What I think is astounding and unbelievable is that you people actually assume Grant is going to be coming back at full strength. (But then you are probably the same individuals who assumed Aaron Kampman and Al Harris were sure bets to make the roster after their injuries too -- or for that matter, that it is silly for the Packers to draft more wide receivers because they already have one of the best receiving corps in the league.) How many consecutive years must this team start out slow on the rushing front before you stop placing so much faith in it? And for that matter, why are you so blithely assuming he won't get reinjured and be lost for yet another season? It would not surprise me at all if one of the newcomers supplants Grant early in the season, even if Grant does make one of his typical midseason resurgences and take back the reins later in the season.

That being said, I do believe that Grant goes into the season as the presumptive starter, if only because I think the coaching staff will give him more chances to prove himself than (I personally would think) he probably deserves. I just get annoyed when people dismiss other possibilities out of hand, mainly out of misplaced fan loyalty. How many people would have assumed that Sam Shields would become a starter who would play a role in the Super Bowl? And yet he did. So how is it any more unbelievable to think that one of our new RB prospects might supplant Ryan Grant?

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

What I think is astounding and unbelievable is that you people actually assume Grant is going to be coming back at full strength. (But then you are probably the same individuals who assumed Aaron Kampman and Al Harris were sure bets to make the roster after their injuries too -- or for that matter, that it is silly for the Packers to draft more wide receivers because they already have one of the best receiving corps in the league.) How many consecutive years must this team start out slow on the rushing front before you stop placing so much faith in it? And for that matter, why are you so blithely assuming he won't get reinjured and be lost for yet another season? It would not surprise me at all if one of the newcomers supplants Grant early in the season, even if Grant does make one of his typical midseason resurgences and take back the reins later in the season.

That being said, I do believe that Grant goes into the season as the presumptive starter, if only because I think the coaching staff will give him more chances to prove himself than (I personally would think) he probably deserves. I just get annoyed when people dismiss other possibilities out of hand, mainly out of misplaced fan loyalty. How many people would have assumed that Sam Shields would become a starter who would play a role in the Super Bowl? And yet he did. So how is it any more unbelievable to think that one of our new RB prospects might supplant Ryan Grant?

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

What I think is astounding and unbelievable is that you people actually assume Grant is going to be coming back at full strength. (But then you are probably the same individuals who assumed Aaron Kampman and Al Harris were sure bets to make the roster after their injuries too -- or for that matter, that it is silly for the Packers to draft more wide receivers because they already have one of the best receiving corps in the league.) How many consecutive years must this team start out slow on the rushing front before you stop placing so much faith in it? And for that matter, why are you so blithely assuming he won't get reinjured and be lost for yet another season? It would not surprise me at all if one of the newcomers supplants Grant early in the season, even if Grant does make one of his typical midseason resurgences and take back the reins later in the season.

That being said, I do believe that Grant goes into the season as the presumptive starter, if only because I think the coaching staff will give him more chances to prove himself than (I personally would think) he probably deserves. I just get annoyed when people dismiss other possibilities out of hand, mainly out of misplaced fan loyalty. How many people would have assumed that Sam Shields would become a starter who would play a role in the Super Bowl? And yet he did. So how is it any more unbelievable to think that one of our new RB prospects might supplant Ryan Grant?

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

I don't think Ryan Grant gets cut.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

We'll see boys. I remember another prominent high paid rb wearing number 25 that didn't fair too well coming back from an ankle injury. I wish Grant the best of luck but we have plenty of other options. I don't think we have the OL to impose our will in the running game anyway, just so there's a threat of a run game which Starks handled pretty will down the stretch.

"DakotaT" wrote: