Grant and Peterson Compared

[vince]

Here are the production stats for each runner's first year.

..................YDs......TDs......Games
Peterson.....1341.....12........14
Grant..........956........8........10

Now here are those stats projected to a 16-game season - as if Peterson hadn't hurt his leg and missed two games and as if Grant would have had a full training camp to learn the Packers system and played the whole year.

..................YDs......TDs
Peterson.....1533.....14
Grant..........1530.....13

Both backs averaged more than 5 yrds/carry (Peterson 5.6 and Grant 5.1).
While the Packers have the better passing game to keep defenses honest, most would say the Vikes have the better line to pave the way.

I am not going to say that Ryan Grant is as physically gifted as Adrian Peterson, but obviously he has made the most of his opportunity and has been extremely productive.

This is no disrespect to Adrian Peterson, because he's fast powerful and shifty, but his record-breaking game has given him the media hype that vaulted him into national prominence (and also pulled his stats up), while Ryan Grant has been more consistent and sneaky fast, powerful and shifty.

Peterson is 6'2", 217 lbs. and ran a 4.40 40 at the combine.
Grant is 6'1", 224 lbs. and ran a 4.43 40 at the combine.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Peterson is much better than Grant, but Grant is solid. Peterson is to Eric Dickerson what Grant is to Dorsey Levens. I was one of the first on the Grant bandwagon.
:D

[vince]

Peterson is much better than Grant
Based on what?

[Scott Campbell]

Holy smokes.

[MadtownPacker]

Man, that's crazy info.

I aint gonna claim Grant is a talented as peterson but he makes the most of his opportunities when he gets them. He has big play ability that I haven't seen since Ahman in '03. He is why I let myself believe the Packers can make a charge in the playoffs. Jackson having his first 100yd game yesterday wasn't a bad thing either.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Based on what?

Have you watched Peterson play?

[vince]

Uh yes I've watched Peterson play. I asked you what you're basing your statement on. I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with it - except to question the extent of the "much" in the statement.

Have you watched Grant play?

To compare him to Dorsey Levens is doing him a serious disservice.

In 10 games, Grant has more than half (5) the number of 100 yard games that Dorsey Levens had (9) in his 144 game career.

Ryan Grant will blow Dorsey Levens' production out of the water.

[Bretsky]

Peterson is much better than Grant
Based on what?


Talent and Ability

[vince]

Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with either you or Harvey Bretsky, or trying to get in your face, but in the absence of any substantive response other than "much better than" or "talent and ability", it's impossible to know specifically what you're talking about.

I'm not taking anything away from Peterson. He could be a 2000 yard ground gainer, if his jukey, upright style of running doesn't get him hurt...

I also think a lot of people are not fully appreciating the real Ryan Grant. He's good - real good - and productive. He may also stay healthier than Peterson, based on his straightline, hard, behind-his-pads running style.

Does Peterson's quicker feet make him "much" better, more talented and able? Whatever that is, if it means equal production, do you care?

Fans tend to fawn over (and the league and media tend to play up) certain "sexy" characteristics about players that may or may not translate into actual increased production over some other more "meat and potatoes" player whose different style is every bit as productive.

Which is what counts - right?

[Bretsky]

I've VERY Happy with Ryan Grant and was a supporter for him off the bat.

It's my view that AP has

Better Vision
Better ability to make others miss
And more Power than Ryan Grant

And I'm not cutting on Grant. But I think Peterson is one of the top 4 RB's in the NFL. Possibly the top 2 after next year. An incredible talent.

[vince]

Definitely agree on Peterson's ability to make others miss and also that he is quicker than Grant - both of which are the epitome of what you look for in an elite back.

I'm not sure about vision. Grant has great vision. It's at the foundation of his success in the zone blocking scheme. It helps him quickly determine where the first hole is, then to immediately gauge the second level as he's penetrating the hole. Grant's ability to get to the second level - then almost immediately make people not so much miss him, but be unable to get a good angle on him in the first place - separates him from a lot of backs.

In many ways, Grant's success is due to a confluence of what he does well and the Packer's running system, whereas Peterson's feet would enable him to excel in ANY system (if he can stay relatively healthy, which I think could be a problem for him).

I think they both will have great careers if they stay healthy. It'll be interesting to see how they evolve in the years to come.

[esoxx]

AP really tailed off after the LCL tear. He was on pace for some wicked numbers. For a rookie to dominate the way he did is impressive.

I love Grant, but Peterson is hands down the better RB. I read where a NFL scout called Peterson the best running back he's seen in the league since Barry Sanders. Heady praise.

For the #6 pick in the draft, MN struck gold.

For a 6th round pick, GB stole one from the Giants.

Both franchises are happy with their backs and should be.

[Rastak]

Peterson is much better than Grant
Based on what?

Talent.


I like Grant. I like him alot.

Peterson? Gains 2000 yards in the Big 12 straight out of high school.

In his rookie season he sets the all-time single game rushing record.

How long has the league been around? Some 80 years or so?


Grant is a real find. I ain't bad mouthing him.

[cheesner]

What is the difference in AP and Grant if you measured them with the stat of yards/Salary dollar? Grant would be significantly the better player/bargain. In this age of FA I would easily take a guy who is only slightly less productive, at a tenth of the cost.

[Rastak]

What is the difference in AP and Grant if you measured them with the stat of yards/Salary dollar? Grant would be significantly the better player/bargain. In this age of FA I would easily take a guy who is only slightly less productive, at a tenth of the cost.


Unless you are pressed against the salary cap the only person who would care was the owners acountant, right?

I like your guy and you are welcome to him. The Vikings are loaded with cap room next year as are the Packers. That would be the LEAST of my worries.
Dead assed last.

[HarveyWallbangers]

From reports I've read, Grant ran a 4.45 40. Peterson might have clocked 4.40. I don't know, but watch him. He plays faster than that. He also runs more violently than Grant. The thing that really separates him from all other RBs is that he's big AND he's unbelievable shifty. He and Steven Jackson have the best combination of size, speed, and agility. The only knock on Peterson is that his running style could make him injury prone. However, it seems like he runs less upright already in the NFL than he did in college, so I'm not sure if that will be a major problem even.

[Rastak]

From reports I've read, Grant ran a 4.45 40. Peterson might have clocked 4.40. I don't know, but watch him. He plays faster than that. He also runs more violently than Grant. The thing that really separates him from all other RBs is that he's big AND he's unbelievable shifty. He and Steven Jackson have the best combination of size, speed, and agility. The only knock on Peterson is that his running style could make him injury prone. However, it seems like he runs less upright already in the NFL than he did in college, so I'm not sure if that will be a major problem even.


That having been said Grant sure looked great to me. I agree he's a better value perhaps, but unless money is the ultimate goal that's just a secondary thing. I'm guessing both teams are pretty happy.

[Partial]

Peterson is much better than Grant
Based on what?

Talent.


I like Grant. I like him alot.

Peterson? Gains 2000 yards in the Big 12 straight out of high school.

In his rookie season he sets the all-time single game rushing record.

How long has the league been around? Some 80 years or so?


Grant is a real find. I ain't bad mouthing him.



Agreed. I liked Vince's post but the stats are viewed because Peterson is the offense for the vikes and the run is what is primarily defended with 8 or 9 defenders in the box. Against the Packers, you can't put more than 7 if you don't want to get burned deep. Having Favre and many good receivers has definitely helped Grant big time. Either way, production is production and he has done well with the opportunities given to him.

[Lurker64]

I think part of the issue is that virtually every team playing the Vikings plays run first and foremost, and on downs that Peterson is in they're usually facing eight and even nine men "in the box", as it were. We have a much more dangerous passing offense than Minnesota, so Grant usually sees more balanced looks from the defense.

This phenomenon has actually showed up in Vikings games actually, in a lot of the most recent games Chester Taylor has had decent stats in games where Peterson has had poor stats. This is largely because teams don't sell out to stop the run when Taylor is in, so he sees some holes that Peterson doesn't.

But most teams, when Peterson is in the game, just dare the Vikings to beat them by passing, and Minnesota has only had mixed success with this.

[4and12to12and4]

I can't believe that anyone who has even a little bit of knowledge of the game of football would dare to suggest that Grant is even close to the talent of AP. The numbers are quite even, but, my god, watch the games!! AP is unreal. He is like a runaway train, and PUNISHES anything in his path, yet, he also has GREAT cutting ability. His RAW talent is uncomparable to anyone other than LT right now. I think he has slightly more RAW talent than LT even. However, his vision is average at best and his running decisions reflect that.

He needs to listen to Steve Young who told him to chill out a little bit and not go full force every time he touches the ball, he will have a very short career if he continues running the way he does unless he gets REALLY lucky, because when you drop your head and try to punish the defender every carry, you will pay and pay dearly with these huge, fast tackles and linebackers out there.

