveyWallbangers]

Grant has rock hands, but most RBs can catch a screen pass. Maybe our OL isn't that great at them. Or maybe McCarthy feels our passing attack is so good that using more screens just takes away big play opportunities.

[Lurker64]

This is about right. Grant's good at carrying the ball in our scheme and reliably makes the right reads in the run game, but isn't good for much else; Jackson is a great blocker, can catch, and definitely knows what to do with the ball in the open field, but he struggles to get past the line of scrimmage when he's got the ball; everybody else is nothing special. If you could somehow combine Jackson and Grant into one running back, he'd be pretty good. Definitely a position we could get better at, but not a big need.

I suspect Grant may be systematically overlooked by national analysts as a good back, because he's not a very good fantasy back at all (which is a priori surprising since he's not in an RBBC situation). He's not a threat to break it every time he gets it, and most of his long runs are just "yardage" and not touchdowns. Green Bay has a great passing offense, but Grant isn't part of it unlike other backs. Also, Grant scores fewer touchdowns on the goal line than he otherwise would, because we have a quarterback who is very adept at running the sneak. I'm not sure what it is, but Rodgers just gets exactly what to do in a given situation when running the QB sneak.

[Gunakor]

I don't buy into these rankings much. 1250/14 is 1250/14, no matter how it comes. There weren't 14 backs in the NFL that were better than him, statistically, either last season or the season before (or the season before that even, assuming his avg. over a full 16 game season).

For entertainment value, I wouldn't even have ranked him as highly as he was. He's just not very exciting with the ball in his hands. But as far as effectiveness is concerned, he's top 10 IMO.

As long as he's getting his 4 ypc avg. to move the chains and keep defenses honest while not fumbling away opportunities, I'm perfectly happy.

[packrulz]

I kind of agree with the rankings, Grant is steady, yet unspectacular. I just don't think he has the top end speed to outrun D-backs in the secondary, and he can't catch the ball that well. That's why I could see TT taking Unga in the supplemental draft tomorrow, maybe in the 5th round, but I'm guessing some teams will get antsy burn a 3rd round pick on him. TT could bring Brian Westbrook in for a look too.

[Patler]

The Bengals with Cedric Benson are ranked #5, and the Packers with Grant are ranked #15? Grant had more rushing yardage, a higher per carry average, more TDs and more receptions than Benson last year. Comparing their career performance, it isn't even close. Grant has done as much or more in 3 seasons as Benson has done in 5.

Ranking the Bengals at #5 and the Packers at #15 is an indictment against the Packer reserve backs, because all other things being equal, Benson sure as heck isn't 10 slots better than Grant.

[Pugger]

The Bengals with Cedric Benson are ranked #5, and the Packers with Grant are ranked #15? Grant had more rushing yardage, a higher per carry average, more TDs and more receptions than Benson last year. Comparing their career performance, it isn't even close. Grant has done as much or more in 3 seasons as Benson has done in 5.

Ranking the Bengals at #5 and the Packers at #15 is an indictment against the Packer reserve backs, because all other things being equal, Benson sure as heck isn't 10 slots better than Grant.

+1

If you look at NFL.com and check out player stats Grant was the #7 RB last season (Benson was #8) so Patler is probably right and Yahoo isn't crazy about our backups. Cincy's other back was #61 and our next back was Ahman Green at # 86.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2009&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-n=1

[HarveyWallbangers]

I tend to agree with these rankings. While I think Grant is on the edge of the top 12 RBs, Jackson is pedestrian and we don't know what we have in Starks. Thus, if you give Grant #12 and add in nothing special for backups, 15th is about right.

[packerbacker1234]

As that stat link shows...


Grant was a top 10RB last season, as in very important, game changing statistic, he was the best - Turnovers. ZERO fumbles over the course of 16 games and 1 playoff game. That's astounding for any RB that gets the ball as much as he does.

He had a 4.4 average, which is respectable to even the "best" RB's in the league, adn 11TD's is nothing scoff at.

The point is, I think Ryan Grant is clearly higher than 15 if were just basing this on the front man starter.

Using last years statistics as a barrier, Grant is around #8, if only for the fact that you need to be fair to the Panthers in the fact they are a true split carry team, and both RB's combined had some nasty numbers. Though, I am not sure either one are individually better than grant - if it was the case would it be a committee?

