10 Reasons Ryan Grant Has Played His Last Game with Packers

[woodbuck27]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/609390-nfl-trade-rumors-10-reasons-ryan-grant-has-played-his-last-game-with-packers

10 Reasons Ryan Grant Has Played His Last Game with Packers

By Eric Ball (Featured Columnist) on February 15, 2011.

The NFL's can be a cruel game.

Just ask Packers running back Ryan Grant. The 28-year-old Grant was supposed to play a prominent role in the upstart Packers offense. Grant ended up on the I.R after a little over one quarter of action in the 2010 NFL season with a severe ankle injury. He ran well in his eight 2010 carries, collecting 45 yards for a 5.6 average. He was forced to watch his team roll through the NFL in route to a Super Bowl championship.

Now, his future with the Packers is very cloudy. Combine the Packers history of dealing with running backs with his expensive contract and we have only a few reasons why Grant's days in Green Bay may be numbered.

Here are 10 reasons Grant may have played his last game with the Green Bay Packers.

Please Click LINK above.

GO PACKERS !

[VegasPackFan]

A couple of those slides have B.S. comments on them.... Just sayin...

[Lurker64]

The only way I can see Grant not being with the team next year is if Ted Thompson thinks that Mark Ingram, Mikel LeShoure, or Ryan Matthews are the best player available at #32.

We're going to keep three running backs, we have only two guys who are actually worth a damn running the ball under contract. It's not rocket surgery to conclude that we're probably not going to cast one of them to the wind. It's not like this is a position we're deep at.

That being said, you offer enough for a guy on Ted's roster, he'll probably pull the trigger... but without a CBA in place (and you can't trade players for picks on draft day without a CBA) it's silly to project trades.

[Jimx29]

If Mr. Ball thinks that our current running back situation is OK, he needs to have his head examined

[mmmdk]

I think we'll lose BJ, not Grant. Yet we need a BJ type of back / third down receiving back for our offense. Starks/Grant/BJ looks good to me but BJ might get a better contract elsewhere.

[Patler]

I think Starks can be the third down back. By reputation from college he is supposed to be an excellent receiver. He looked to be getting the idea on pass protection after just a few games for the Packers. An off-season of workouts (hopefully) amd training ca,p (again, hopefully) should help him immensely. I really don't expect the Packers to put in a big effort to hold on to Jackson, who I expect will look for a better opportunity somewhere else.

[Patler]

The credibility of this analysis is suspect when he uses Hornung, Taylor and Green as evidence of the Packers not treating aging running backs well.

Hornung was lost in the expansion draft. Hornung was physically a wreak by then, and in fact never played another game because of the condition of his back. Teams could protect only a small number of players. It was known the Packers couldn't protect Hornung, but it was doubted the Saints would take him because of the likelihood he might not ever play again. Tom Fears, a former Packer Assistant, was the Saints head coach and took Hornung to draw fans. It ended up being a wasted pick for the Saints. The Packers also lost two other very good players in that expansion. The Saints first took Bill Curry from the Packers, then traded him to the Colts for Gary Cuozo to be their starting QB. Curry went on to a multiple Pro Bowl career with the Colts. The Packers also lost Phil Vandersea, who Lombardi liked so much that he traded a draft pick to reacquire him a year later.

Taylor was lost when his contract expired. There were stories of a fractured relationship by then between Taylor and Lombardi, but Taylor was also able to return home by signing a lucrative contract with the Saints. Taylor is from Baton Rouge and played at LSU. Some say it was what Taylor wanted and Lombardi let happen for him. Taylor only played one more year, and not all that well.

Green? The Packers tried to keep him, but the Texans gave him an outrageous contract. $23 million 4 year contract with $7 million guaranteed for a beat up running back who played very little after that. As it was, if I recall correctly, the Packers offered a two year contract that with incentives could have made him as much per year, but with a smaller guarantee.

I don't think any of those three situations over the last 44 years indicates that the Packers jettison useful running backs just for the heck of it.

[RashanGary]

Grant will be a Packer next year. I'd go ahead and place a large bet on it.

[RashanGary]

Starks and Grant have similar styles. I could see Starks eat into his carries a little.