After Young told him that, Emmitt Smith told him disagreed with Steve and told him to just keep doing what he's doing. I think Emmitt wants to hold on to his rushing record. 8-)

Grant is a very speedy back with good quickness and excellent vision, but he is also aided by having Brett back there, and M3's spread offense. That doesn't take anything away from him, others have tried and failed (Morency). I still think Brandon is just as good as Grant with better upside, because he has better cutting ability and is harder to take down. Grant is so fast he avoids tackles because defenders don't get a good hit on him, whereas Brandon can run through a good tackle, but doesn't hit 5th gear as quickly and needs to improve his decision making. I think we should use them like Dallas does, and spell Grant with Jackson, it makes it harder on the defense when two different type runners go in and out, they have to change the way they play both runners.

But, please don't compare Grant with AP when talking about potential and talent. Give me a break.

[RashanGary]

Great topic, Vince. Ryan Grant looked better than ever last week. I thought it was his best game as a Packer. He really WOW'd me with the way he ran. The way he exploded into the secondary, made guys miss once he got there and then ran away from guys was impressive.


Of course, Petersons greatest runs were even more spectacular, but then you have to consider Petersons injury prone upright style. Right now I'd have a hard time betting on either of them to have a better season next year. I honestly think Peterson is going to get injured. His legs are just wide open. I can't believe Eric Dickerson lasted as long as he did, but I guess it was only one player to run like that who ever lasted.

[Lurker64]

But, please don't compare Grant with AP when talking about potential and talent. Give me a break.

I can see the following scenario happen, howver:
1) The Vikings continue to have a poor passing offense for years to come, so teams continue to key on stopping Peterson.

2) The Packers continue to have a good passing offense for years to come, so Grant has many opportunities to run against wider open defenses.

3) Peterson reliably misses some time due to injury.

4) Grant stays relatively healthy.

I would think that if 1-4 come to pass, it's not hard to imagine Ryan Grant having a better career than Adrian Peterson, or at least several better seasons; and after all in this league we're more interested in production than potential when it comes to looking back.

[pack4to84]

What some of you forgot to mention is Grant had 2 of his longest runs this season with 8 men in the box. The Dallas and Bear games. Both where 3rd and 1 eight men in the box he ran by the secondary in a blink of and I . Grant forces teams to not put eight men in the box because of his running style. If a hole opens up with eight men in a box he is gone every time. I have watched a lot of football since 1978 the only running back that had Grant style of running is Bo Jackson. Yes I am comparing him to Bo. I think Grant hit the hole with so much explosion only Bo Jackson had during his career. I just hope he plays longer then what Bo Jackson was able to play.

Even 4and12to12and4 has to acknowledge my football knowledge since I was his football buff since child hood.

The comparison with AP different style of runners who will achieve the same goal. AP is physically gifted. Grant just has a style of running that would achieve his goal. He hits the hole so fast he is by the secondary if they play up. If teams play eight in the box verse Grant he would break off long runs. AP doesn't hit top gear as fast as Grant. Thats why eight men in the box can stop him. Teams are forced to put eight in the box verse AP so sooner or later their QB will hurt you off play action.

[Jimx29]

Gut feeling tells me next year AP will pull a Frank Gore. Teams already figured out how to make him completely ineffective, and that'll be the beginning of the end of the "star" power he has and he'll be just like any other RB in the league by next years end.

[Tarlam!]

Right now, I think I am more scared of facing AP twice a year, than Ras is facing Grant twice a year.

Absolutely no disrespect to Grant. I have been on his band wagon since I got off of Wynn's ... 8-)

[Guiness]

Wow - some heady statements about Grant. Bo Jackson, eh? I'll take that!

What I like the most about him is his top gear - seem like he had a lot of long runs, over 20yds - can anyone find the actual number? That's the kind of back this O needs...a home run hitter who can punish a D for cheating to much towards the pass. The way our offense is set up, we don't care about grinding out 3-4 yards on every down. What we need is the guy who can break a 15yd run on 3 and 10 when the D is in dime.

BTW stunned that Levens only had 9 100yd games in his career!

[vince]

I can't believe that anyone who has even a little bit of knowledge of the game of football would dare to suggest that Grant is even close to the talent of AP. The numbers are quite even, but, my god, watch the games!!
What demonstrates a lack of "knowledge of the game of football" is when fans fawn over "talent" that is obvious to even the most casual fan, and seemingly don't understand what actually wins football games - production.

I never said that Grant is as talented overall as Peterson. I agree with everyone who says that Peterson is much more talented, particularly when it comes to foot quickness, which contribute to his shiftiness and explosiveness. He's also a bit faster. However, the facts thus far show without a doubt that doesn't necessarily translate to "much better."

Most fans and media pundits (and many GMs) overrate "talent." That allows guys like Bill Polian and Ted Thompson to mop up with unheralded productive footbal players that win games. Then after the fact, everyone fawns about how "talented" those players are.

When that happens right before our eyes, who would we say understands the game of football and who doesn't?

[Iron Mike]

Most fans and media pundits (and many GMs) overrate "talent." That allows guys like Bill Polian and Ted Thompson to mop up with unheralded productive football players that win games. Then after the fact, everyone fawns about how "talented" those players are.


Yep. What would you rather be.....7-9 with a superstar, or 13-3 without one?

[Tarlam!]

Yep. What would you rather be.....7-9 with a superstar, or 13-3 without one?

Our superstar is a QB. Ya gotta be thinking Minnie has a different record if defenses respected their passing game...

[Patler]

Most fans and media pundits (and many GMs) overrate "talent." That allows guys like Bill Polian and Ted Thompson to mop up with unheralded productive footbal players that win games. Then after the fact, everyone fawns about how "talented" those players are.


Case in point - Aaron Kampman. How long did we hear that he would always be "just a good player" but not Pro-Bowl material because of his lack of talent and physical gifts?

Sometimes players just fit the system they are asked to play in and become extremely productive even without the best natural talent. Grant so far seems to fit what the Packers want from a runner. He finds the cutback lanes, bursts through them quickly and has enough elusiveness, speed and power to get extra yards on his own. If he improves as a receiver and as a blocker he will be a very nice fit for the present Packer scheme.

What I like best about Grant is his consistency. Rarely does he miss what is available. He gets what's there to be had. In the last 10 games he has had a 10+ run in every game, and a 20+ run in every game except KC, and that is without huge numbers of running plays. Since the Packer O-line is less than elite as a run-blocking unit, it is apparent that when it is there, Grant gets it. Missing a hole or not seeing a cutback lane is like dropping a pass. It's a wasted play. Grant doesn't seem to have many of those as a runner. Also, he gets in the endzone. At least one rushing TD in each of the last 6 games and 8 in the last 8 games. He has enough speed to get to the endzone from any point on the field. That makes defenses respect the running game, even when the Packers remain primarily a passing team.

[Bretsky]

I wonder if Wist would call Kampman a difference maker yet :?:

[Harlan Huckleby]

he's a try-hard guy. a white (and therefore) smart player.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Vince,

You are better than this. Did you watch the 4-4 defenses that Minnesota went up against the last 4 weeks of the year?

[BallHawk]

Right now, I think I am more scared of facing AP twice a year, than Ras is facing Grant twice a year.

Well said, Tar. Completely agree.

[GBRulz]

[quote=Tarlam!]Right now, I think I am more scared of facing AP twice a year, than Ras is facing Grant twice a year.

Facing Randy Moss twice a year scared me. I guess I don't feel the same about AP yet! Perhaps it's because MN has a bad passing game, I dunno but we kept AP in check pretty damn well. until he starts torching our asses, I say bring 'em on! :wink:

[vince]

Vince,

You are better than this. Did you watch the 4-4 defenses that Minnesota went up against the last 4 weeks of the year?
Yes I understand that defenses stack the box against the Vikes because they can't pass, which Peterson can't control. And I'd rather have a healthy Peterson running for the Packers than a healthy Grant.

I'm just wondering in my own mind (and trying to pick the brains of you guys) just how much more I'd rather have Peterson.

This Grant kid is better than most give him credit for because he tends to unspectacularly productive. Given that, Grant could end up being a superior value for years to come, although I don't know what Peterson's contract looks like.

As someone said back on page 1, both teams are rightfully very happy with what they got.

[RashanGary]

I think Patler brought up a great example in Aaron Kampman. He never went to the combine. We all assumed his physical ability was limited. HH said it could be because he's white and as silly as that might sound, I think there is some truth to that too. Kind of goes hand in hand with the Grant arguement right now. He was an undrafted player. He hasn't played in the NFL until this year. He's not even close to as phyically gifted as Adrian Peterson.


Well, come to find out Aaron Kampman was the 2nd most physically gifted DE in the draft (probably after Peppers). They didn't release his 40, vertical or position drill numbers but the Packers released some info saying the scouts had him tabbed as a high upside guy. Even they, the scouts, might have been duped by him not going to the combine or having the big school spotlight. The Big 10 isn't exactly the best place for a pass rusher to pad stats.

