Grant could find new team soon

[sharpe1027]

he was the best RB that GB has ever seen

Was he better than all the Packer RBs are already in Canton?

[Cleft Crusty]

Was he better than all the Packer RBs are already in Canton?

By far.

[Cleft Crusty]

No one here is saying that Green should be in the NFL HOF are they? I may have gotten a little confuzled back there. Sure he put up some good numbers and he was the best RB that GB has ever seen, but there's no way that he's anywhere near Canton material. Simply put, he wasn't the best back in the league when he was in his prime. Off the top of my head, Jerome Bettis and LT were much better.

I have to disagree with you Fritz on the Emmit Smith thing. I thought he was everything that Barry wasn't and that's why I was so happy to be watching them play in my early days. Smith was the prototypical back. He caught out of the backfield, picked up blitz's and could ram it down your throat whether you liked it or not. IMHO, he was a very big reason we didn't have more super bowls in the 90's.

As our esteemed colleague Patler illustrated, Green was one of the most productive backs of his era. For a 5 year stretch, he was in the top 3 in all-around yardage. If the Packers had won a Superbowl in 2002 or 2003, he would be a HOFer. That's how it works. Green carried the team through it's transition from the depleted post-Superbowl roster of 1999 to four years of playoff competitive football ushered in by Wolf's energized class of 2000. The shadow of Favre also eclipsed Green's great accomplishments, along with the myth of his being a terrible fumbler.

Legacy often hinges on very sharp edges. Giving the ball to Green on fourth and one in Philly could have propelled a 'team of destiny' to a Superbowl victory, and Green into the HOF.

[sharpe1027]

By far.

By far? You can't even say it's close? Jim Taylor might disagree.

[Pugger]

By far? You can't even say it's close? Jim Taylor might disagree.

These gentlemen might disagree too:

Curly Lambeau
Johnny Blood
Clarke Hinkle
Tony Canadeo
Paul Hornung

[Guiness]

Was he better than all the Packer RBs are already in Canton?

I think he qualified that by saying 'he wasn't the best in the league during his prime'.

Back to the original topic - no news of Grant getting a sniff. I guess the GM's around the league didn't like what they say last year, and expect him not to be able to come back from the injury. Popular thinking is that it takes a full year to recover from that injury.

Hard to tell what's going to happen. He's got two things against him - he's at that magic 30yrs old, had a significant injury, and two pluses - an above average to good back and not a lot of mileage (under 1,000 carries). Looks right now like the cons outweigh the pros.

[sharpe1027]

I think he qualified that by saying 'he wasn't the best in the league during his prime'.

Back to the original topic - no news of Grant getting a sniff. I guess the GM's around the league didn't like what they say last year, and expect him not to be able to come back from the injury. Popular thinking is that it takes a full year to recover from that injury.

Hard to tell what's going to happen. He's got two things against him - he's at that magic 30yrs old, had a significant injury, and two pluses - an above average to good back and not a lot of mileage (under 1,000 carries). Looks right now like the cons outweigh the pros.

Qualified statement or not, I still think it is a stretch to say Green was better than Jim Taylor and yet should not even be in the running for Canton.

The thing about Grant is that he only has a very small window where he was successful. He split time as a starter in college, was buried on the depth chart with the Giants, and he had his 2.5 good years with the Packers. He hasn't done much since.

[Cleft Crusty]

By far? You can't even say it's close? Jim Taylor might disagree.

These gentlemen might disagree too:

Curly Lambeau
Johnny Blood
Clarke Hinkle
Tony Canadeo
Paul Hornung

I would expect them all to disagree - except the dead ones. Such is the vanity of most athletes - except Bart Starr. Green is just better. Green had the explosiveness and athleticism of Hornung and the Power of Jimmy Taylor - and better receiving hands than all of them. He just doesn't have the championships and/or the longevity.