Anyways, the point is that Grant is what he is - a Pretty good RB who is as reliable as they come, wont turn the ball over, and hurts himself by being none-existent in the pass game.

If only he could work on his hands so he can be a passing threat (at least for screens), he would take his game to the next level.

Still, as a pure runner, I don't think we can really complain. Unless your pining for Chris Johnson or Adrian Peterson, there really aren't that many backs that are "cut and dry" better than grant indivdualy if you just factor in running the ball.

[Patler]

Grant is interesting, statistically.

#7 in the league in rushing yards and #7 in the league in rushing attempts.
Of the 6 with more yardage, only 3 had higher per carry averages.
Of the 6 with more attempts, only 2 had higher per carry averages.

Not much in the passing game, but if you want a workhorse runner, who can produce very well under the burden of lots of carries, and not fumble the ball, you have to be satisfied with Grant.

[retailguy]

I agree with Patler. Grant is plenty good enough to win with. Is he an NFL wide star? Nope. Never will be either. Is he Ahman Green worthy? Nope. Never will be either, even though he probably has better stats, during his shorter career.

But he does his job well, if you ignore the "one hit, he falls down" routine. He's where he is supposed to be on the play, he doesn't fumble, he runs forward instead of backwards, doesn't lose a lot of yards, and just flat out does what he's supposed to do.

What's wrong with that?

This whole "homer discussion" about him being elite is ridiculous. He isn't, but he's plenty good enough to win with this team. We need to groom someone (Starks?) to replace him, because he isn't going to do what he does this well forever. My guess is we've got 2 more years, maybe a 3rd, but that's probably it, and right now, I've got no idea how old the guy is, and don't really care.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Who has said Ryan Grant is elite?

[retailguy]

Who has said Ryan Grant is elite?

You don't think "top 10" is elite? You don't think "7th" in yards is elite? You don't think his YPC is "elite" as top three of the top 7?

My point is that Grant's stats are better than he is, and we as fans, put on the homer glasses and think he's better than he is.

I'm happy with the guy, but won't miss him when it's time to move on. If you recall, I was very disappointed when Green left. You won't see a repeat when Grant moves on.

[sharpe1027]

You don't think "top 10" is elite? You don't think "7th" in yards is elite? You don't think his YPC is "elite" as top three of the top 7?

My point is that Grant's stats are better than he is, and we as fans, put on the homer glasses and think he's better than he is.

I'm happy with the guy, but won't miss him when it's time to move on. If you recall, I was very disappointed when Green left. You won't see a repeat when Grant moves on.

So...if Grant doesn't get credit for his "elite" stats, I suppose you think the O-line is elite? Who is wearing the funny glasses here? Maybe if you weren't putting on the Eyore glasses you would just give the guy the credit he deserves... :wink:

[retailguy]

You don't think "top 10" is elite? You don't think "7th" in yards is elite? You don't think his YPC is "elite" as top three of the top 7?

My point is that Grant's stats are better than he is, and we as fans, put on the homer glasses and think he's better than he is.

I'm happy with the guy, but won't miss him when it's time to move on. If you recall, I was very disappointed when Green left. You won't see a repeat when Grant moves on.

So...if Grant doesn't get credit for his "elite" stats, I suppose you think the O-line is elite? Who is wearing the funny glasses here? Maybe if you weren't putting on the Eyore glasses you would just give the guy the credit he deserves... :wink:

Well, I guess it could only be "me" who says they guy is "good enough" and gets criticized. Who'd a thunk it? :wink:

The sad part is that I like Ryan Grant. Pretty much always have. Gave Ted credit during the "breakout" season that his value was excellent. Even liked how Ted handled the "contract holdout".

I can't get no respect. :P

The OL, ought not suck, but we'll see. If they're "elite", it's on the bad side. :wink:

[packerbacker1234]

Grant is always an interesting case. If he was a rookie and had these stats over his first 3 seasons, we would be talking about "how great he is" and "how you couldn't expect much better from a 1st round drafted RB"

ANd here many pundits are saying there is a reason he went undrafted, and it shows in GB. I don't really get it - 95% of 1st rounders are complete busts, yet here is this undrafted RB who is consistently putting up top 10 stats year in and year out, doesn't turn it over, and, running wise, is an absolute PERFECT fit for a pass heavy team. Our team is built around our WR's and AR - we are going to be a 60 - 40 pass team for a long, long time. So, we don't need a dominate runner like AP, or even a flashy guy like Bush - we need a guy who runs hard, gets the job done, and doesn't give the other team the ball.