On to Ryan Grant. Everyone keeps saying he's so much less physically gifted than Peterson. Well, Grant is 225 lbs and runs a 4.43. Peterson is 220 and runs a 4.40. That size/speed thing, for whatever reason, is being overlooked on Grant. He's got the home run skill set, just like Kampman has the pass rushers home run skill set. I think Peterson has that shiftyness to his game that a 220 lb guy should not have so everyone says "look at that, he's the most physically gifted guy ever". This is the next great point by Vince. Grant doesn't have that freakish quickness, but it's funny, whenever the play calls for some of it, he always has just enough to make the play. He PRODUCES. Just like Kampman.

Two common errors were made with Kamp

1. We underestimated his abilty for a long time
2. We assumed he was lucky to be producing

We're repeating those with Grant. Scouts repeat the same mistakes over and over too. Vince's last great pioont uses this conversation as evidence. The way people are calling Vince crazy or void of football knolwedge is exactly why a great GM can consistantly kick ass in this league. There are some illusions that are just hard to see through and if you find a guy who can see the forest through the trees better than the rest of them, wow, you have the most important thing a franchise can have and that is superior talent and nobody even knows it so you can afford more of it. Packer fans be happy is all I can say.

I'm just summarizing all of your info, but I think some great points were made so I had to get in on it.

[Patler]

And I'd rather have a healthy Peterson running for the Packers than a healthy Grant.

I'm just wondering in my own mind (and trying to pick the brains of you guys) just how much more I'd rather have Peterson.



A legitimate question. This is why I mentioned players "fitting" the system.

It could be argued that for GB as it is this year, Grant is a better "fit". Grant was good enough to make the running game go the last 10 games. When you have a guy like Peterson, you are almost forced to become a running team to use his talent. With the O-line as unsettled as it is, with Favre playing as he has, and with the receivers and TEs as they have, focusing too much on the running game may actually have been detrimental, even if Peterson was your runner. Grant makes the offense better by being a legitimate running threat, but doesn't distract the team's focus from its real strength.

It has nothing to do with Grant being "as good as" Peterson, but maybe he is as valuable within the Packers system.

[Bretsky]

Grant can be very good
AP can be great

[MJZiggy]

Grant can be very good
AP can be great

Don't go underestimating your boys again...You know they can turn it on and surprise you. It's just a hunch, but I get the feeling that when all is said and done, 10 years from now, Grant will have outproduced AP.

[Bretsky]

Grant has been a great fit for Green Bay and his talents seem to be a good fit for the zone blocking system. AP has such great vision and ability to make anybody miss I think he excels in any system.

Let's step back here. The Giants have witnessed two of Ryan Grant's training camps and rated him to be below Brandon Jacobs, Derrick Ward, Ahman Bradshaw, and Ruben Droughans.

Did they grossly misjudge Grant ? Maybe. Jacobs is still very good, Ward looked very good when he played this year, and Bradshaw looked very good this year when he played. Droughans is a veteran they felt they needed. So they decided Ryan Grant was the RB they could most afford to lose.

Am I suggesting Grant is far more or less talented than the other NYG backs ? No, but obviously they were loaded at RB and we got a great value in Grant.

But our homerism reaks incredibly when we try to argue Ryan Grant's talent is with a guy who may be the most talented RB in the NFL.

[Bretsky]

Grant can be very good
AP can be great

Don't go underestimating your boys again...You know they can turn it on and surprise you. It's just a hunch, but I get the feeling that when all is said and done, 10 years from now, Grant will have outproduced AP.


AP has been more prone to injuries so that certainly could be the case
Talent wise AP could also end up being categorized as the greatest of all time

who knows

[SkinBasket]

1. We underestimated his abilty for a long time
2. We assumed he was lucky to be producing

We're repeating those with Grant....

You got a mouse in your pocket? Who is this "we" you're referring to?

[Scott Campbell]

But our homerism reaks incredibly when we try to argue Ryan Grant's talent is with a guy who may be the most talented RB in the NFL.



I didn't see any homerism in the projected full season stats. The numbers are what knock your socks off. Well except for the other thing that knocks your socks off - the video tape. Grant has looked every bit the part thus far.

Unless his performance has been some sort of mirage, I'm hopeful that they the only thing AP has on him is pedigree.

[RashanGary]

You got a mouse in your pocket? Who is this "we" you're referring to?

We is a term I use that is designed to say a mistake was made, but that it was a common, human mistake that we all can and do make from time to time. I acctually jumped on the Kampy band wagon pretty fast, but I was trying to say a lot of the Kamp hate went on for too long by too many people without being a big Ahole and pointing fingers. For some reason I'm not suprised this communication tactic is lost on you, skinbasket. I'll tell you what, for you it can be a mouse in my pocket or whatever your bitter, cynical, baselessly arrogant mind wants to assume, ok?

[Patler]

Let's step back here. The Giants have witnessed two of Ryan Grant's training camps and rated him to be below Brandon Jacobs, Derrick Ward, Ahman Bradshaw, and Ruben Droughans.


Well, the same could be said for the Seahawks and Ahman Green. Not only did they see two of his training camps, they saw him play two seasons, and 30 regular season games with 61 rushing attempts for over 5yds/carry. Yet they determined he was expendable and gave him away for a skinny, frail cornerback who had not played well for the Packers the year before. They even threw in a 5th round draft choice in return for a 6th round pick in the deal to get rid of him

Sometimes one team DOES understand a player better than the team that has him! :D

[Bretsky]

Let's step back here. The Giants have witnessed two of Ryan Grant's training camps and rated him to be below Brandon Jacobs, Derrick Ward, Ahman Bradshaw, and Ruben Droughans.


Well, the same could be said for the Seahawks and Ahman Green. Not only did they see two of his training camps, they saw him play two seasons, and 30 regular season games with 61 rushing attempts for over 5yds/carry. Yet they determined he was expendable and gave him away for a skinny, frail cornerback who had not played well for the Packers the year before. They even threw in a 5th round draft choice in return for a 6th round pick in the deal to get rid of him

Sometimes one team DOES understand a player better than the team that has him! :D


I don't like the Green to Grant comparison much

They traded Ahman for a CB that Holmgren was high on (even though he stunk) and was a 2nd round draft pick. Ahman Green was making the team and was their main backup. They just had their horse.

Barring injury NYG didn't think Grant would see the playing field much if at all. He was behind four RB's and it looked like he was the last RB being kept on the roster if he stuck. They were content getting something for him in a late round pick.

To me they clearly undervalued Ryan Grant.

I think Grant is very good and can make some Pro Bowls. My main point is he doesn't have the elite talent AP does.

[SkinBasket]

You got a mouse in your pocket? Who is this "we" you're referring to?

We is a term I use that is designed to say a mistake was made, but that it was a common, human mistake that we all can and do make from time to time. I acctually jumped on the Kampy band wagon pretty fast, but I was trying to say a lot of the Kamp hate went on for too long by too many people without being a big Ahole and pointing fingers. For some reason I'm not suprised this communication tactic is lost on you, skinbasket. I'll tell you what, for you it can be a mouse in my pocket or whatever your bitter, cynical, baselessly arrogant mind wants to assume, ok?

Took you four edits to get all your girl-anger out? Or is that a "communication tactic" too?

[RashanGary]

Took you four edits to get all your girl-anger out? Or is that a "communication tactic" too?

That's the, I make my post before I proof read it (and sometimes seeing it the post form helps to find mistakes) tactic. Again, it can be whatever you want it to be, skinbasket.

Girl-anger? Very original. It probably felt good for you though. I hope you rest better tonight.

Well, my better half is coming back from a two day trip. I think I'll go get the house in order so she doesn't have to deal with added stress after her three hour trip. Maybe you can find something better to do with your time than tossing around insults, even if you think they are the most wonderfull, clever little gifts this forum has ever recieved.

[Pacopete4]

the thing is.. no matter how good u are u need both parts of the game, passing and rushing... i'll take favre and grant over peterson and whoever the hell the vikes find to stand under center any day...

[Patler]

I don't like the Green to Grant comparison much

They traded Ahman for a CB that Holmgren was high on (even though he stunk) and was a 2nd round draft pick. Ahman Green was making the team and was their main backup. They just had their horse.

Barring injury NYG didn't think Grant would see the playing field much if at all. He was behind four RB's and it looked like he was the last RB being kept on the roster if he stuck. They were content getting something for him in a late round pick.

To me they clearly undervalued Ryan Grant.

I think Grant is very good and can make some Pro Bowls. My main point is he doesn't have the elite talent AP does.

I agree, Grant was undervalued by the Giants. I don't think anyone is really suggesting he has the talent Peterson does. Green was also undervalued by the Seahawks.

The Seahawks didn't have their "horse" at the time of the trade. They had an aging Ricky Watters going into his 10th season. The trade was made before the draft, and the Seahawks ultimately picked Shaun Alexander after trading Green, but they could have used that pick for someone else and kept Green as Watters replacement. The Seahawks didn't know what they had in Ahman Green.