[Scott Campbell]

Why do people even bother with the Belcher Report?

[SkinBasket]

Why do people even bother with the Belcher Report?

What else are they going to talk about? How hard Atari Bigby hits people?

[Pugger]

The credibility of this analysis is suspect when he uses Hornung, Taylor and Green as evidence of the Packers not treating aging running backs well.

Hornung was lost in the expansion draft. Hornung was physically a wreak by then, and in fact never played another game because of the condition of his back. Teams could protect only a small number of players. It was known the Packers couldn't protect Hornung, but it was doubted the Saints would take him because of the likelihood he might not ever play again. Tom Fears, a former Packer Assistant, was the Saints head coach and took Hornung to draw fans. It ended up being a wasted pick for the Saints. The Packers also lost two other very good players in that expansion. The Saints first took Bill Curry from the Packers, then traded him to the Colts for Gary Cuozo to be their starting QB. Curry went on to a multiple Pro Bowl career with the Colts. The Packers also lost Phil Vandersea, who Lombardi liked so much that he traded a draft pick to reacquire him a year later.

Taylor was lost when his contract expired. There were stories of a fractured relationship by then between Taylor and Lombardi, but Taylor was also able to return home by signing a lucrative contract with the Saints. Taylor is from Baton Rouge and played at LSU. Some say it was what Taylor wanted and Lombardi let happen for him. Taylor only played one more year, and not all that well.

Green? The Packers tried to keep him, but the Texans gave him an outrageous contract. $23 million 4 year contract with $7 million guaranteed for a beat up running back who played very little after that. As it was, if I recall correctly, the Packers offered a two year contract that with incentives could have made him as much per year, but with a smaller guarantee.

I don't think any of those three situations over the last 44 years indicates that the Packers jettison useful running backs just for the heck of it.

Wasn't Lombardi beside himself when the Saints drafted Hornung? And didn't we resign Green in 2008? I don't think Grant is going anywhere. Folks forget how productive he was back in 2009.

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

[Cheesehead Craig]

Dammit Patler quit using facts to disprove articles on how horrible the Packers treat players.

[Scott Campbell]

What else are they going to talk about? How hard Atari Bigby hits people?


I get better NFL news watching The View with Harlan.

[red]

i agree with patler. grant and starks would make a great 1-2 punch next year with starks taking over 3rd down duties from b-jack. keep some tread on the young guys tires, and try not to wear out the old guy.

although if the price is right (any chance of a first or second round pick?), then i could see TT trading him

[gbgary]

The credibility of this analysis is suspect when he uses Hornung, Taylor and Green as evidence of the Packers not treating aging running backs well.

Hornung was lost in the expansion draft. Hornung was physically a wreak by then, and in fact never played another game because of the condition of his back. Teams could protect only a small number of players. It was known the Packers couldn't protect Hornung, but it was doubted the Saints would take him because of the likelihood he might not ever play again. Tom Fears, a former Packer Assistant, was the Saints head coach and took Hornung to draw fans. It ended up being a wasted pick for the Saints. The Packers also lost two other very good players in that expansion. The Saints first took Bill Curry from the Packers, then traded him to the Colts for Gary Cuozo to be their starting QB. Curry went on to a multiple Pro Bowl career with the Colts. The Packers also lost Phil Vandersea, who Lombardi liked so much that he traded a draft pick to reacquire him a year later.

Taylor was lost when his contract expired. There were stories of a fractured relationship by then between Taylor and Lombardi, but Taylor was also able to return home by signing a lucrative contract with the Saints. Taylor is from Baton Rouge and played at LSU. Some say it was what Taylor wanted and Lombardi let happen for him. Taylor only played one more year, and not all that well.

Green? The Packers tried to keep him, but the Texans gave him an outrageous contract. $23 million 4 year contract with $7 million guaranteed for a beat up running back who played very little after that. As it was, if I recall correctly, the Packers offered a two year contract that with incentives could have made him as much per year, but with a smaller guarantee.

I don't think any of those three situations over the last 44 years indicates that the Packers jettison useful running backs just for the heck of it.


this...but i thought it was hornung's shoulders.

