Ryan Grant

[Freak Out]

I'm not in any hurry to replace him, but if an opportunity comes up to get a great RB, I'd take it. There is room for another back here, even with Grant. He just won't get as many carries is all.

Grant is more effective the more carries he gets. The team wins more games the more carries he gets. I do not understand people's obsession with a 2 RB system when we have a starting RB who is most effective in a workhorse role. He needs his 25+ carries per game.

Because if he gets injuried then we are screwed, I dont understand your obsession with not having another RB to take some of the load off of Grant. No one is saying he needs to be replaced but damn we need some depth at the position.

Agree with you there Brandon....we have nothing behind Grant if he gets hurt.....Jackson has shown he is a third down back.

[RashanGary]

Exactly and we've all seen Chris Johnson, Adrian Peterson, M-Jones-Drew and others run in a manner that has us drooling.

Nothing wrong with Grant. I don't think it's a stretch or insult to call him a good starting running back. In fact, that's exactly what I think he is.

If I could get another good one to compliment him for a small price, I'd do it. If I could get a great one to take more of the load, I'd take that too. Sheesh, this is Ryan Grant, not Adrian Peterson.

[Bretsky]

I think you are letting your disdain for RG cloud your vision Brandon. You've been playing too much madden.

Pierre Thomas? really? a platoon back that had a great offensive line in front of him.

The same could be said of Jonathan Stewart or DeAngelo Williams. Neither one see 20+ carries. Grant does the heavy lifting on his own.

Ronnie Brown? Mr. Torn ACL....now you are just reaching

Jamaal Charles and Felix Jones jr. as feature backs? Yea...if only we still played in college(like that would matter to fragile Felix).

Frank Gore has injury concerns. Ray Rice runs behind one of the most massive and best run blocking lines out there.

Now I think you just reached for most of these, but come on man! Show RG some love. He deserves it.

Healthy, I'd undoubtedly take DeAngelo Williams over Ryan Grant and probably Stewart as well. Ditto for Ray Rice; he's the real deal.

Gore is probably talented but seems to always be hurt so I'd choose Grant there.

Before the ACL I'd definitely take Ronnie Brown. Coming off an ACL I'd take Grant next year. Agree with you about Pierre Thomas.

Unsure about Jamal Charles. He may have been a flash in the pan but for those who want to dwell on statistics.......take a look at his stats from last year.

Too early for me to tell on Felix Jones

[Bretsky]

Exactly and we've all seen Chris Johnson, Adrian Peterson, M-Jones-Drew and others run in a manner that has us drooling.

Nothing wrong with Grant. I don't think it's a stretch or insult to call him a good starting running back. In fact, that's exactly what I think he is.

If I could get another good one to compliment him for a small price, I'd do it. If I could get a great one to take more of the load, I'd take that too. Sheesh, this is Ryan Grant, not Adrian Peterson.

If there is a SuperStar type RB I'm alright with nabbing him. I think TT would be too.

Botom line is with a draft this deep there will be future start there between picks 20-30 and I'll just be happy if we choose one of them who loves the game of football.

[packerbacker1234]

[quote="Brandon494"]

I think you are He is not a top 10 back like some are making him out to be.

Every statistical category disagree's with you. Add on the fact I think he was the only full time feature back (not a split carry back) without a fumble and it only increases his value that much more.

Hes got you there...no fumbles and the guy that carries the load on his own. Thomas, though I like him, also splits carries and can you really say teams key on him?

Only reason Grant didn't split any time was because we have no other RBs on the roster. Brandon Jackson is a joke at RB and he is injuried most of the time. I agree with you that Grant is great at holding on to the ball but that doesn't make him better than those RBs I listed. If thats the case I guess you would rather have Grant than Ahman Green in his prime.

The vikings would of rather had Grant than Adrian Peterson in the championship game. What was that, 3 fumbles involving Peterson, plus another from Berrian and another from Harvin? Take back just ONE of thsoe turnovers and the vikings win.