[VegasPackFan]

There is one huge advantage that Grant has over AP - MILEAGE.

I was concerned about AP coming out of college in terms of the number of carries he came with, and the wear and tear that his running style had to have affected his body up to this point.

Grant comes with almost no mileage at all. He may be around years after Peterson is used up.

[SkinBasket]

Well, my better half is coming back from a two day trip. I think I'll go get the house in order so she doesn't have to deal with added stress after her three hour trip. Maybe you can find something better to do with your time than tossing around insults, even if you think they are the most wonderfull, clever little gifts this forum has ever recieved.

Wuss.

[Patler]

There is one huge advantage that Grant has over AP - MILEAGE.

I was concerned about AP coming out of college in terms of the number of carries he came with, and the wear and tear that his running style had to have affected his body up to this point.

Grant comes with almost no mileage at all. He may be around years after Peterson is used up.


I guess time will tell if Peterson's running style is detrimental to his longevity.

As for number of "touches" in college, the difference is not as much as you might expect. Peterson played 3 season, missed some games due to injuries and seems to have had 761 carries and receptions. Grant played four seasons at ND and had 584. With Perterson you also get a 22 year old, while Grant is 25. Some say 29-30 is the magic age of decline for most running backs.

[DannoMac21]

Mind if I use this post at another site?

[DannoMac21]

Boy am I getting bashed for making this post over at FootballsFuture's General Forum...

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3462743#3462743

[Patler]

Boy am I getting bashed for making this post over at FootballsFuture's General Forum...

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3462743#3462743

Again, I'm not suggesting that they are anywhere near each other in raw talent, but, and Rastak can correct me if I am wrong, I doubt that Peterson was facing defenses specifically designed to stop him until sometime around the middle of the season, after he had proven himself. Now it's true that Minnesota's passing game does not garner a lot of respect, so in that respect teams have approached them more concerned about the running game than the passing game. After his return from injury when teams have really had a chance to see him from earlier game tapes, and designed defenses to stop him, he has not done quite as well. I'm not sure how much can be attributed to lingering effects from the injury. Perhaps Rastak can fill us in on that, too.

I fully expect AP to challenge for the rushing title year after year. I hope Grant can be a guy to routinely have 250-300 carries a season for 1100-1400 yards. In a down year like this year that will put him near the top. In a more typical year he will rank in the top 5-15 with that type of performance. That will complement the Packers passing game quite well.

[MadtownPacker]

Boy am I getting bashed for making this post over at FootballsFuture's General Forum...

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3462743#3462743Thats bullshit that you use it and then dont even put a fucking link or give Vince any type of credit for shit.

[b bulldog]

Grant reminds me of a young, healthy eddie george.

[GBRulz]

Boy am I getting bashed for making this post over at FootballsFuture's General Forum...

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3462743#3462743

Considering that one of the Queen fans over there has "TJack is the next Brett Favre" in his sig, I wouldn't worry too much about what is said over there.

The "AP for SB MVP 2010" sig is a good one, too.

[Badgerinmaine]

Boy am I getting bashed for making this post over at FootballsFuture's General Forum...

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3462743#3462743

Considering that one of the Queen fans over there has "TJack is the next Brett Favre" in his sig, I wouldn't worry too much about what is said over there.



Hey, it's football. We are all entitled to our delusions. :mrgreen:

[b bulldog]

GB, did you do some sleddin between the holidays?? Conditions were just awsome although the lakes got a bit slushy. All the locals were walking around with grins from ear to ear because of all the money the snow has made them. Northern WI is a wonderful place to be in the winter when their is ample snow on the ground.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Peterson was averaging 6.5 yards/carry before the last four games. Ridiculous! Then, teams stacked the box like no other RB sees often. He didn't just go up against 8 men in a box--like a normal great RB. He went up against 4-4 defenses. Normally, the 8th man in the box would be a safety. He went up against 4 DL and 4 LBs. Grant went mostly against 7 men in the box. Peterson is a Hall of Fame talent, and to compare Grant to him is a bit much. Production, my ass. You have to look at the talent around you. When Favre had Walker and Driver, he put up MVP type numbers. When he had Bill Schroeder as a starting WR, he didn't. Also, I think Minnesota's OL is overrated. Hutch is very good. Maybe not great. Birk is good, but not great. McKinnie is overrated. Hicks is average. Cook is below average.

[Partial]

Peterson was averaging 6.5 yards/carry before the last four games. Ridiculous! Then, teams stacked the box like no other RB sees often. He didn't just go up against 8 men in a box--like a normal great RB. He went up against 4-4 defenses. Normally, the 8th man in the box would be a safety. He went up against 4 DL and 4 LBs. Grant went mostly against 7 men in the box. Peterson is a Hall of Fame talent, and to compare Grant to him is a bit much. Production, my ass. You have to look at the talent around you. When Favre had Walker and Driver, he put up MVP type numbers. When he had Bill Schroeder as a starting WR, he didn't. Also, I think Minnesota's OL is overrated. Hutch is very good. Maybe not great. Birk is good, but not great. McKinnie is overrated. Hicks is average. Cook is below average.

This is pretty much the answer right here.

[Lurker64]

Production, my ass.

This is the part that I really disagree with. Production wins games, championships, and gets you into the hall of fame. Potential is just the potential for production and talent just aids production (a more talented player will produce more than a less talented player ceteris paribus). Production is the only thing that matters.

[Patler]

Also, I think Minnesota's OL is overrated. Hutch is very good. Maybe not great. Birk is good, but not great. McKinnie is overrated. Hicks is average. Cook is below average.

People seem so emotional about this discussion that I find it necessary to preface everything by saying I do not believe Grant has anywhere near the physical talent of Peterson. That having been said, I don't think Minnesota's line is so overrated in the running game. Chester Taylor averaged 5.4/carry and gained over 800 yards too. He is not a Hall of Fame talent, and I doubt he benefited from defenses geared to stop the MN passing attack.

I think Minnesota's running game was pretty darn solid. I also think Peterson saw the same defenses Taylor did until later in the season when the defenses were designed specifically to stop him, and may have relaxed a little when he was not in the game.

I would still like to know how healthy Peterson was after returning from his injury. His last four games were nothing memorable.

[b bulldog]

Agree, their Oline like the badgers Oline can dominate in the running game but when they need to protect, they can have problems.

[Rastak]

Also, I think Minnesota's OL is overrated. Hutch is very good. Maybe not great. Birk is good, but not great. McKinnie is overrated. Hicks is average. Cook is below average.

People seem so emotional about this discussion that I find it necessary to preface everything by saying I do not believe Grant has anywhere near the physical talent of Peterson. That having been said, I don't think Minnesota's line is so overrated in the running game. Chester Taylor averaged 5.4/carry and gained over 800 yards too. He is not a Hall of Fame talent, and I doubt he benefited from defenses geared to stop the MN passing attack.

I think Minnesota's running game was pretty darn solid. I also think Peterson saw the same defenses Taylor did until later in the season when the defenses were designed specifically to stop him, and may have relaxed a little when he was not in the game.

I would still like to know how healthy Peterson was after returning from his injury. His last four games were nothing memorable.


Not sure if it was his knee or that big brace he was wearing. That thing looked like the bulky ones lineman wear.

[vince]

From reports I've read, Grant ran a 4.45 40. Peterson might have clocked 4.40.
Just to straighten one thing up, here is the source for Ryan Grant's combine numbers. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=701129


At 6 feet 1 inch and 224 pounds, Grant doesn't look like he's a speed burner, but he is. He tied for the second-fastest time among running backs at the 2005 combine, running the 40-yard dash in 4.43 seconds. He has shown his speed over the past month on touchdown runs of 66 and 62 yards against Chicago and Dallas, respectively.

"We knew he had speed," said running backs coach Edgar Bennett. "He's got a very good burst. He's a downhill runner. There's very little wasted motion. He gets on defenders in a hurry."

And here is the source for Peterson's combine numbers. http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/profile.php?pyid=58020

Unable to copy the text from this site.

And also to try to clear up another conclusion that seems to have been drawn by some, which I repeat from the initial post....

Neither I nor anyone else that I've seen post in this thread are suggesting that Ryan Grant is as physically gifted as Adrian Peterson. Those that are arguing that such a suggestion is misguided are right, but are missing the point entirely.

I agree wholeheartedly that Adrian Peterson has the POTENTIAL (if his team can become more multi-dimensional and he can stay healthy) to be nothing less than the greatest back of all time. He certainly has more potential than Emmitt Smith ever had, and look at what he accomplished.

[b bulldog]

Good work Vince!

[Bretsky]

Bump so we can have two side by side threads comparing Grant and Peterson

Who will win the race to 100 ? :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

The great thing about these threads is that they're only half crazy. We got Grant for a lousy 6th, and he's exceeded everyones wildest predictions.

[Bretsky]

It is nuts that we got Grant for a 6th; we robbed the Giants but on the other hand they still might choose to trade Grant over several of their running backs.