[Tony Oday]

I award this article no points and may god have mercy on its soul

[Lurker64]

The weird thing was when the article tried to make "we haven't heard anything about Grant's ankle" as evidence that it's a significant injury.

I also haven't heard about Nick Barnett's wrist, Josh Bell's foot, Morgan Burnett's knee, Brandon Chillar's shoulder, Justin Harrell's whatever, Spencer Havner's hamstring, Brad Jones's shoulder, Derrick Martin's knee, Mike Neal's shoulder, Marshall Newhouse's back, Brady Poppinga's knee, Anthony Smith's poorly defined injury, or Mark Tauscher's shoulder.

Should I conclude:
a) That all these injuries are extremely serious and will hurt the player in question well into the 2011 season
-OR-
b) That the Packers just don't talk about the rehab status of their IR guys during the season, as the media is not entitled to it.

[gbgary]

Why do people even bother with the Belcher Report?

the emails i get from them have several links to other outlets, besides them, with Packer info. makes it convenient.

[KYPack]

Taylor was lost when his contract expired. There were stories of a fractured relationship by then between Taylor and Lombardi, but Taylor was also able to return home by signing a lucrative contract with the Saints. Taylor is from Baton Rouge and played at LSU. Some say it was what Taylor wanted and Lombardi let happen for him. Taylor only played one more year, and not all that well.

(Snippage)


Taylor did not play out his option. He was traded to the Saints for a #1 in '68 and the afore-mentioned Phil Vandersea. It has been forgotten, because I see it stated constantly that Taylor played out his option. He did, but signed a new contract with N.O. so the deal could happen.

[Patler]

this...but i thought it was hornung's shoulders.

I read an article that said the problem was really in his upper spine, but manifested itself by not being able to take blows against his shoulders. It caused severe pain. It was reported at the time as a shoulder problem, but was really a problem with his spine.

If memory serves me correctly, earlier in his career he had reported neck problems that caused occasional numbness and stiffness that affected his play. I vaguely remember talk about him having trouble turning back for passes and getting his arms up. It was a big deal because the swing pass to Hornung was a staple weapon for the Packers. I wonder if this was all one related problem?

[SkinBasket]

After all the bitching this season about how we don't have a run game, you would think some of you cocksnorkles wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a guy who ran for 1250 yards and 11 TDs, and caught 25 passes last year.

[Lurker64]

After all the bitching this season about how we don't have a run game, you would think some of you cocksnorkles wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a guy who ran for 1250 yards and 11 TDs, and caught 25 passes last year.

Are there any cocksnorkles here other than the person who actually wrote the article? You don't have to name names.

[Patler]

Taylor did not play out his option. He was traded to the Saints for a #1 in '68 and the afore-mentioned Phil Vandersea. It has been forgotten, because I see it stated constantly that Taylor played out his option. He did, but signed a new contract with N.O. so the deal could happen.

I agree. There was no "playing out your option" in those days, but contracts did expire, and I believe Taylor's contract had expired, although that wasn't the reason they lost him, although I can see how what I wrote can be read as if I meant that. In those days, even when your contract expired, the former team still held your rights. It was negotiate and sign a new deal and play for them, or don't play at all, unless they traded you. Trades often happened at the time when a new contract was to be negotiated.

I knew the Packers got something for Taylor, but I didn't remember what. That's why I said Lombardi let it happen. He could have forced Taylor to stay if he wanted to. There have been conflicting stories about what the Taylor/Lombardi relationship really was. A recent comment attributed to Taylor made it sound as if he wanted to "go home" to end his career, and Lombardi didn't stand in the way of that happening.

For Vandersea to have been part of the Taylor trade, it would have to have been as a player to be named later or some other delayed compensation. Vandersea was taken in the expansion draft, played one year for the Saints along with Taylor, and came back to the Packers in 1968. I thought Lombardi gave up a pick to get him back.

Do you remember the details about Vandersea? He looked quite promising at one time, but didn't last long. I don't remember a major injury, do you?

[gbgary]

I read an article that said the problem was really in his upper spine, but manifested itself by not being able to take blows against his shoulders. It caused severe pain. It was reported at the time as a shoulder problem, but was really a problem with his spine.