We have that. How long he lasts is unknown. 2, 3, 4 years? Who knows, but I seriously have no real complaints. Maybe he isn't the best at catching the ball, but thats what the 3rd down back is for. Unfortunately, we just haven't been able to find a true 3rd down back yet.

I loved Green in that he was a game changer, but he had the same flaw AP does - fumbling the ball. I would take grant over either, honestly, if it's a pass heavy offense. All you need is for a guy to get it done and not turn it over - not a guy who can bust 150 in any game but may fumble it on a key drive.

Just saying, I love Green, I really like AP, but in a passing offense I prefer Grant the runner, and Green on 3rd downs for screens.

[sharpe1027]

Well, I guess it could only be "me" who says they guy is "good enough" and gets criticized. Who'd a thunk it? :wink:

The sad part is that I like Ryan Grant. Pretty much always have. Gave Ted credit during the "breakout" season that his value was excellent. Even liked how Ted handled the "contract holdout".

I can't get no respect. :P

The OL, ought not suck, but we'll see. If they're "elite", it's on the bad side. :wink:

You didn't get criticized because of who you are, nor did you get criticized for saying Grant was "good enough."

You argued that Grant's states were elite, and then you disagreed that Grant was elite. If Grant is not as good as his stats, and the OLine wasn't good, did he just get lucky or something? What measurement should we use instead? How "flashy" he looks? How many "highlights" he creates? IDK, maybe to you Grant doesn't look like he is making great plays, but I see a huge difference when anyone else is put back there.

[packerbacker1234]

Well, I guess it could only be "me" who says they guy is "good enough" and gets criticized. Who'd a thunk it? :wink:

The sad part is that I like Ryan Grant. Pretty much always have. Gave Ted credit during the "breakout" season that his value was excellent. Even liked how Ted handled the "contract holdout".

I can't get no respect. :P

The OL, ought not suck, but we'll see. If they're "elite", it's on the bad side. :wink:

You didn't get criticized because of who you are, nor did you get criticized for saying Grant was "good enough."

You argued that Grant's states were elite, and then you disagreed that Grant was elite. If Grant is not as good as his stats, and the OLine wasn't good, did he just get lucky or something? What measurement should we use instead? How "flashy" he looks? How many "highlights" he creates? IDK, maybe to you Grant doesn't look like he is making great plays, but I sure as hell see a huge difference when anyone else is put back there.

Exactly. I get that even whats his name looks alright at tiems (jackson) and that Green, last year, looked good in his limited time (in terms of driving the pile, getting tough yards) - but then grant would come back on the field and just look better... by a lot. Grant runs harder when he is being pushed, at least, that was the case last season. He was having an okay year, then Green came and it seemed to really influence Grant to fight for more yards. That can happen when you have a gbp hall of famer playing behind you. Thats a direct influence on your play, because now expectations get razed, or this old future HoF Packer is going to come in for the playoff run and show you how it's done.

Point is, Grant is pretty damn good. Elite? Well he isn't as good as the best of the best, or even in that conversation, but he is just on the outside in terms of running.

He makes very few mistakes, runs up field, doesn't turn it over, and is a lock for 1200 to 1400 yards every season, and thats on a team that primarily throws the ball.

Yes, guys like Ray Rice, a panther RB, Chris Johnson - they are always going to have more yards, because they are required to carry the offense. In GB - that burden isn't on Grant.

[retailguy]

Well, I guess it could only be "me" who says they guy is "good enough" and gets criticized. Who'd a thunk it? :wink:

The sad part is that I like Ryan Grant. Pretty much always have. Gave Ted credit during the "breakout" season that his value was excellent. Even liked how Ted handled the "contract holdout".

I can't get no respect. :P

The OL, ought not suck, but we'll see. If they're "elite", it's on the bad side. :wink:

You didn't get criticized because of who you are, nor did you get criticized for saying Grant was "good enough."

You argued that Grant's states were elite, and then you disagreed that Grant was elite. If Grant is not as good as his stats, and the OLine wasn't good, did he just get lucky or something? What measurement should we use instead? How "flashy" he looks? How many "highlights" he creates? IDK, maybe to you Grant doesn't look like he is making great plays, but I see a huge difference when anyone else is put back there.