They have Brandon Jacobs
Derrick Ward looked outstaning
Ahmad Bradshaw looked exceptional at the end of the season
And they liked the vet in Ruben Droughans

I'm sure they wished they had kept Grant also, but only so much of the rock can be split out.

[HarveyWallbangers]

It is nuts that we got Grant for a 6th; we robbed the Giants but on the other hand they still might choose to trade Grant over several of their running backs.

They have Brandon Jacobs
Derrick Ward looked outstaning
Ahmad Bradshaw looked exceptional at the end of the season
And they liked the vet in Ruben Droughans

I'm sure they wished they had kept Grant also, but only so much of the rock can be split out.

They had a nice group, didn't they? To me, Jacobs, Ward, and Grant all look like potential Pro Bowl players. Bradshaw had a good game or two, but I didn't wow me like the others. Thye probably wish they had dumped Droughns and kept Grant.

[Rastak]

Peterson was averaging 6.5 yards/carry before the last four games. Ridiculous! Then, teams stacked the box like no other RB sees often. He didn't just go up against 8 men in a box--like a normal great RB. He went up against 4-4 defenses. Normally, the 8th man in the box would be a safety. He went up against 4 DL and 4 LBs. Grant went mostly against 7 men in the box. Peterson is a Hall of Fame talent, and to compare Grant to him is a bit much. Production, my ass. You have to look at the talent around you. When Favre had Walker and Driver, he put up MVP type numbers. When he had Bill Schroeder as a starting WR, he didn't. Also, I think Minnesota's OL is overrated. Hutch is very good. Maybe not great. Birk is good, but not great. McKinnie is overrated. Hicks is average. Cook is below average.


Actually Hicks didn't play much at all this year. Anthony Herrera won the job out of training camp and played really well all year. He got a 5 year extension out of the deal. I suspect he'll be the RG for a few years to come. Cook doesn't impress me too much. Birk is getting long in the tooth.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I knew that about Herrera, but type the wrong name. Must be because both of their names start with an "H".
:D

From what I've seen, he's okay. He's been there a few years.

[Partial]

hehe

[vince]

You seriously crack me up. Go back and read this thread once. You obviously completely misundersood it. I'd say you might learn something from the many great contributions to it, but I've unfortunately come to know better.

Never once did I or anyone else suggest that Grant is "light years" better or more talented than Peterson, as you have with Cutler and Rodgers. In fact, I said Adrian Peterson could become the greatest back of all-time. He's that talented. That's obvious to everyone, and has been since he's played in high school.

IMO, you are the poster child for overrating the obvious (physical "talent") when there are so many additional more subtle and complex personal characteristics and team dynamics - the combination of which completely overshadow individual talent in their contribution to production and winning.

[Tarlam!]

Vince, that's kinda harsh. I find difficulty faulting any of your arguments, though.

Partial, take it from a friend, take some long deep breaths before picking these types of fights. You've provided enough evidence over the years to convincingly lose evry one of 'em. I say that with all due respect.

[vince]

Yeah OK Tar. I just think it's appropriate to interact with people using the same standards that they use for themselves.

[Tarlam!]

And you're absolutely right to do so, IMHO, Vince. I wasn't critizing in any way, just observing. Partial has that tone coming if he chooses to use that tone on others. I just wish he'd learn it, at last. Most definately, the hypocracy is what stands out to me most. He's actually not a bad kid, once you get to know him. Pretty passionate.

There's an old German saying "As you cry into the forest, the cry will come back to you". Doesn't say anything, Partial, you'll note, about having a different opinion.

[gbpackfan]

Peterson is by FAR better then Grant. Peterson is the best back in the league. Any GM in the league would take Peterson over their current starter. Could you say the same about Grant. Ummm...no. I like Grant, I do. But come on, Peterson is a special talent. As much as that pains me to say.

[vince]

Nobody, at least in this thread, said he isn't. Bad thread title I guess.

[Scott Campbell]

hehe

:lol:

Turnabout is fair play. I know I have been very high on Grant since the 07 season, and he hasn't lived up to lofty expectations.

[RashanGary]

I think Grant is going to have a monster year. I wouldn't be surprised to see 1500 yards out of Grant and a 4.4 YPC average.

[Partial]

You seriously crack me up. Go back and read this thread once. You obviously completely misundersood it. I'd say you might learn something from the many great contributions to it, but I've unfortunately come to know better.

Never once did I or anyone else suggest that Grant is "light years" better or more talented than Peterson, as you have with Cutler and Rodgers. In fact, I said Adrian Peterson could become the greatest back of all-time. He's that talented. That's obvious to everyone, and has been since he's played in high school.

IMO, you are the poster child for overrating the obvious (physical "talent") when there are so many additional more subtle and complex personal characteristics and team dynamics - the combination of which completely overshadow individual talent in their contribution to production and winning.

I didn't read the thread. I was looking for an old thread about trading for Peterson and came across some good thread titles. Bumped three up as they were comical.

[Patler]

You seriously crack me up. Go back and read this thread once. You obviously completely misundersood it. I'd say you might learn something from the many great contributions to it, but I've unfortunately come to know better.

Never once did I or anyone else suggest that Grant is "light years" better or more talented than Peterson, as you have with Cutler and Rodgers. In fact, I said Adrian Peterson could become the greatest back of all-time. He's that talented. That's obvious to everyone, and has been since he's played in high school.

IMO, you are the poster child for overrating the obvious (physical "talent") when there are so many additional more subtle and complex personal characteristics and team dynamics - the combination of which completely overshadow individual talent in their contribution to production and winning.

I didn't read the thread. I was looking for an old thread about trading for Peterson and came across some good thread titles. Bumped three up as they were comical.
What's comical about this thread or its title?

[Partial]

You seriously crack me up. Go back and read this thread once. You obviously completely misundersood it. I'd say you might learn something from the many great contributions to it, but I've unfortunately come to know better.

Never once did I or anyone else suggest that Grant is "light years" better or more talented than Peterson, as you have with Cutler and Rodgers. In fact, I said Adrian Peterson could become the greatest back of all-time. He's that talented. That's obvious to everyone, and has been since he's played in high school.

IMO, you are the poster child for overrating the obvious (physical "talent") when there are so many additional more subtle and complex personal characteristics and team dynamics - the combination of which completely overshadow individual talent in their contribution to production and winning.

I didn't read the thread. I was looking for an old thread about trading for Peterson and came across some good thread titles. Bumped three up as they were comical.
What's comical about this thread or its title?

The very thought of Grant, a pedestrian player, to an all-time special talent like AD.

[Zool]

Peterson is much better than Grant, but Grant is solid. Peterson is to Eric Dickerson what Grant is to Dorsey Levens. I was one of the first on the Grant bandwagon.
:D

This is actually about right. I wouldn't call Grant pedestrian as Partial does. But then I guess there's 3-4 elite guys at each position in the NFL and then everyone else is average right?

He's an above average back when healthy and motivated but he ain't no effing Peterson.

[MOBB DEEP]

true

[HarveyWallbangers]

Should we start bumping posts where Partial is wrong?
:D

[Bossman641]

Should we start bumping posts where Partial is wrong?
:D
Do we really want to flood the first page like that? :D

[mission]

Basic comprehension tells me this a thread where the merits of AP are compared to those of RG. No where reading the title do I think "oh, someone thinks RG is as good as AP"... not sure how anyone would think anything close to that.

Have no idea what's comical about the title... Partial must know something we don't. :arrow:

[MOBB DEEP]

How talented is Adrian Peterson? Talented enough that the Pro Bowl running back played a significant role in luring a Hall of Fame quarterback out of retirement.

"It was a big factor," Brett Favre said Wednesday when asked how much Peterson's presence factored into Favre's decision to return. "I've played with some really good running backs in my career. This guy is obviously special."

Favre said this three days after Peterson rushed for 180 yards and three touchdowns in the Vikings' 34-20 Week 1 victory over Cleveland. Included was a 64-yard touchdown run in which Peterson broke six tackles.

"That last touchdown run, if you really look at it, it was a really huge hole; those couple of moves he made there at the end were fun to watch," Favre said. "Just the little bit of time I've been with him I've seen him make some outstanding plays."

Favre, who exchanged messages this summer with Peterson, said he has been impressed by Peterson's work ethic, his passion for the game and his poise.

"I never see him get ruffled," Favre said. "[Running backs coach] Eric Bieniemy is constantly yelling at Adrian to do this, do that and he just takes it. Takes it all in. And that's hard to do. In order to be a special player, you have to have a lot of good qualities, and he has those."

So how good can Peterson be? "I mean no disrespect to any running back, whether I played with him or didn't," Favre said. "He's in the early stages of his career, and barring any injuries or anything, this guy can be as good as any running back that's ever played. ... It's just unbelievable what he can do."

[ThunderDan]

How talented is Adrian Peterson? Talented enough that the Pro Bowl running back played a significant role in luring a Hall of Fame quarterback out of retirement.