If memory serves me correctly, earlier in his career he had reported neck problems that caused occasional numbness and stiffness that affected his play. I vaguely remember talk about him having trouble turning back for passes and getting his arms up. It was a big deal because the swing pass to Hornung was a staple weapon for the Packers. I wonder if this was all one related problem?


thanks! btw...my stepson presented me with a hornung autographed jersey a couple of days before the SB. i set up a Packers shrine in the living room for gameday. i believe it was very instumental in the Packers victory.

[KYPack]

Vandersea was the player to be named later in that deal. His career ended due to injury and lack of talent, basically. Taylor and Lombardi had been at each other's throats after all the "bonus baby" signings prior to the AFL/NFL merger. Taylor wanted to be paid at a much higher level and Vince wouldn't give in.

Both Hornung and Taylor wanted to go to the Saints, basically for the payday. Paul retired to a spinal injury of the cervical (neck) vertebrae. Paul was actually cleared to play by the Saints inept doctor. At camp, his left arm was still unusable. A doc in San Diego examined him and informed him that one blow on the field could paralyze him for life. Paul then retired. Taylor played poorly in his one season with the Saints. Both Paul and Jimmy were paid by the Saints and remained around the team, promoting broadcasting, coaching, etc. Taylor's deal was for 20 years! He stayed with the team for the whole time, finishing up in 1987.

The Packers drafted Fred Carr with the #1 pick they got from the Saints, BTW

[Patler]

The Packers drafted Fred Carr with the #1 pick they got from the Saints, BTW

An under appreciated player by many GB fans, I think.

[bobblehead]

Grant will be a Packer next year. I'd go ahead and place a large bet on it.

How much? We can exchange emails :P

I really think Grant is done unless he is extremely cheap next year and very healthy...just my opinion.

[Freak Out]

If Grant is healthy he's back as the number one guy....unless of course Starks just flat out beats him out in camp. I would have to think BJ is the odd man out next season. But....as Bobble pointed out $$ could come into play...how much is he set to make next season?

[vince]

Grant will make $5.5 million next year if he works out with the team and makes the roster. $3.5 million + $1.75 roster bonus. + $250,000 workout bonus

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/3252/player?r=1

I don't think that's exhorbitant, particularly given his production and the fact that depth is valued.

He's been reported to be ready to go, so unless he has a setback or just no longer can do it, i think he'll be in the lineup next year. I did hear a report that said he looked smaller than in the past, which isn't necessarily a good thing, although it isn't much to fret about at this point either.

[Freak Out]

That has to put him top.....12 in salary maybe?

[Cheesehead Craig]

If Grant is healthy he's back as the number one guy....unless of course Starks just flat out beats him out in camp. I would have to think BJ is the odd man out next season. But....as Bobble pointed out $$ could come into play...how much is he set to make next season?
BJ is a FA. It all comes down to if he'll be an UFA or RFA depending on the CBA. If RFA, he'll be pretty cheap.

[Freak Out]

Sorry for the confusion Nutcracker....I was speaking to Grants salary not Bjacks.

[RashanGary]

How much? We can exchange emails :P

I really think Grant is done unless he is extremely cheap next year and very healthy...just my opinion.


Him being cut after a major training camp injury would have to void it for me, but other than that, I'd bet anything from $50-$300.

[Smidgeon]

Him being cut after a major training camp injury would have to void it for me, but other than that, I'd bet anything from $50-$300.

Can you cut an injured player or would there have to be an injury settlement first? (I know, not related to the topic at hand.)

[Guiness]

Agree with some of the earlier posters that said this was a garbage article. Some of the bleacher report stuff is not bad, but this article, like some others, is pretty pictures generally only slightly related to the topic at hand.

Grant's been a solid starter for us, and doesn't break the bank. Before last season's injury, he was available 37 of 39 or 40 games (looking back to the halfway mark of the 2007 season). He'll be around next season.

[steve823]

I really think B-Jack is under-appreciated by Packer fans. We have one of, if not the top QB in the league, but he sustained 2 concussions this season. With our pass happy offense we definitely want to bring back Jackson. His blitz pickup skills and blocking are GREAT, and he's above average in space if thrown to for a screen or dump off. In my opinion he's an ideal 3rd down back, nothing more as proved by his starting duties this year, but still a very good 3rd down back.