As impact of a player as Peterson is, he can look in the mirror as much as favre can for blowing that game. Grant would of been a better choice that time.

And Green was GREAT for us, obviously, but he cost us games too. It's sort of like Favre I guess. Both great players, both have the ability to win you games that you have no business winning, but in the same breath they both have the ability to cost you games as well.

[Pugger]

In today's pass oriented game you don't need a top flight RB to be successful. It would be nice to have Grant pass catches (and who knows, maybe he'll improve in this area too). I find it remarkable that he had as much success as he did considering how horrid our line was the first part of the year last season (and Cliffy isn't known for being a great run blocker).

[TennesseePackerBacker]

I think you are letting your disdain for RG cloud your vision Brandon. You've been playing too much madden.

Pierre Thomas? really? a platoon back that had a great offensive line in front of him.

The same could be said of Jonathan Stewart or DeAngelo Williams. Neither one see 20+ carries. Grant does the heavy lifting on his own.

Ronnie Brown? Mr. Torn ACL....now you are just reaching

Jamaal Charles and Felix Jones jr. as feature backs? Yea...if only we still played in college(like that would matter to fragile Felix).

Frank Gore has injury concerns. Ray Rice runs behind one of the most massive and best run blocking lines out there.

Now I think you just reached for most of these, but come on man! Show RG some love. He deserves it.

Healthy, I'd undoubtedly take DeAngelo Williams over Ryan Grant and probably Stewart as well. Ditto for Ray Rice; he's the real deal.

Gore is probably talented but seems to always be hurt so I'd choose Grant there.

Before the ACL I'd definitely take Ronnie Brown. Coming off an ACL I'd take Grant next year. Agree with you about Pierre Thomas.

Unsure about Jamal Charles. He may have been a flash in the pan but for those who want to dwell on statistics.......take a look at his stats from last year.

Too early for me to tell on Felix Jones

DeAngelo is probably the only one I listed that I would probably pick over Grant. However, he still hasn't had the full load placed on him for an entire season. Much less consecutive seasons.

Gore, Brown, and F. Jones all have way too many injury problems for my liking. Durability and dependability are much more important to me in a running back than highlight runs and huge yardage games.

Stewart, Charles, and P. Thomas just need to show more. They could be good, but in this what have you done for me lately league I feel as if fans just focus on the here and now, instead of the entire spectrum. A good running back depends on much more than just talent to be successful.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I won't overrate Grant. I think he's better than some gave him credit for. He's not dynamic, but he's solid. You can win with him. I personally think RBs (unless VERY elite) are more tied to the people around them than any other position, so I don't think you need a stud. He probably ranks in the top half of RBs, but probably not the top 10. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say he had a better year than Peterson. Yards/carry were the same and Peterson's fumbles really hurt his real life value. I just don't expect him to be better year in and year out over Peterson.

[Patler]

As impact of a player as Peterson is, he can look in the mirror as much as favre can for blowing that game. Grant would of been a better choice that time.

And Green was GREAT for us, obviously, but he cost us games too. It's sort of like Favre I guess. Both great players, both have the ability to win you games that you have no business winning, but in the same breath they both have the ability to cost you games as well.

Green has 37 fumbles (24 lost) in 2,406 "touches".
Peterson - 20 fumbles (13 lost) in 1,015 "touches"

[sharpe1027]

Is being "dynamic" really that important if, at the end of the day, the less dynamic player has almost the same results?

If running back A makes 20 carries a year that are just so outstanding that running back B could never make the same carries, but running back B makes up for the yards on those 20 carries over the course of the season by being better on the bulk of his carries, which is better? I know which one makes more headlines and is talked about more, but which really helps the team the most?

The threat of those 20 carries might have a bigger effect on an opposing team's game plan. Other than that, I'm not sure it makes that much difference.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Is being "dynamic" really that important if, at the end of the day, the less dynamic player has almost the same results?