[sharpe1027]

I would expect them all to disagree - except the dead ones. Such is the vanity of most athletes - except Bart Starr. Green is just better. Green had the explosiveness and athleticism of Hornung and the Power of Jimmy Taylor - and better receiving hands than all of them. He just doesn't have the championships and/or the longevity.

If you had a time machine and could magically test them side-by-side in their primes, Green would have better measurables. But, if that were the way players were judged, you could make the argument that our current backup offensive lineman are better than any HoF linemen from that era. After all, they are bigger, stronger, faster and more mobile than lineman back then. I don't agree with that type of analysis.

ObalooBF, Jim Taylor was a better RB than A. Green. Perhaps you can argue that point, but to say that Green was "by far" better than Taylor -- no way.

[Smeefers]

I'm sorry, Green was the best RB I've ever seen on the Packers. If you want to go back 50 years, I'm sure there were a lot of great players on our team. I never watched them play, so I couldn't tell you how he stacked up against them. What I do know is that it's almost impossible to compare 50-60's era players with 2000 era players. Hell, it's tough compareing guys from the 90's to now. From what I've seen though, the only player that compares to Green from the modern era who's in the HOF is Curtis Martin. A lot of people don't think he deserves to be in and Green doesn't have anywhere near his numbers. There is no way on God's green earth that Green is going to make it into the HOF. He doesn't deserve to be there. You can cherry pick all the stats you want, but one of the tests he'd have to pass is the eye test and he don't pass that.

I also don't like the "If only" statements. If only Green had personally carried the packers on to 5 super bowls, then he'd be in the HOF for sure. Pshh, That's how things fall though. The problem with If he would have gotten that 4-1 call and he had made it, then the packers would have totally gone on to the super bowl and won it, is a completely baseless argument. What if they went for it on 4-1 and didn't get it. Or what If they got it, but then there was a fumble or intereception or they didn't get the TD or whatever the hell they needed (I have no idea what 4th and 1 call you guys are talking about.) Overall, in his career, was he a Hall of Famer? No. Not even close. He may have sniffed at some of the HOFers shoes for a couple years, but there's no way he was that good.

It's just like comparing Greens numbers to All Day's- A future hall of famer. Green has almost 1000 more in 5 years! Wow, 1000 of that comes from Recieving. Oh, but AP averages 9.6 yards per recieving play and Green averaged 7.8. Huh. That's wierd, maybe it's because Green had 200 more plays than him and Green was in on 3rd downs. People weren't putting 8 in the box to stop Green. Green never carried his team. How many Touchdowns does AP have in 5 years? 64. How many does Green have in his whole career? 14. AP is twice the player on one of his worst days than Green was on his best. There's no comparrison. That's the problem, you might be able to compare him to guys who barely got into the hall, but the second you stand him next to any great player, the argument falls away.

Now will you guys stop all this crazy talk about Amhan Green and the Hall of Fame?

[sharpe1027]

Smeefers, that's partly my point. Green was a great back, but overall, he wasn't better than the Packer's best backs, which did make the HoF. If he was, he would be in the running for the HoF. Green is not going to make a HoF other than the Packers HoF.

[Cleft Crusty]

I'm sorry, Green was the best RB I've ever seen on the Packers. If you want to go back 50 years, I'm sure there were a lot of great players on our team. I never watched them play, so I couldn't tell you how he stacked up against them. What I do know is that it's almost impossible to compare 50-60's era players with 2000 era players. Hell, it's tough compareing guys from the 90's to now. From what I've seen though, the only player that compares to Green from the modern era who's in the HOF is Curtis Martin. A lot of people don't think he deserves to be in and Green doesn't have anywhere near his numbers. There is no way on God's green earth that Green is going to make it into the HOF. He doesn't deserve to be there. You can cherry pick all the stats you want, but one of the tests he'd have to pass is the eye test and he don't pass that.