If Starks can get better at picking up blitzes and blocking then Jackson might be expendable in the future, but for now Bjack is the best option to keep A-Rod safe.

[bobblehead]

Him being cut after a major training camp injury would have to void it for me, but other than that, I'd bet anything from $50-$300.

I was more joking around JH, I have no interest in taking a friends money (even an efriend). I bet $500-$1000 on NFL games, but I never make bets with people I know for more than one signed dollar bill. I had to hand one over to a Patriots fan the year they went 16-0. That one hurt. If you are interested in such a bet we can make that wager (signed with our screen names.) Just send me a PM and we will have a friendly wager.

Terms would be:

Any NEW significant injury to any body part other than the same ankle would void all bets. Nagging injuries and any injury to the ankle would stand.

My opinion is that he will likely be "off" and have a sore hamstring relating to favoring the ankle. Maybe a sore knee. I'm not talking blown ACL, that would void the bet. TT will likely waive him similar to Al Harris. We could also stipulate that PuP voids the bet as too many factors would affect the outcome of him making the roster after 6 weeks, plus 3 weeks exemptions. PM me if we have a $1 bet (signed of course).

[bobblehead]

I really think B-Jack is under-appreciated by Packer fans. We have one of, if not the top QB in the league, but he sustained 2 concussions this season. With our pass happy offense we definitely want to bring back Jackson. His blitz pickup skills and blocking are GREAT, and he's above average in space if thrown to for a screen or dump off. In my opinion he's an ideal 3rd down back, nothing more as proved by his starting duties this year, but still a very good 3rd down back.

If Starks can get better at picking up blitzes and blocking then Jackson might be expendable in the future, but for now Bjack is the best option to keep A-Rod safe.

This is exactly how I feel steve. If BJack hadn't made comments about thinking he is starting material I would say 100% he is back.....BUT, I fear he overrates himself and his role in the NFL.

[Smidgeon]

I really think B-Jack is under-appreciated by Packer fans. We have one of, if not the top QB in the league, but he sustained 2 concussions this season. With our pass happy offense we definitely want to bring back Jackson. His blitz pickup skills and blocking are GREAT, and he's above average in space if thrown to for a screen or dump off. In my opinion he's an ideal 3rd down back, nothing more as proved by his starting duties this year, but still a very good 3rd down back.

If Starks can get better at picking up blitzes and blocking then Jackson might be expendable in the future, but for now Bjack is the best option to keep A-Rod safe.

Remember how horrible he was at blitz pickup his first year? I think Bennett can teach Starks to be good.

[steve823]

This is exactly how I feel steve. If BJack hadn't made comments about thinking he is starting material I would say 100% he is back.....BUT, I fear he overrates himself and his role in the NFL.

Good point. If B-Jack had another year left it would be great because by then I think Starks would be better, but it kind of puts us in an awkward position. If they can work out a short contract it would be great, but I can see Jackson going to another teaming thinking he is starting material.

[steve823]

Remember how horrible he was at blitz pickup his first year? I think Bennett can teach Starks to be good.

I hope you're right. Some people just can't do it, ask Adrian Peterson...though his running ability obviously makes up for his other weaknesses without question. If Starks can become good at pass blocking and picking up blitzes I think he can become an every down player for us.

[get louder at lambeau]

I really think B-Jack is under-appreciated by Packer fans. We have one of, if not the top QB in the league, but he sustained 2 concussions this season. With our pass happy offense we definitely want to bring back Jackson. His blitz pickup skills and blocking are GREAT, and he's above average in space if thrown to for a screen or dump off. In my opinion he's an ideal 3rd down back, nothing more as proved by his starting duties this year, but still a very good 3rd down back.

If Starks can get better at picking up blitzes and blocking then Jackson might be expendable in the future, but for now Bjack is the best option to keep A-Rod safe.

I'm with you, Steve. Well said.

[KYPack]

Remember how horrible he was at blitz pickup his first year? I think Bennett can teach Starks to be good.