I think this is the key. I agree with that statement, but probably not for the same reasons you do. I see it more as an indictment of our back up runners than proof that Grant is as good as his stats.

I happen to believe that the stats are better than Grant because I believe in the "system" (I spent a long time hating on it, so I guess that's growth for me). I think you could plug a bunch of runners in the NFL into Grant's position and keep the stats without keeping Grant. Those "bunch of runners" just don't play for the Packers today.

I'm very hopeful that Starks is the next guy. We'll see.

[retailguy]

Let me expound on my point above.

McCarthy's running system is designed to "exploit" a hole on a given play. The runner is responsible to identify "where" the hole is, make a cut, and go. If the hole isn't here, it's there, find it and hit it. Two looks, hit the best hole and go. More often then not, that works, and Grant does that well.

That philosophy isn't dependent on a "steller line" to work. My complaint with the OL has always been that they aren't "consistent". I've never really faulted the "talent" of any of them. Even Colledge, whom I now despise, and believe is destined to be the manager of a Dairy Queen, has talent. He can't display that talent "consistently" (well for more than 1/2 of a season which he did in 2008).

These guys on the OL do not play well TOGETHER. It doesn't take all of them playing well TOGETHER to have a successful running attack. It just takes the ONE GUY ON ONE PLAY who is supposed to open one of the two holes that Grant has to hit. These guys can do that, sporadically, but not consistently.

There seems to be an issue in this forum to identify WHY the line doesn't play well. That's not my problem. The fact that you can't see my complaints aren't "mutually exclusive" isn't my problem either. You saw the first 8 games in 2009, what is to say that won't happen again? We've got a 3 year track record now. We have the talent to NOT play that way, as we've also proven in the last 8 games for the past 3 years. If this OL doesn't improve on the 1st 8 games this season, it will be just a crying shame. This team has few other holes, and none come close to glaring.

Grant's ability to "see the hole" and just run isn't unique. Why the other backups struggle with it, I'll never understand. Jackson is the only back on the roster that can actually break a tackle. If he could just see the damn hole, he'd be special, but he can't. I don't understand it. My ONLY indictment of Grant is that he can't elude tackles very well. Usually, if you get a hand on him, he's done. One cut and done. That's what McCarthy wants, and that's what he's got with Grant. Grant can never be elite until he can break tackles on a semi consistent basis, AND catches the damn ball.

[sharpe1027]

Grant can never be elite until he can break tackles on a semi consistent basis, AND catches the damn ball.

That is a legitimate complaint. I think, however, that you could easily poke holes in pretty much every RB. Basically, we just place different value on Grant's positives and negatives.

As far as the scheme goes, you say that it takes ONE GUY ON ONE PLAY to open holes and I say can take ONE GUY ON ONE PLAY to ruin the play. I can buy some of it, but I think Grant makes the line look good, rather than the other way around.

Sorry about asking for clarification on some of your arguments. I wasn't sure what you were thinking, but as you said that's my problem.

[Patler]

My point is that Grant's stats are better than he is, and we as fans, put on the homer glasses and think he's better than he is.


Grant's stats are not better than he is, they are what he is. The Packers could be a heck of a lot worse off than they are with Grant.

I think Packer fans were spoiled by Ahman Green. He ran with incredible determination and power, yet was fast enough to outrun anyone. He was a tremendous blocker, and great as a receiver out of the backfield. The only draw back, which I thought was overblown somewhat, was his tendency to fumble.

I always felt Green was somewhat under appreciated. It is rare that a back combines all aspects of his position as well as Green did. There are others who ran as well or better, and caught the ball as well or better; but seldom did they combine power with speed like Green, or block as willingly or as well as Green.

From having been spoiled by watching Green in his prime, too many fans expect the same from Grant. They nitpick his deficiencies, but very, very few backs are as complete as Green was. To expect the same from Grant is unrealistic.

[Patler]

I think you could plug a bunch of runners in the NFL into Grant's position and keep the stats without keeping Grant. Those "bunch of runners" just don't play for the Packers today.

Nor have they played for the Packers at anytime in the last three seasons. Three years ago the running game was a mess until Grant was given the chance; and since then no one has been too close to Grant in reliability and performance.