Agreed, but if you are talking about Peterson vs. Grant, then my point is that you could argue that Grant was as good or better last year because of the fumbles, but Peterson was more productive the first two years and I'm guessing he will be most years.

2007 - 5.6 yards/carry vs. 5.1
2008 - 4.8 yards/carry vs. 3.9
2009 - 4.4 yards/carry vs. 4.4

Peterson does fumble more, but he also has almost twice as many receiving yards in his career.

[Bretsky]

I won't overrate Grant. I think he's better than some gave him credit for. He's not dynamic, but he's solid. You can win with him. I personally think RBs (unless VERY elite) are more tied to the people around them than any other position, so I don't think you need a stud. He probably ranks in the top half of RBs, but probably not the top 10. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say he had a better year than Peterson. Yards/carry were the same and Peterson's fumbles really hurt his real life value. I just don't expect him to be better year in and year out over Peterson.

I felt the same way; I pretty much figured he was in the 13-16 range as a RB

Then I looked at all the team's via last years standings and realized a lot of teams have poor options as the #1 RB. I'd probably put Grant in the 8-13 range now...probably closer to 12.......my guess is most would have him around 8 in here

[pbmax]

Actual 2009 results for Ryan Grant and other RBs from Pro-Football-Reference. Factors include rushes, receiving and scoring. Methodology and ranking described here. There is no attempt made to eliminate other factors such as offensive line performance. But since nearly everyone on this board agrees that the 2009 line could not do much at all, I am sure everyone will make the mental adjustment of moving Grant higher.

Chart is from that post as well.

[pbmax]

Someone mentioned earlier that Grant was never the focus of the opposing defense given the Packer's passing attack. And while this is true, I think it affects comparisons with only the best runners on teams with fearsome rushing attacks.

Purple Jesus and Stephen Jackson were schemed against. Teams might have adjusted to Chris Johnson later in the season but I saw very little of the Titans late so I do not know.

The same kind of critique was used to dismiss Derek Loville's stats when the 49ers were Super Bowl quality with Young, Rice, Owens and Jones. There is no doubt Loville was the least of the concerns. But there are limits on what teams will do to ignore the RB and focus on the passing game. Teams are much more focused on down and distance and offensive tendencies.

The Packers rarely ran (or even screened) in obvious passing situations and for McCarthy an obvious passing situation on 3rd down is 3 yards and over. And while there are draws in the Packers shortgun, they are infrequent. That means the Packers ran on typical down and distance. The Packers feature some single-back stuff on 1st and 2nd down, but they pass out of it as often as run. And the most popular run formation is two TEs on first down. Which means Grant was not running against nickle defenses and six in the box like Dorsey Levens in 1996.

Grant is probably not in the top ten physically. But his production is top ten. I would not be surprised if they draft another back but as much for Grant's age and contract as for anything else. I would be surprised if it was before the third round. Which means, of course, that it will happen in rounds 1 or 2.

[The Leaper]

Teams might have adjusted to Chris Johnson later in the season but I saw very little of the Titans late so I do not know.

The Titans passing game was relatively bad all year...Vince Young did a little bit in the second half, but it was all Chris Johnson last year. Sorry Max...it didn't take NFL defenses 8+ games to recognize Chris Johnson was their #1 priority.

Grant is probably not in the top ten physically. But his production is top ten.

I'll agree with that. I don't think there are 10 RBs in the league that put up better numbers than Grant. I don't think that means a whole lot...our offense is one of the more elite units in the league, and there are quite a few RBs on bad offenses that don't get near the opportunity Grant does to contribute statistically.

I do think I could find 10+ RBs that would put up equivalent or better numbers as a RB in the Packer system if they were swapped onto our roster in place of Grant.

Grant isn't hurting us...but I don't think he's greatly helping us either. He's a capable runner with some power, good ball security and average elusiveness. However, on this team with a mediocre OL and a superior pass attack...having a RB who can attack the flats in the passing game on 1st and 2nd down would be extremely nice to give the defensive front seven a little more to think about. Grant isn't that guy.