I also don't like the "If only" statements. If only Green had personally carried the packers on to 5 super bowls, then he'd be in the HOF for sure. Pshh, That's how things fall though. The problem with If he would have gotten that 4-1 call and he had made it, then the packers would have totally gone on to the super bowl and won it, is a completely baseless argument. What if they went for it on 4-1 and didn't get it. Or what If they got it, but then there was a fumble or intereception or they didn't get the TD or whatever the hell they needed (I have no idea what 4th and 1 call you guys are talking about.) Overall, in his career, was he a Hall of Famer? No. Not even close. He may have sniffed at some of the HOFers shoes for a couple years, but there's no way he was that good.

It's just like comparing Greens numbers to All Day's- A future hall of famer. Green has almost 1000 more in 5 years! Wow, 1000 of that comes from Recieving. Oh, but AP averages 9.6 yards per recieving play and Green averaged 7.8. Huh. That's wierd, maybe it's because Green had 200 more plays than him and Green was in on 3rd downs. People weren't putting 8 in the box to stop Green. Green never carried his team. How many Touchdowns does AP have in 5 years? 64. How many does Green have in his whole career? 14. AP is twice the player on one of his worst days than Green was on his best. There's no comparrison. That's the problem, you might be able to compare him to guys who barely got into the hall, but the second you stand him next to any great player, the argument falls away.

Now will you guys stop all this crazy talk about Amhan Green and the Hall of Fame?

This is a very strange contradictory post. It tries to refute Patler's observations, but just confirms them. I'll take one point: Green never carried his team. Hogwash. Green carried the Packers through 2000, 2001, and 2003, at the very least. In an era of scant talent at WR - specifically 2000 and 2001, the entire offense ran through Green, much like AP in 2007 and 2008. The limited nature of the offenses ultimately prevented those teams from going very far. Green was the focus of much of the Packer offense in 2003, and defenses often stacked 8 in the box, but still couldn't stop the Packers run offense. It helped to have a reasonably effective, but damaged Favre under center over say an bumbling boob like Tarvaris Jackson, but that doesn't change the fact of Green's productivity all that much, and the focus of Green Bay's offense.

HOF choices are supposed to be made on talent and productivity, but they are very often based on perception based on championships and longevity. An interesting comparison is Green and Roger Craig. Both had four pro bowl appearances, they had about 11,000 total yards in their 8 years for their major teams, they had about the same number of TDs. Craig was tilted more towards the passing game and Green towards the running game. Craig was a HOF finalist in 2010, if I recall. He may squeak in due to his association with the Superbowl teams, but, much like Green, his association with Montana, Rice, and all the other talent on those rosters, leave most people believing he had less to do with the Niner's success.

Taylor and Hornung were cogs in a running attack in a running league and won a lot of championships. But that doesn't make them better backs than Green. Just very good backs on exceptional teams. It's very hard to compare players in different eras, but that's exactly what we're doing. And individual skills cannot be measured in isolation from each other and in isolation from the teams they played on and the circumstances of seasons and team philosophies. We will soldier on...

Finally, you have to question the credentials of a Packer fan who doesn't understand 4th and 1 in Philly.

[Smidgeon]

This is a very strange contradictory post. It tries to refute Patler's observations, but just confirms them. I'll take one point: Green never carried his team. Hogwash. Green carried the Packers through 2000, 2001, and 2003, at the very least. In an era of scant talent at WR - specifically 2000 and 2001, the entire offense ran through Green, much like AP in 2007 and 2008. The limited nature of the offenses ultimately prevented those teams from going very far. Green was the focus of much of the Packer offense in 2003, and defenses often stacked 8 in the box, but still couldn't stop the Packers run offense. It helped to have a reasonably effective, but damaged Favre under center over say an bumbling boob like Tarvaris Jackson, but that doesn't change the fact of Green's productivity all that much, and the focus of Green Bay's offense.