"It was a big factor," Brett Favre said Wednesday when asked how much Peterson's presence factored into Favre's decision to return. "I've played with some really good running backs in my career. This guy is obviously special."

Favre said this three days after Peterson rushed for 180 yards and three touchdowns in the Vikings' 34-20 Week 1 victory over Cleveland. Included was a 64-yard touchdown run in which Peterson broke six tackles.

"That last touchdown run, if you really look at it, it was a really huge hole; those couple of moves he made there at the end were fun to watch," Favre said. "Just the little bit of time I've been with him I've seen him make some outstanding plays."

Favre, who exchanged messages this summer with Peterson, said he has been impressed by Peterson's work ethic, his passion for the game and his poise.

"I never see him get ruffled," Favre said. "[Running backs coach] Eric Bieniemy is constantly yelling at Adrian to do this, do that and he just takes it. Takes it all in. And that's hard to do. In order to be a special player, you have to have a lot of good qualities, and he has those."

So how good can Peterson be? "I mean no disrespect to any running back, whether I played with him or didn't," Favre said. "He's in the early stages of his career, and barring any injuries or anything, this guy can be as good as any running back that's ever played. ... It's just unbelievable what he can do."

MOBB-

If you are so in love with BF and AD why don't you please join a Vikings board instead of cluttering our board with this "slurping".

[SkinBasket]

Should we start bumping posts where Partial is wrong?
:D
Do we really want to flood the first page like that? :D

First page?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Fuck, we don't even have to bump old threads. Just look for his gushing over Ruvell...as a player that was "deciding" between offers. Like he was so in demand.

Or, just follow The Official Ruvell thread. Started in his honor.

Two words: MONEY MORENCY

[hoosier]

Fuck, we don't even have to bump old threads. Just look for his gushing over Ruvell...as a player that was "deciding" between offers. Like he was so in demand.

Or, just follow The Official Ruvell thread. Started in his honor.

Two words: MONEY MORENCY

My cousin recently played a season in Madden 2007 where Morency was the Packers featured back and gained over 1800 yards. You laugh, but Money Morency is just a gem still waiting to be discovered. A stallion waiting to be unleashed. A rocket waiting to be launched. A Vince Young waiting for his team.

[Partial]

Fuck, we don't even have to bump old threads. Just look for his gushing over Ruvell...as a player that was "deciding" between offers. Like he was so in demand.

Or, just follow The Official Ruvell thread. Started in his honor.

Two words: MONEY MORENCY

1. Ruvell? Where is the gushing? Never once have I "gushed'. Said he's a good guy and should be on the team. Note that the offense was horrendous one game in, and promptly after his contract was no longer guaranteed (in the event of injury) Ruvell was signed to a lucrative contract.

So, say what you will.

Why do you keep bringing up Money Morency? Should we go back and find all of your errors? A few that come to mind without any research are: "Q in the best receiver on the Cardinals (clearly not)" "Kurt Warner, despite his 3 super bowl appearances, 2 mvps, etc won't be a HOFer", "Darren McFadden is more talented and will be a better player than Peterson", "McFadden was the better college player" blah blah blah. Nobody is perfect.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Fuck, we don't even have to bump old threads. Just look for his gushing over Ruvell...as a player that was "deciding" between offers. Like he was so in demand.

Or, just follow The Official Ruvell thread. Started in his honor.

Two words: MONEY MORENCY

1. Ruvell? Where is the gushing? Never once have I "gushed'. Said he's a good guy and should be on the team. Note that the offense was horrendous one game in, and promptly after his contract was no longer guaranteed (in the event of injury) Ruvell was signed to a lucrative contract.

So, say what you will.

Why do you keep bringing up Money Morency? Should we go back and find all of your errors? A few that come to mind without any research are: "Q in the best receiver on the Cardinals (clearly not)" "Kurt Warner, despite his 3 super bowl appearances, 2 mvps, etc won't be a HOFer", "Darren McFadden is more talented and will be a better player than Peterson", "McFadden was the better college player" blah blah blah. Nobody is perfect.

1. Many, until the playoffs felt Q was equal.
2. Warner. Umm, plenty that say he won't be HOF. This is your proof?
3. I never once said McFadden would be better. More creative lying. I said his #s were better. That is fact.

And, i'll pull the ruvell comments. You are gonna look like a jackass.

[Partial]

Fuck, we don't even have to bump old threads. Just look for his gushing over Ruvell...as a player that was "deciding" between offers. Like he was so in demand.

Or, just follow The Official Ruvell thread. Started in his honor.

Two words: MONEY MORENCY

1. Ruvell? Where is the gushing? Never once have I "gushed'. Said he's a good guy and should be on the team. Note that the offense was horrendous one game in, and promptly after his contract was no longer guaranteed (in the event of injury) Ruvell was signed to a lucrative contract.

So, say what you will.

Why do you keep bringing up Money Morency? Should we go back and find all of your errors? A few that come to mind without any research are: "Q in the best receiver on the Cardinals (clearly not)" "Kurt Warner, despite his 3 super bowl appearances, 2 mvps, etc won't be a HOFer", "Darren McFadden is more talented and will be a better player than Peterson", "McFadden was the better college player" blah blah blah. Nobody is perfect.

1. Many, until the playoffs felt Q was equal.
2. Warner. Umm, plenty that say he won't be HOF. This is your proof?
3. I never once said McFadden would be better. More creative lying. I said his #s were better. That is fact.

And, i'll pull the ruvell comments. You are gonna look like a jackass.

1. Many? Where are the many sources to cite this?

2. Where are the many sources to site otherwise? You get to 3 SBs as a QB, win 2 mvps, you're in. Bottom line.

3. Right.

4. You can post whatever you want. What you interpret as gushing I interpret as thinking someone is a solid 5th receiver and a good team chemistry guy.

We're one game in, and perhaps that offensive chemistry was thrown off. The QB (who has publicly acknowledged being a little shook up over Ruvell) had a very shaky at best game. Based on the way he through the ball throughout (3.75 bad quarters), it's possible the toss at the end was more luck than anything.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Fuck, we don't even have to bump old threads. Just look for his gushing over Ruvell...as a player that was "deciding" between offers. Like he was so in demand.

Or, just follow The Official Ruvell thread. Started in his honor.

Two words: MONEY MORENCY

1. Ruvell? Where is the gushing? Never once have I "gushed'. Said he's a good guy and should be on the team. Note that the offense was horrendous one game in, and promptly after his contract was no longer guaranteed (in the event of injury) Ruvell was signed to a lucrative contract.

So, say what you will.

Why do you keep bringing up Money Morency? Should we go back and find all of your errors? A few that come to mind without any research are: "Q in the best receiver on the Cardinals (clearly not)" "Kurt Warner, despite his 3 super bowl appearances, 2 mvps, etc won't be a HOFer", "Darren McFadden is more talented and will be a better player than Peterson", "McFadden was the better college player" blah blah blah. Nobody is perfect.

1. Many, until the playoffs felt Q was equal.
2. Warner. Umm, plenty that say he won't be HOF. This is your proof?
3. I never once said McFadden would be better. More creative lying. I said his #s were better. That is fact.

And, i'll pull the ruvell comments. You are gonna look like a jackass.

1. Many? Where are the many sources to cite this?

2. Where are the many sources to site otherwise? You get to 3 SBs as a QB, win 2 mvps, you're in. Bottom line.

3. Right.

4. You can post whatever you want. What you interpret as gushing I interpret as thinking someone is a solid 5th receiver and a good team chemistry guy.

We're one game in, and perhaps that offensive chemistry was thrown off. The QB (who has publicly acknowledged being a little shook up over Ruvell) had a very shaky at best game. Based on the way he through the ball throughout (3.75 bad quarters), it's possible the toss at the end was more luck than anything.

1. Sources. Just like yours for Warner. LOL
2. That is your opinion. I and other's gave VOTERS who said if he didn't win, they wouldn't vote for him.
3. glad you agree. Please find something to back it up.
4. Dude, everybody sees it as gushing.

And,now you play the "we almost lost because of chemistry" card? Dude. You need to be quiet. You are really starting to embarrass yourself.

[SkinBasket]

1. Ruvell? Where is the gushing? Never once have I "gushed'. Said he's a good guy and should be on the team. Note that the offense was horrendous one game in

So now our offensive trouble is directly attributable to Ruvell Martin's absence on the sideline?

http://deangarfield13.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/frustration.jpg


You might want to watch the game and take notes on the offensive line, Partial, not unicorn theories about what magical element is missing from our mystical team chemistry.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

"But he hasn't been winning so far. Having a family atmosphere and some loyalty to your players when they're still developing is key to establishing a good environment in my opinion.

This could be like Jon Ryan 2.0"

"You don't cut a guy that everyone on the team is torn up about. You have plenty of special teamers. Where is the loyalty?!?"