[retailguy]

I don't think that Grant is comparable to Green. Different backs for different schemes.

My point is that I believe you could "plug in" a bunch of guys and not suffer much, if any loss in production. As you said, it wasn't that way with Green. Isn't that way with Peterson, or Johnson, or the other "elite" backs.

But lets face it, Denver plugged in a fullback for over 1,000 yards one year, and plugged in about six or seven backs (Including Davis). Clearly that was the "scheme" or the "coaching" and not the player. None have done as well elsewhere, but plenty have done "as well" there.

Again - I LIKE GRANT. I just don't love him.

[retailguy]

Sorry about asking for clarification on some of your arguments. I wasn't sure what you were thinking, but as you said that's my problem.

Apologies for mis-understanding the tone of your earlier post. It's been pretty judgmental in here for the past 3 seasons...

[falco]

More than anything else, Grant is a perfect fit for our offense. Sort of reminds me of how whats-his-name was for the Colts a few years back.

[Patler]

My point is that I believe you could "plug in" a bunch of guys and not suffer much, if any loss in production. As you said, it wasn't that way with Green. Isn't that way with Peterson, or Johnson, or the other "elite" backs.


Might be a bit of homerism on my part, but I would have taken Ahman Green in his prime over Adrian Peterson, without hesitation. Peterson MIGHT be a better runner, but I'm not completely convinced of it. He is not the receiver Green was, but has improved. He is quite bad as a blocker, and he fumbles a lot more frequently than Green did, (20/1000 vs 37/2500)

[sharpe1027]

I don't think that Grant is comparable to Green. Different backs for different schemes.

My point is that I believe you could "plug in" a bunch of guys and not suffer much, if any loss in production. As you said, it wasn't that way with Green. Isn't that way with Peterson, or Johnson, or the other "elite" backs.

But lets face it, Denver plugged in a fullback for over 1,000 yards one year, and plugged in about six or seven backs (Including Davis). Clearly that was the "scheme" or the "coaching" and not the player. None have done as well elsewhere, but plenty have done "as well" there.

Again - I LIKE GRANT. I just don't love him.

Maybe, but I haven't seen much to make me believe that the Packers are able to replicate what Denver had. So far, nobody has been able to do much besides Grant. There's no sure way to answer this, but there's no doubt at least some of his success is due to the scheme. Of course, we could make similar arguments for other backs. For example, C. Benson was running behind a Oline that was mauling people.

[Scott Campbell]

My point is that I believe you could "plug in" a bunch of guys and not suffer much, if any loss in production. As you said, it wasn't that way with Green. Isn't that way with Peterson, or Johnson, or the other "elite" backs.


Might be a bit of homerism on my part, but I would have taken Ahman Green in his prime over Adrian Peterson, without hesitation. Peterson MIGHT be a better runner, but I'm not completely convinced of it. He is not the receiver Green was, but has improved. He is quite bad as a blocker, and he fumbles a lot more frequently than Green did, (20/1000 vs 37/2500)


Loved Ahman, but I'd take Peterson in a heartbeat.

[Patler]

Loved Ahman, but I'd take Peterson in a heartbeat.

Why?

I don't think Peterson gives a lot more as a runner than Green did in his prime, some perhaps. Green was a better receiver and a much better blocker....and fumbles...as bad as some think Green was, Peterson is even worse.

[retailguy]

My point is that I believe you could "plug in" a bunch of guys and not suffer much, if any loss in production. As you said, it wasn't that way with Green. Isn't that way with Peterson, or Johnson, or the other "elite" backs.


Might be a bit of homerism on my part, but I would have taken Ahman Green in his prime over Adrian Peterson, without hesitation. Peterson MIGHT be a better runner, but I'm not completely convinced of it. He is not the receiver Green was, but has improved. He is quite bad as a blocker, and he fumbles a lot more frequently than Green did, (20/1000 vs 37/2500)

I don't disagree at all. Even when I knew he was almost done, even when I knew it was probably the right call to let him go, I have never been so pissed at Ted Thompson as I was that day.

Green was special. I truly enjoyed watching him run as a Packer. I'd take him over Peterson any day of the week.

[Scott Campbell]

Loved Ahman, but I'd take Peterson in a heartbeat.

Why?