Starks is awful at blitz pick-up, but he's a rook. BJack is great at blitz pick-up and really uses that ability to run the shit out of a slip screen. He's as good as it gets on that middle slip screen MM loves to run.

If Edgar can school Starks in a simialr fashion, that kid will be illegal.

[3irty1]

The only legit reason Grant could be gone is his cap number. He probably is a little pricey for his services. I don't think he's worth nearly as much to other NFL teams as he is to us, and he's every bit the talent that his numbers have shown over the last few seasons. I'm also confident he'll fully recover from the surgery. By all accounts he is already fully at full speed.

[mmmdk]

The credibility of this analysis is suspect when he uses Hornung, Taylor and Green as evidence of the Packers not treating aging running backs well.

Hornung was lost in the expansion draft. Hornung was physically a wreak by then, and in fact never played another game because of the condition of his back. Teams could protect only a small number of players. It was known the Packers couldn't protect Hornung, but it was doubted the Saints would take him because of the likelihood he might not ever play again. Tom Fears, a former Packer Assistant, was the Saints head coach and took Hornung to draw fans. It ended up being a wasted pick for the Saints. The Packers also lost two other very good players in that expansion. The Saints first took Bill Curry from the Packers, then traded him to the Colts for Gary Cuozo to be their starting QB. Curry went on to a multiple Pro Bowl career with the Colts. The Packers also lost Phil Vandersea, who Lombardi liked so much that he traded a draft pick to reacquire him a year later.

Taylor was lost when his contract expired. There were stories of a fractured relationship by then between Taylor and Lombardi, but Taylor was also able to return home by signing a lucrative contract with the Saints. Taylor is from Baton Rouge and played at LSU. Some say it was what Taylor wanted and Lombardi let happen for him. Taylor only played one more year, and not all that well.

Green? The Packers tried to keep him, but the Texans gave him an outrageous contract. $23 million 4 year contract with $7 million guaranteed for a beat up running back who played very little after that. As it was, if I recall correctly, the Packers offered a two year contract that with incentives could have made him as much per year, but with a smaller guarantee.

I don't think any of those three situations over the last 44 years indicates that the Packers jettison useful running backs just for the heck of it.

Brilliant research! Thanx!!

[packerbacker1234]

Not just that, he calls Ahman Green Ahmad.

Point here I think is that

- Bleach Report Sucks
- Grant is indeed valuable, and you just need to look at his 2009 numbers to prove it.
- Most great offenses don't have their star RB score every game. By the logic used to say grant didn't score in 7 games in 2009 as being a reason he is bad, AP didn't score in 4 games in 2010 and didn't score in 6 games in 2008. By that account his 2009 with 18 td's was an anomoly, and has such AP sucks. Truth is that We are a passing offense, and as such, rushing TD's are not as prevelant as just being able to move the chains. Grant did that in 2009, did an alright job in 2008, and helped spark our offense in 2007.

People have always undervalued how good Grant really is. He may not be an elite runner, but he's a consistent runner. He's in the top 12 in the league easily. Where he ranks among those 12 is up for debate. You don't dump that, not when he will be 29, has VERY little wear and tear for his age, and could easily have 3 or 4 good years left in the tank.

[woodbuck27]

Why do people even bother with the Belcher Report?

Have you given this site a decent look? It has interesting articles that are open for discussion in terms of their merit and Belcher Report covers the NFL comprehensively.

ie loads of Packer news and news on any NFL team a fan may desires news on.

This particular article covers a criticle issue concerning a RB coming off a season long injury and allows us to discuss that as it concerns our RB situation in general.

GO PACKERS GO!

[MJZiggy]

Have you given this site a decent look? It has interesting articles that are open for discussion in terms of their merit and Belcher Report covers the NFL comprehensively.

ie loads of Packer news and news on any NFL team a fan may desires news on.

This particular article covers a criticle issue concerning a RB coming off a season long injury and allows us to discuss that as it concerns our RB situation in general.

GO PACKERS GO!

But if their information is inaccurate, what's the point?