HOF choices are supposed to be made on talent and productivity, but they are very often based on perception based on championships and longevity. An interesting comparison is Green and Roger Craig. Both had four pro bowl appearances, they had about 11,000 total yards in their 8 years for their major teams, they had about the same number of TDs. Craig was tilted more towards the passing game and Green towards the running game. Craig was a HOF finalist in 2010, if I recall. He may squeak in due to his association with the Superbowl teams, but, much like Green, his association with Montana, Rice, and all the other talent on those rosters, leave most people believing he had less to do with the Niner's success.

Taylor and Hornung were cogs in a running attack in a running league and won a lot of championships. But that doesn't make them better backs than Green. Just very good backs on exceptional teams. It's very hard to compare players in different eras, but that's exactly what we're doing. And individual skills cannot be measured in isolation from each other and in isolation from the teams they played on and the circumstances of seasons and team philosophies. We will soldier on...

Finally, you have to question the credentials of a Packer fan who doesn't understand 4th and 1 in Philly.

I'd rep you, but apparently it says I have to rep others first. :\

[Smidgeon]

I'm sorry, Green was the best RB I've ever seen on the Packers. If you want to go back 50 years, I'm sure there were a lot of great players on our team. I never watched them play, so I couldn't tell you how he stacked up against them. What I do know is that it's almost impossible to compare 50-60's era players with 2000 era players. Hell, it's tough compareing guys from the 90's to now. From what I've seen though, the only player that compares to Green from the modern era who's in the HOF is Curtis Martin. A lot of people don't think he deserves to be in and Green doesn't have anywhere near his numbers. There is no way on God's green earth that Green is going to make it into the HOF. He doesn't deserve to be there. You can cherry pick all the stats you want, but one of the tests he'd have to pass is the eye test and he don't pass that.

I also don't like the "If only" statements. If only Green had personally carried the packers on to 5 super bowls, then he'd be in the HOF for sure. Pshh, That's how things fall though. The problem with If he would have gotten that 4-1 call and he had made it, then the packers would have totally gone on to the super bowl and won it, is a completely baseless argument. What if they went for it on 4-1 and didn't get it. Or what If they got it, but then there was a fumble or intereception or they didn't get the TD or whatever the hell they needed (I have no idea what 4th and 1 call you guys are talking about.) Overall, in his career, was he a Hall of Famer? No. Not even close. He may have sniffed at some of the HOFers shoes for a couple years, but there's no way he was that good.

It's just like comparing Greens numbers to All Day's- A future hall of famer. Green has almost 1000 more in 5 years! Wow, 1000 of that comes from Recieving. Oh, but AP averages 9.6 yards per recieving play and Green averaged 7.8. Huh. That's wierd, maybe it's because Green had 200 more plays than him and Green was in on 3rd downs. People weren't putting 8 in the box to stop Green. Green never carried his team. How many Touchdowns does AP have in 5 years? 64. How many does Green have in his whole career? 14. AP is twice the player on one of his worst days than Green was on his best. There's no comparrison. That's the problem, you might be able to compare him to guys who barely got into the hall, but the second you stand him next to any great player, the argument falls away.

Now will you guys stop all this crazy talk about Amhan Green and the Hall of Fame?

Green or Grant? Green has 60 rushing TDs in his career. His best season was 15 in 2003. He has 74 total with 5 receiving TDs in that same year. AP still hasn't combined for 20 TDs in a single year.

Green also had 1883 yards in 2003. AP's highest? 1760. On 8 more carries. Which means that AP averaged 4.8 yards per carry in his best season and Green averaged 5.3. Funny thing is that Green has the highest seasonal yardage for an RB who didn't win the rushing title (Jamal Lewis had 2066 that year). Which also means that on Green's best day, he was actually better than AP as a runner. Whoops.

Adrian's a better runner in that he's had more years that are consistently good, but Green was better all around.

[Tony Oday]

Put down the crack pipe. Any person that watches football would take AP over Green all day long.