"For all the comments about Martin, I will make one counter point: Why do all-star teams fail? They're loaded with talent, and even with plenty of time together, they still don't have chemistry. If this move throws off chemistry of the team, especially the QB, this team could quickly go from contender (which I believe tehy are) to pretender. I don't like the move at all. Martin seemed like a close friend and stablizing rock to many people. Keep the rock."

"Ruvell can pick and choose where he wants to play. He's probably waiting for the right situation."

"I think Ruvell, being the best friend of GJ and the QB, is more important to chemistry than DD. Kind of weird to think about, but the fact Ruvell is always with A-Rod representing the team at every major event says a lot."

"I agree it's a business and needs to be treated as such, but sometimes it's not worth upgrading from an 8 (out of 10) to an 8.01 when chemistry goes from a 10 (out of 10) to an 8."

"Ty I don't think very many of those receivers are as good today as Martin. How many of those guys have floated all around? Martin has at least been a member of a veteran, talented receiving corps (one of the best in the NFL). Some of those guys couldn't hack it in some of the worst."

"50ish catches and 6 tds? How many of those guys beat those numbers last year. I'm dying to know. No excuses. I'm actually legitmiately interested because I'm too lazy to look it up.

How many can be a dominant run blocker like him?"


"UPDATE: Nevermind the wikipedia stats are wrong. They;'re listed for 2008 but they're for a career."

"Who cares what they did over a career? Most have played significantly longer. You're a hooligan."

Yes...gushing isn't calling someone a "dominant run block" or saying they are more important than DD, or that chemistry will go down 1/5 of it's possible total by losing one guy, or that ruvell is so good that he can pick and choose the team he wants.

yes, i'm sure that Ruvell waited all this team to go to the Rams. Yes, that certainly was worth the wait.

[Partial]

CAPS


"But he hasn't been winning so far. Having a family atmosphere and some loyalty to your players when they're still developing is key to establishing a good environment in my opinion.

WHERE IS THE GUSHING?

This could be like Jon Ryan 2.0"

WHERE IS THE GUSHING?


"You don't cut a guy that everyone on the team is torn up about. You have plenty of special teamers. Where is the loyalty?!?"


WHERE IS THE GUSHING? I DON'T THINK YOU CUT A PLAYER THAT FITS ABOVE CRITERIA.


"For all the comments about Martin, I will make one counter point: Why do all-star teams fail? They're loaded with talent, and even with plenty of time together, they still don't have chemistry. If this move throws off chemistry of the team, especially the QB, this team could quickly go from contender (which I believe tehy are) to pretender. I don't like the move at all. Martin seemed like a close friend and stablizing rock to many people. Keep the rock."



WHERE IS THE GUSHING? ONE GAME IN, ONE BAD GAME. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S HOW IT WILL BE FROM HERE ON OUT, BUT YOU CAN'T WRITE OFF HAVING A HORRIBLE GAME IN THE BIGGEST GAME OF YOUR CAREER BECAUSE YOUR BEST FRIEND IS IN THE STANDS INSTEAD OF ON THE SIDELINES LIKE HE WAS FOR ALL YOUR OTHER GAMES.

"Ruvell can pick and choose where he wants to play. He's probably waiting for the right situation."

WHERE IS THE GUSHING? I HAVE NO IDEA UNDER WHAT TERMS OR OPTIONS HE SIGNED HIS AGREEMENT WITH ST LOUIS. FOR ALL WE KNOW THERE WERE OTHER OFFERS...

"I think Ruvell, being the best friend of GJ and the QB, is more important to chemistry than DD. Kind of weird to think about, but the fact Ruvell is always with A-Rod representing the team at every major event says a lot."

WHERE IS THE GUSHING? DOES IT NOT SAY A LOT? WHY ELSE WAS HE DOING PR?

"I agree it's a business and needs to be treated as such, but sometimes it's not worth upgrading from an 8 (out of 10) to an 8.01 when chemistry goes from a 10 (out of 10) to an 8."

WHERE IS THE GUSHING? THIS EXAMPLE HAS BEEN RIPPED ON BY THE FORUM BIG TIME BECAUSE YOU GUYS TAKE THINGS FAR TOO LITERALLY INSTEAD OF GETTING THE ANALOGY AND THE MESSAGE. TYPICAL IDIOTIC BS.

"Ty I don't think very many of those receivers are as good today as Martin. How many of those guys have floated all around? Martin has at least been a member of a veteran, talented receiving corps (one of the best in the NFL). Some of those guys couldn't hack it in some of the worst."

WHERE IS THE GUSHING? THAT LIST YOU POSTED WAS OUTRAGEOUS?

"50ish catches and 6 tds? How many of those guys beat those numbers last year. I'm dying to know. No excuses. I'm actually legitmiately interested because I'm too lazy to look it up.

WHERE IS THE GUSHING? I FOUND FAULTY DATA AND STATED THAT IMMEDIATELY UPON FINDING OUT

How many can be a dominant run blocker like him?"

HE WAS THE BEST RUN BLOCKER ON THE DEEPEST RECEIVING CORPS IN THE NFL. IPSO FACTO... DOMINANT RUN BLOCKER.


"UPDATE: Nevermind the wikipedia stats are wrong. They;'re listed for 2008 but they're for a career."

YEP

"Who cares what they did over a career? Most have played significantly longer. You're a hooligan."

RIGHT, WHO CARES. WHY DO I CARE WHAT HARRISON DID WHEN HE WAS 25 AND ELITE WHEN HE IS OLD AS HELL, ON ONE LEG, SMELLS LIKE CABBAGE AND IS IN TROUBLE WITH THE COPS AND SUCKS BALLS AT FOOTBALL. INDY, WHO IS IN DIRE NEED OF RECEIVERS, ISN'T INTERESTED. YOUR LIST WAS A JOKE.

Yes...gushing isn't calling someone a "dominant run block" or saying they are more important than DD, or that chemistry will go down 1/5 of it's possible total by losing one guy, or that ruvell is so good that he can pick and choose the team he wants.

yes, i'm sure that Ruvell waited all this team to go to the Rams. Yes, that certainly was worth the wait.

JUST BECAUSE YOU INTERPRET SOMETHING AS SUCH DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. YOU NEED TO START CITING YOUR SOURCES OR STATING THINGS AS YOUR OPINION INSTEAD OF CITING SOMETHING AS A FACT.

THE COACHES LOVED RUVELLS RUN BLOCKING. SAID HE WAS BEST ON THE TEAM MANY TIMES. WHAT SAY YOU?

DO YOU KNOW FOR A 100% CERTAIN FACT HE DIDN'T HAVE OTHER OPTIONS, IF NOT PLEASE STFU.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Dude, when you dont' even realize that you are gushing...then you need to take a step back.

I'm just going to quit, because when you make statements that he was the best blocker of the WRs...ipso facto..he is dominant...then it just shows how ridiculous you are.

That piece of logic has so many holes in it...i can't even decide which one to drive the truck thru.

[Partial]

Dude, when you dont' even realize that you are gushing...then you need to take a step back.

I'm just going to quit, because when you make statements that he was the best blocker of the WRs...ipso facto..he is dominant...then it just shows how ridiculous you are.

That piece of logic has so many holes in it...i can't even decide which one to drive the truck thru.

Ruvell and Jordy were in all the time to run block last year. Woudl you put your 5th receiver on if he wasn't a dominant run blocker?

The coaches constantly said how great he was at run blocking.

He's not an offensive linemen, but on an offense this talented clearly he is very skilled at his craft or he wouldn't have been in as much as he was.

There isn't any gushing Ty.

[Lurker64]

This board needs an ignore function.

[Partial]

This board needs an ignore function.

I agree whole-heartedly.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Dude, when you dont' even realize that you are gushing...then you need to take a step back.

I'm just going to quit, because when you make statements that he was the best blocker of the WRs...ipso facto..he is dominant...then it just shows how ridiculous you are.

That piece of logic has so many holes in it...i can't even decide which one to drive the truck thru.

Ruvell and Jordy were in all the time to run block last year. Woudl you put your 5th receiver on if he wasn't a dominant run blocker?

The coaches constantly said how great he was at run blocking.

He's not an offensive linemen, but on an offense this talented clearly he is very skilled at his craft or he wouldn't have been in as much as he was.

There isn't any gushing Ty.

Your logic is poor.

[mission]

This board needs an ignore function.

I agree whole-heartedly.

:lol: :lol:

[MJZiggy]

Dude, when you dont' even realize that you are gushing...then you need to take a step back.

I'm just going to quit, because when you make statements that he was the best blocker of the WRs...ipso facto..he is dominant...then it just shows how ridiculous you are.

That piece of logic has so many holes in it...i can't even decide which one to drive the truck thru.

Ruvell and Jordy were in all the time to run block last year. Woudl you put your 5th receiver on if he wasn't a dominant run blocker?

The coaches constantly said how great he was at run blocking.

He's not an offensive linemen, but on an offense this talented clearly he is very skilled at his craft or he wouldn't have been in as much as he was.

There isn't any gushing Ty.