[RashanGary]

People have always undervalued how good Grant really is. He may not be an elite runner, but he's a consistent runner. He's in the top 12 in the league easily. Where he ranks among those 12 is up for debate. You don't dump that, not when he will be 29, has VERY little wear and tear for his age, and could easily have 3 or 4 good years left in the tank.


Well said. I doubt he has 4 years left, but I'm pretty sure he has two. NO WAY we dump Ryan Grant right now. If Ted Drafts a really good back, Starks has a good year and Grant has a down year, we'll talk. For now, it's no conversation. Grant is a Packer.

[MJZiggy]

Alright, alright, alright. Look. First things first, I want to see how the ankle performs and whether the injury has any lasting effect. If it doesn't, there's no reason we can't keep a two-headed monster in the backfield with a third down back as well. We can eliminate a fullback if need be.

[woodbuck27]

But if their information is inaccurate, what's the point?

Your point is MJ ? That if you don't agree with the premise of an article fr. this site . Then the site is to be judged inferior or not creditable?

If so, where do you stand on the Bible?

[MJZiggy]

Your point is MJ ? That if you don't agree with the premise of an article fr. this site . Then the site is to be judged inferior or not creditable?

If so, where do you stand on the Bible?

When you give me a long and incredibly persuasive (not gonna happen) list of reasons why I would want to get into a biblical discussion with you, then I might consider it--but probably not.

Wait a minute!! So you're comparing the accuracy of a blog that cannot even get the players names right to the bible? That creates an interesting conundrum, don't you think?

[mraynrand]

Your point is MJ ? That if you don't agree with the premise of an article fr. this site . Then the site is to be judged inferior or not creditable?

If so, where do you stand on the Bible?


When you give me a long and incredibly persuasive (not gonna happen) list of reasons why I would want to get into a biblical discussion with you, then I might consider it--but probably not.

Wait a minute!! So you're comparing the accuracy of a blog that cannot even get the players names right to the bible? That creates an interesting conundrum, don't you think?

http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/nemo33.jpg

[Fritz]

The Bible is a blog?

[pbmax]

The Bible is a blog?

The first blog. And it only contains snark inspired directly by God.

[Fritz]

So it's God's blog?

[Patler]

The Bible is a blog?

Sure, just not a lot of recent postings.

[mraynrand]

You are a nest of vipers and thieves, and by the grace of the almighty God, I will root you out! (That would fit on Twitter!)

[pbmax]

Sure, just not a lot of recent postings.

At the end of Revelations, there has been a much debated entry that did not seem to fit in any established form of writing at the time, nor did it appear to be a signature. Its meaning was unknown for two millennia. Until the internet came along and provided a clue:

awk
brb

[swede]

From God: Abrhm! Scrfs Isc!

Reply Abraham: wtf?

Reply God: jk!

Reply Abraham: lol!

[packerbacker1234]

Alright, alright, alright. Look. First things first, I want to see how the ankle performs and whether the injury has any lasting effect. If it doesn't, there's no reason we can't keep a two-headed monster in the backfield with a third down back as well. We can eliminate a fullback if need be.

He's supposedly already at 100% right now. That gives him a full offseason to test and work out on it. I
m sure he's fine.

[Scott Campbell]

Have you given this site a decent look? It has interesting articles that are open for discussion in terms of their merit and Belcher Report covers the NFL comprehensively.

ie loads of Packer news and news on any NFL team a fan may desires news on.

This particular article covers a criticle issue concerning a RB coming off a season long injury and allows us to discuss that as it concerns our RB situation in general.

GO PACKERS GO!


The Bleacher Report is craptactular enough to pass for Canadian.

[get louder at lambeau]

From God: Abrhm! Scrfs Isc!

Reply Abraham: wtf?

Reply God: jk!

Reply Abraham: lol!

Seems like there should be an "OMFG!" in there somewhere.

[MadScientist]

Seems like there should be an "OMFG!" in there somewhere.

That's what Mary calls out.

[rbaloha1]

IMO Grant is a "young" 28 due to the lack of playing time earlier in his NFL career. Fits the system. Always find the correct cutback lanes. Very productive. Once contract expires Starks should be ready to be the every down back.

IMO TT needs to find a Darren Sproles type player in the draft.