Tweet
15. Green Bay Packers: Ryan Grant has been a solid-yet-unspectacular player over the past two seasons. That’s not a bad thing, but he hasn’t exactly been what he flashed in the second half of the 2007 season, when he helped get the Packers to the NFC championship game. Then again, that’s why he was an undrafted guy long ago. The Packers are content with what they have for now, but Grant is never going to be a huge star and the depth is just so-so.
-
"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted Thompson -
I think lack of depth hurts us here. Lets see how the rookie performs, and Jackson is sort of in a make or break year. Grant is around a 10-15 RB in the league. Do we not run screens because of him or MM????The only time success comes before work is in the dictionary -- Vince Lombardi -
Grant has rock hands, but most RBs can catch a screen pass. Maybe our OL isn't that great at them. Or maybe McCarthy feels our passing attack is so good that using more screens just takes away big play opportunities."There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted ThompsonComment
-
This is about right. Grant's good at carrying the ball in our scheme and reliably makes the right reads in the run game, but isn't good for much else; Jackson is a great blocker, can catch, and definitely knows what to do with the ball in the open field, but he struggles to get past the line of scrimmage when he's got the ball; everybody else is nothing special. If you could somehow combine Jackson and Grant into one running back, he'd be pretty good. Definitely a position we could get better at, but not a big need.
I suspect Grant may be systematically overlooked by national analysts as a good back, because he's not a very good fantasy back at all (which is a priori surprising since he's not in an RBBC situation). He's not a threat to break it every time he gets it, and most of his long runs are just "yardage" and not touchdowns. Green Bay has a great passing offense, but Grant isn't part of it unlike other backs. Also, Grant scores fewer touchdowns on the goal line than he otherwise would, because we have a quarterback who is very adept at running the sneak. I'm not sure what it is, but Rodgers just gets exactly what to do in a given situation when running the QB sneak.</delurk>Comment
-
I don't buy into these rankings much. 1250/14 is 1250/14, no matter how it comes. There weren't 14 backs in the NFL that were better than him, statistically, either last season or the season before (or the season before that even, assuming his avg. over a full 16 game season).
For entertainment value, I wouldn't even have ranked him as highly as he was. He's just not very exciting with the ball in his hands. But as far as effectiveness is concerned, he's top 10 IMO.
As long as he's getting his 4 ypc avg. to move the chains and keep defenses honest while not fumbling away opportunities, I'm perfectly happy.Chuck Norris doesn't cut his grass, he just stares at it and dares it to growComment
-
I kind of agree with the rankings, Grant is steady, yet unspectacular. I just don't think he has the top end speed to outrun D-backs in the secondary, and he can't catch the ball that well. That's why I could see TT taking Unga in the supplemental draft tomorrow, maybe in the 5th round, but I'm guessing some teams will get antsy burn a 3rd round pick on him. TT could bring Brian Westbrook in for a look too.Thanks Ted!Comment
-
The Bengals with Cedric Benson are ranked #5, and the Packers with Grant are ranked #15? Grant had more rushing yardage, a higher per carry average, more TDs and more receptions than Benson last year. Comparing their career performance, it isn't even close. Grant has done as much or more in 3 seasons as Benson has done in 5.
Ranking the Bengals at #5 and the Packers at #15 is an indictment against the Packer reserve backs, because all other things being equal, Benson sure as heck isn't 10 slots better than Grant.Comment
-
+1Originally posted by Patler
If you look at NFL.com and check out player stats Grant was the #7 RB last season (Benson was #8) so Patler is probably right and Yahoo isn't crazy about our backups. Cincy's other back was #61 and our next back was Ahman Green at # 86.
Comment
-
I tend to agree with these rankings. While I think Grant is on the edge of the top 12 RBs, Jackson is pedestrian and we don't know what we have in Starks. Thus, if you give Grant #12 and add in nothing special for backups, 15th is about right."There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted ThompsonComment
-
As that stat link shows...
Grant was a top 10RB last season, as in very important, game changing statistic, he was the best - Turnovers. ZERO fumbles over the course of 16 games and 1 playoff game. That's astounding for any RB that gets the ball as much as he does.
He had a 4.4 average, which is respectable to even the "best" RB's in the league, adn 11TD's is nothing scoff at.
The point is, I think Ryan Grant is clearly higher than 15 if were just basing this on the front man starter.
Using last years statistics as a barrier, Grant is around #8, if only for the fact that you need to be fair to the Panthers in the fact they are a true split carry team, and both RB's combined had some nasty numbers. Though, I am not sure either one are individually better than grant - if it was the case would it be a committee?
Anyways, the point is that Grant is what he is - a Pretty good RB who is as reliable as they come, wont turn the ball over, and hurts himself by being none-existent in the pass game.
If only he could work on his hands so he can be a passing threat (at least for screens), he would take his game to the next level.
Still, as a pure runner, I don't think we can really complain. Unless your pining for Chris Johnson or Adrian Peterson, there really aren't that many backs that are "cut and dry" better than grant indivdualy if you just factor in running the ball.Comment
-
Grant is interesting, statistically.
#7 in the league in rushing yards and #7 in the league in rushing attempts.
Of the 6 with more yardage, only 3 had higher per carry averages.
Of the 6 with more attempts, only 2 had higher per carry averages.
Not much in the passing game, but if you want a workhorse runner, who can produce very well under the burden of lots of carries, and not fumble the ball, you have to be satisfied with Grant.Comment
-
I agree with Patler. Grant is plenty good enough to win with. Is he an NFL wide star? Nope. Never will be either. Is he Ahman Green worthy? Nope. Never will be either, even though he probably has better stats, during his shorter career.
But he does his job well, if you ignore the "one hit, he falls down" routine. He's where he is supposed to be on the play, he doesn't fumble, he runs forward instead of backwards, doesn't lose a lot of yards, and just flat out does what he's supposed to do.
What's wrong with that?
This whole "homer discussion" about him being elite is ridiculous. He isn't, but he's plenty good enough to win with this team. We need to groom someone (Starks?) to replace him, because he isn't going to do what he does this well forever. My guess is we've got 2 more years, maybe a 3rd, but that's probably it, and right now, I've got no idea how old the guy is, and don't really care.Comment
-
Who has said Ryan Grant is elite?"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted ThompsonComment
-
You don't think "top 10" is elite? You don't think "7th" in yards is elite? You don't think his YPC is "elite" as top three of the top 7?Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers
My point is that Grant's stats are better than he is, and we as fans, put on the homer glasses and think he's better than he is.
I'm happy with the guy, but won't miss him when it's time to move on. If you recall, I was very disappointed when Green left. You won't see a repeat when Grant moves on.Comment
-
So...if Grant doesn't get credit for his "elite" stats, I suppose you think the O-line is elite? Who is wearing the funny glasses here? Maybe if you weren't putting on the Eyore glasses you would just give the guy the credit he deserves...Originally posted by retailguy
Comment
Comment