If that's the case, why didn't they keep him. You don't give up a dominant guy unless--oh wait. THEY HAVE SOMEONE THEY THINK IS BETTER AND IT'S THEIR JOB TO KEEP THE BEST!!!!!

[Partial]

Dude, when you dont' even realize that you are gushing...then you need to take a step back.

I'm just going to quit, because when you make statements that he was the best blocker of the WRs...ipso facto..he is dominant...then it just shows how ridiculous you are.

That piece of logic has so many holes in it...i can't even decide which one to drive the truck thru.

Ruvell and Jordy were in all the time to run block last year. Woudl you put your 5th receiver on if he wasn't a dominant run blocker?

The coaches constantly said how great he was at run blocking.

He's not an offensive linemen, but on an offense this talented clearly he is very skilled at his craft or he wouldn't have been in as much as he was.

There isn't any gushing Ty.

If that's the case, why didn't they keep him. You don't give up a dominant guy unless--oh wait. THEY HAVE SOMEONE THEY THINK IS BETTER AND IT'S THEIR JOB TO KEEP THE BEST!!!!!

I agree, they clearly thought Swain was the better player (definitely long term, not so sure I agree they think he is now).

That doesn't contradict with anything I said, though, so I don't think you have a point (unless I missed it).

[Gunakor]

You get to 3 SBs as a QB, win 2 mvps, you're in. Bottom line.

That's not exactly true P. Warner had many years in between where he was average at best. Took over a year just to beat out rookie Matt Leinhart for the full time starting job in AZ. For a while, he was a journeyman QB looking for his next job. He's had some spectacular seasons, but he's had many others where he looked very little like a HOF candidate. It's those seasons that could inevitably keep him out of the Hall. I personally don't think he gets elected.

[ThunderDan]

Kurt Warner will not get into the HOF. You can quote me on it.

He disappeared at the beginning of his career. He disappeared in the middle. And if the first game of 2009 is an indicator he might be disappearing at the end (too small a sample to be sure).

[Partial]

You get to 3 SBs as a QB, win 2 mvps, you're in. Bottom line.

That's not exactly true P. Warner had many years in between where he was average at best. Took over a year just to beat out rookie Matt Leinhart for the full time starting job in AZ. For a while, he was a journeyman QB looking for his next job. He's had some spectacular seasons, but he's had many others where he looked very little like a HOF candidate. It's those seasons that could inevitably keep him out of the Hall. I personally don't think he gets elected.

How many people have done the above and not gone to the HOF?

He's a virtual lock imo.

[Gunakor]

You get to 3 SBs as a QB, win 2 mvps, you're in. Bottom line.

That's not exactly true P. Warner had many years in between where he was average at best. Took over a year just to beat out rookie Matt Leinhart for the full time starting job in AZ. For a while, he was a journeyman QB looking for his next job. He's had some spectacular seasons, but he's had many others where he looked very little like a HOF candidate. It's those seasons that could inevitably keep him out of the Hall. I personally don't think he gets elected.

How many people have done the above and not gone to the HOF?

He's a virtual lock imo.

How many people in the HOF have had as many mediocre seasons as Warner has had? How many in the HOF have spent time as a backup in between SB appearances? The HOF is reserved for players who have great careers, not those who have had a few great seasons. The Hall ain't that big. Take into account Warner's ENTIRE career rather than just the 2 years he won MVP and I think you'll see where I'm coming from.

[Partial]

You get to 3 SBs as a QB, win 2 mvps, you're in. Bottom line.

That's not exactly true P. Warner had many years in between where he was average at best. Took over a year just to beat out rookie Matt Leinhart for the full time starting job in AZ. For a while, he was a journeyman QB looking for his next job. He's had some spectacular seasons, but he's had many others where he looked very little like a HOF candidate. It's those seasons that could inevitably keep him out of the Hall. I personally don't think he gets elected.

How many people have done the above and not gone to the HOF?

He's a virtual lock imo.

How many people in the HOF have had as many mediocre seasons as Warner has had? How many in the HOF have spent time as a backup in between SB appearances? The HOF is reserved for players who have great careers, not those who have had a few great seasons. The Hall ain't that big. Take into account Warner's ENTIRE career rather than just the 2 years he won MVP and I think you'll see where I'm coming from.

I see where you're coming from 100%. Doesn't change the fact I think he's a 100% lock.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You get to 3 SBs as a QB, win 2 mvps, you're in. Bottom line.

That's not exactly true P. Warner had many years in between where he was average at best. Took over a year just to beat out rookie Matt Leinhart for the full time starting job in AZ. For a while, he was a journeyman QB looking for his next job. He's had some spectacular seasons, but he's had many others where he looked very little like a HOF candidate. It's those seasons that could inevitably keep him out of the Hall. I personally don't think he gets elected.

How many people have done the above and not gone to the HOF?

He's a virtual lock imo.

Well, i can think of a player who was a two time afc player of the year, superbowl winner, member of the all decade team, 4 time pro bowler, 1 x all pro and he ain't in.

i can think of 2x time winner of the SB (1 as starter) , 2x pro bowl, 1 x SB MVP, Pro Bowl MVP, and holder until recently of the best pass completion record in the playoffs and he ain't in.

I can recall another QB who won 2 SB as a starter, SB MVP, Comeback player of the year, rookie of the year and he ain't in.

I can think of a QB who lead the league in passing 4 x, whose career passing #s are second among multi era players, who holds the single season completion percentage record, and who racked up these records playing twice a year against arguably the greatest defense ever.

But, let's ask the people who make the decision, the writers themselves:


“He’s not even in the conversation,” Vito Stellino, a football writer and a Hall of Fame voter, was quoted as saying last week if the Cardinals didn’t win.


Writing before the game, Gary Myers of The Daily News said the second Super Bowl victory was “crucial”. (Warner has one victory and two losses in Super Bowls.)

I believe Phil Simms would be in the Hall of Fame if he didn’t get injured late in the 1990 season and was the quarterback instead of Jeff Hostetler when the Giants beat the Bills.

Myers later quoted ESPN’s John Clayton as saying: “He needs to win this game. I don’t think there is any question,” although Clayton said Warner could also get in with a few more elite seasons.

[ThunderDan]

Lets look at the Rams QBs during the greatest show on turf.

1999 Kurt Warner 16 G 4,353 y 41 td 13 int 109.2 rating
2000 Trent Green 8 G 2,063 y 16 td 5 int 101.8 rating
2000 Kurt Warner 11 G 3,429 y 21 td 18 int 98.3
2001 Kurt Warner 16 G 4,830 y 36 22 101.4
2002 Kurt Warner 7 G 1,431 y 3 11 67.4
2002 Marc Bulger 7 G 1,826 y 14 6 101.5
2003 Marc Bulger 15 G 3,845 y 22 22 81.4
2003 Kurt Warner 2 G 365 y 1 1 72.9
2004 Marc Bulger 14 G 3,964 21 14 93.7
2005 Marc Bulger 8 G 2,297 14 9 94.4
2006 Marc Bulger 16 G 4,301 24 8 92.9

Only Kurt's 1999 season really stands out verses the other QBs they plugged in to that offense.

System or Player???

What happened after the Rams?

2004 Kurt Warner 10 G 2,054 6 4 86.5
2005 Kurt Warner 10 G 2,713 11 9 85.8
2006 Kurt Warner 6 G 1,377 6 5 89.3
2007 Kurt Warner 14 G 3,417 27 17 89.8
2008 Kurt Warner 16 G 4,583 30 14 96.9

Until 2007 and 2008 he had to fight to stay off the bench.

He played great in 1999, 2001 and 2008. Three years a HOF career does not make.

[superfan]

Gotta love how the "Grant and Peterson compared" thread ends up being a debate about Warner's HOF credentials. :lol:

I think Warner reaching the HOF at this point is about 50-50. His next couple seasons could be crucial to determining whether or not he makes it. If he were to suffer a career ending injury next week, I don't think he makes it. If he has one or two more good seasons, he has a decent shot.

[Patler]

If Michael Irvin can get into the HOF, Warner can too.
Of course, Irvin should NOT have made it.
Neither should Warner, at this point.

[Fritz]

I still don't get the Michael Irvin thing.

Was that some unnecessary Cowboy love, or what?

[MOBB DEEP]

I still don't get the Michael Irvin thing.

Was that some unnecessary Cowboy love, or what?

You cant be serious! Linch pin

[Gunakor]

..

[MOBB DEEP]

Matt Birk said that AD may be the 1st 3,000 yard rusher

[Gunakor]

Matt Birk said that AD may be the 1st 3,000 yard rusher

He'd have to average 180+ yards every game this season to accomplish that. Unless they extend the regular season beyond 16 games I don't think that's possible.

[MOBB DEEP]

Matt Birk said that AD may be the 1st 3,000 yard rusher

He'd have to average 180+ yards every game this season to accomplish that. Unless they extend the regular season beyond 16 games I don't think that's possible.

Not gonna happen

[MOBB DEEP]

Is grant even on benson's level??? :x