I don't think Peterson gives a lot more as a runner than Green did in his prime, some perhaps. Green was a better receiver and a much better blocker....and fumbles...as bad as some think Green was, Peterson is even worse.


Did teams typically load 8 in the box against Green?

[Lurker64]

Loved Ahman, but I'd take Peterson in a heartbeat.

Why?

Because then the Vikings wouldn't have him!

[mraynrand]

Loved Ahman, but I'd take Peterson in a heartbeat.

Why?

I don't think Peterson gives a lot more as a runner than Green did in his prime, some perhaps. Green was a better receiver and a much better blocker....and fumbles...as bad as some think Green was, Peterson is even worse.


Did teams typically load 8 in the box against Green?

Good point. Favre changes the whole dynamic. You saw what happened last year when teams tried to stop Peterson - Favre carved 'em up. But we really never saw what Ahman could do when he had no QB compliment. Probably wouldn't have been as dangerous as Peterson. But from 2000-2004, Ahman was right up there with Tomlinson and Holmes in total yards from scrimmage (he even returned to 2004 numbers in 2006). But TT was right - after 2006 , he was seriously out of his prime.

[Patler]

Loved Ahman, but I'd take Peterson in a heartbeat.

Why?

I don't think Peterson gives a lot more as a runner than Green did in his prime, some perhaps. Green was a better receiver and a much better blocker....and fumbles...as bad as some think Green was, Peterson is even worse.


Did teams typically load 8 in the box against Green?

Good point. Favre changes the whole dynamic. You saw what happened last year when teams tried to stop Peterson - Favre carved 'em up. But we really never saw what Ahman could do when he had no QB compliment. Probably wouldn't have been as dangerous as Peterson. But from 2000-2004, Ahman was right up there with Tomlinson and Holmes in total yards from scrimmage (he even returned to 2004 numbers in 2006). But TT was right - after 2006 , he was seriously out of his prime.

In 2003 Favre broke his thumb and the passing game changed significantly. The Packers became a running team, and actually had more rushing attempts than passing attempts, 507/473. Green was the focus of the offense with 355 carries and almost 1900 yards, which was more yards on fewer carries than Peterson had in 2008, his best year so far.

Only one other time did Green get even 300 carries, with 304 in 2001

[mraynrand]

Loved Ahman, but I'd take Peterson in a heartbeat.

Why?

I don't think Peterson gives a lot more as a runner than Green did in his prime, some perhaps. Green was a better receiver and a much better blocker....and fumbles...as bad as some think Green was, Peterson is even worse.


Did teams typically load 8 in the box against Green?

Good point. Favre changes the whole dynamic. You saw what happened last year when teams tried to stop Peterson - Favre carved 'em up. But we really never saw what Ahman could do when he had no QB compliment. Probably wouldn't have been as dangerous as Peterson. But from 2000-2004, Ahman was right up there with Tomlinson and Holmes in total yards from scrimmage (he even returned to 2004 numbers in 2006). But TT was right - after 2006 , he was seriously out of his prime.

In 2003 Favre broke his thumb and the passing game changed significantly. The Packers became a running team, and actually had more rushing attempts than passing attempts, 507/473. Green was the focus of the offense with 355 carries and almost 1900 yards, which was more yards on fewer carries than Peterson had in 2008, his best year so far.

Only one other time did Green get even 300 carries, with 304 in 2001

If you are trying to argue that Favre with a bad thumb was equivalent to what MN has had at full strength behind center during the Peterson era, I strongly disagree with you.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Kind of an interesting argument: Green vs. Peterson. I think Green was special, and I think he was a Hall of Fame caliber back. He was a better all around RB than Peterson is now. Peterson has ridiculous talent running the ball. Personally, I think he ranks in the top 5 all-time in running the ball. He has the potential to surpass Green, but right now I think Ahman at his peak (2003) was better than Peterson at his peak as an all around RB, thus far.

[Lurker64]

Peterson may well be the greatest 1st and 10 running back I've ever seen. But at the same time, he's not even a good 3rd and 2 running back. His upright running style makes him a very big target in the hole, so he has to overpower people. He doesn't know when to go down, and is prone to fumbling even without being stood up and having guys hacking at the ball. If you have him in on third down, you'd better not be passing because his blitz pickups are quite possibly the worst of any starting RB in the league.

Green in his prime is a guy I'd be happy to have playing RB in any down and distance and in any field position regardless of the play call. Peterson isn't, and that's what's going to keep him from being one of the all-time greats, unless he really grows as a player this late into his career.

[Patler]

If you are trying to argue that Favre with a bad thumb was equivalent to what MN has had at full strength behind center during the Peterson era, I strongly disagree with you.

Not arguing that at all. Just pointing out that for one season Green was the focus of the offense, and defenses knew he would be getting a lot of carries each game. I suspect a lot of the defensive game planning went toward stopping Green that year.

[Patler]

Kind of an interesting argument: Green vs. Peterson. I think Green was special, and I think he was a Hall of Fame caliber back. He was a better all around RB than Peterson is now. Peterson has ridiculous talent running the ball. Personally, I think he ranks in the top 5 all-time in running the ball. He has the potential to surpass Green, but right now I think Ahman at his peak (2003) was better than Peterson at his peak as an all around RB, thus far.

That's where I'm at, Green as an all around back was really special.

[Patler]

Peterson may well be the greatest 1st and 10 running back I've ever seen. But at the same time, he's not even a good 3rd and 2 running back. His upright running style makes him a very big target in the hole, so he has to overpower people. He doesn't know when to go down, and is prone to fumbling even without being stood up and having guys hacking at the ball. If you have him in on third down, you'd better not be passing because his blitz pickups are quite possibly the worst of any starting RB in the league.

Green in his prime is a guy I'd be happy to have playing RB in any down and distance and in any field position regardless of the play call. Peterson isn't, and that's what's going to keep him from being one of the all-time greats, unless he really grows as a player this late into his career.

Do you remember when over his first bunch of seasons in GB Green had something like 36 or 37 consecutive successes at converting 3 and 2 or less for 1st downs? He was a very talented short yardage runner.

[RashanGary]

I remember the first time I saw Ahman Green run. I wasn't a know-it-all fan like I am now. I just watched the games and that was it.

Anyway, the first time I saw him run I said, "this isn't even like watching Packer football. I've never seen a Packer run like that"

He was just so damn fast, explosive, hard to tackle, etc. . . . He was an amazing player, especially in his early years.

[RashanGary]

When Peterson first came out and everyone thought he was going to get better at everything and be that great runner, I think he got a little more hype than he deserved. The way Peterson has trended and the way I remember Green, I think there is something to what Patler is saying. Green was more impressive than we remember because he slowly lost his burst and speed and we remember that more, but for 5 years, I agree that Green was a greater overall RB than AP and damn near as impressive, just didn't come out as highly touted and was under-hyped where Peterson came out a hype machine.

[packerbacker1234]

When Peterson first came out and everyone thought he was going to get better at everything and be that great runner, I think he got a little more hype than he deserved. The way Peterson has trended and the way I remember Green, I think there is something to what Patler is saying. Green was more impressive than we remember because he slowly lost his burst and speed and we remember that more, but for 5 years, I agree that Green was a greater overall RB than AP and damn near as impressive, just didn't come out as highly touted and was under-hyped where Peterson came out a hype machine.

If I remember correctly, AP was actually talked about as a potential bust, due to his injury in college. He was hardly hyped.

At the end of the season, after putting up AMAZING numbers for a rookie, he then got hyped to all hell because hey, he had a great year. Everyone thought "look at those numbers, he can only get better, right?" - but he hasn't really improved in any areas yet, and it's been 3 seasons.

[mraynrand]

If you are trying to argue that Favre with a bad thumb was equivalent to what MN has had at full strength behind center during the Peterson era, I strongly disagree with you.

Not arguing that at all. Just pointing out that for one season Green was the focus of the offense, and defenses knew he would be getting a lot of carries each game. I suspect a lot of the defensive game planning went toward stopping Green that year.

I agree, especially since 'U-71' debuted in 2003. It is interesting (and sickening) to see the way Peterson and Favre compliment each other, much like Ahman and Favre did in 2000-2006. Peterson had a pretty big effect - in 2008 he even helped T. Jackson to a 95 passer rating over a stretch of 5 games (though the Vikings were only 2-3 in that stretch).

[HarveyWallbangers]

If I remember correctly, AP was actually talked about as a potential bust, due to his injury in college. He was hardly hyped

He was hyped to no end. It turns out deservedly so, because he is a special talent. People were surprised when he dropped to #6 for the Vikings. He was HIGHLY touted. It turns out the one knock on him, injuries, hasn't been a big problem. However, not too many people thought he'd be this fumble prone.

The first time I watched Ahman and then Peterson, I thought the same thing: "damn, that guy is awesome." You don't have to watch either very long to realize they are special talents.

[mraynrand]

If I remember correctly, AP was actually talked about as a potential bust, due to his injury in college. He was hardly hyped

He was hyped to no end. It turns out deservedly so, because he is a special talent. People were surprised when he dropped to #6 for the Vikings. He was HIGHLY touted. It turns out the one knock on him, injuries, hasn't been a big problem. However, not too many people thought he'd be this fumble prone.

The first time I watched Ahman and then Peterson, I thought the same thing: "damn, that guy is awesome." You don't have to watch either very long to realize they are special talents.

Yep. Both are great power backs - Ahman leans a bit more towards Jim Brown and Peterson leans a bit more towards Gayle Sayers.

[packerbacker1234]

Yup, and grant isn't close to their level, but I am still happy we have them. I think for the offense we have, Grant is simply the perfect fit. I am a person that values not turning it over at the RB spot really high, and that is one reason I never fell completely in love with Green or Peterson. I agree that Green's problem was really overblown - as in it wasn't as bad as everyone thought it was, but he always had that 2 or 3 game stretch with multiple fumbles that made you go "wtf" and they seemed to always happen late in games when were trying to come back or ice the game.

Everyone remembers him constantly changing his arm pad from cloth, to a more rubber type, and then going with none, and always switching blaming fumbles on the moisture and the gear - and I am sure that was part of it. Still, he just fumbled a few games a year in bad situations, but was solid the rest of the year. Peterson fumbles consistently throughout the year, and while the first fumble is technically a stat on favre fumbling at the end of the 1st half against the saints (that is even more blown up now considering it went to OT), he couldn't even grab the ball properly on a handoff in a big situation. If I remember correctly, Peterson clamped his arms too late, right? I can't even recall exactly how it happened. I just remember the ball being practically dead on peterson and then it just hit the ground like peterson clamped too late or too soon.

I mean, no excuse for that. At least the other fumbles he is hit.


Still, both players (green and peterson) are great RB's, and certainly special, but I trust teh ball in grants hands more than those two with the game on the line. Aka, I'll take green and peterson for 3 quareters, then give me grant in the 4th.

[Scott Campbell]

If I remember correctly, AP was actually talked about as a potential bust, due to his injury in college. He was hardly hyped

He was hyped to no end. It turns out deservedly so, because he is a special talent. People were surprised when he dropped to #6 for the Vikings. He was HIGHLY touted. It turns out the one knock on him, injuries, hasn't been a big problem. However, not too many people thought he'd be this fumble prone.

The first time I watched Ahman and then Peterson, I thought the same thing: "damn, that guy is awesome." You don't have to watch either very long to realize they are special talents.

Yep. Both are great power backs - Ahman leans a bit more towards Jim Brown and Peterson leans a bit more towards Gayle Sayers.

I never thought of comparing Green to Brown. I'd compare Peterson to Brown in that they both looked to take on tacklers head on.

I'd compare Sayers to Barry Sanders maybe.

[mraynrand]

If I remember correctly, AP was actually talked about as a potential bust, due to his injury in college. He was hardly hyped

He was hyped to no end. It turns out deservedly so, because he is a special talent. People were surprised when he dropped to #6 for the Vikings. He was HIGHLY touted. It turns out the one knock on him, injuries, hasn't been a big problem. However, not too many people thought he'd be this fumble prone.

The first time I watched Ahman and then Peterson, I thought the same thing: "damn, that guy is awesome." You don't have to watch either very long to realize they are special talents.

Yep. Both are great power backs - Ahman leans a bit more towards Jim Brown and Peterson leans a bit more towards Gayle Sayers.

I never thought of comparing Green to Brown. I'd compare Peterson to Brown in that they both looked to take on tacklers head on.

I'd compare Sayers to Barry Sanders maybe.

Leans a bit towards. I was trying to find a way to say that Peterson is more elusive and shifty while Ahman is more of an in-your-face power back. Both are pretty tough power backs, and yes Peterson enjoys running people over as well.

If you have the tape, check out Ahman at MN in 2000. That was a classic Ahman Green performance.