Rockmolder
15 years ago

Ahman Green was not appreciated by some, I feel. Those who claim he was not an elite back I think are sadly mistaken. He could run, catch, block, he was the man during his prime. That was one helluva good move by Sherman.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Who the heck said he wasn't an elite back? Whoever said that is now on my idiot list.

In terms of fantasy football (yes, fantasy football matters for RB production), he was #3 in 2001 and #3 in 2003. He was #3 in '01 and '03 in total yards from scrimmage. He got 20 TDs in '03, which was 2nd in the NFL (for any position). He was a Pro Bowler in '01, '02, '03, and '04. He was a damn good screen back.

Geez, I guess some people smoke too much crack. Anyone who would be disappointed in that much production in 4 years for a RB is an idiot. Realistically, the life expectancy of a RB is very short. He's 29th all-time in career rushing yards, which is pretty impressive.

"SlickVision" wrote:



I agree. He's actually one of the reasons I became a Packer fan over another team.

The one thing you can complain about, I guess, are his fumbles. He fumbled 7 times, of which we lost possesion 5 times, in his 1800 yard season. 6 time in a 1200 yard season and 7 times again in another 1200 yard season.

Still, he was an amazing back. It's a shame that he wasn't used the first 2 years and declined so horribly fast when he did.
Zero2Cool
15 years ago

Ahman Green was not appreciated by some, I feel. Those who claim he was not an elite back I think are sadly mistaken. He could run, catch, block, he was the man during his prime. That was one helluva good move by Sherman.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Who the heck said he wasn't an elite back? Whoever said that is now on my idiot list.

In terms of fantasy football (yes, fantasy football matters for RB production), he was #3 in 2001 and #3 in 2003. He was #3 in '01 and '03 in total yards from scrimmage. He got 20 TDs in '03, which was 2nd in the NFL (for any position). He was a Pro Bowler in '01, '02, '03, and '04. He was a damn good screen back.

Geez, I guess some people smoke too much crack. Anyone who would be disappointed in that much production in 4 years for a RB is an idiot. Realistically, the life expectancy of a RB is very short. He's 29th all-time in career rushing yards, which is pretty impressive.

"SlickVision" wrote:



I can't recall who, but I think it was on this website here somewhere it was said that Ahman Green wasn't that good or shouldn't be considered elite.

As per someone elses argument about fumbles. Check his fumbles per carry. Compare that to the rest of the NFL during those times.


edit, Career.
Carries 2015
Fumbles 35 (1 fumble : 57 carries)
Fumbles lost 23 ( 1 fumble lost : 87 carries)
UserPostedImage
dfosterf
15 years ago

Ahman Green was not appreciated by some, I feel. Those who claim he was not an elite back I think are sadly mistaken. He could run, catch, block, he was the man during his prime. That was one helluva good move by Sherman.

"SlickVision" wrote:



Who the heck said he wasn't an elite back? Whoever said that is now on my idiot list.

In terms of fantasy football (yes, fantasy football matters for RB production), he was #3 in 2001 and #3 in 2003. He was #3 in '01 and '03 in total yards from scrimmage. He got 20 TDs in '03, which was 2nd in the NFL (for any position). He was a Pro Bowler in '01, '02, '03, and '04. He was a damn good screen back.

Geez, I guess some people smoke too much crack. Anyone who would be disappointed in that much production in 4 years for a RB is an idiot. Realistically, the life expectancy of a RB is very short. He's 29th all-time in career rushing yards, which is pretty impressive.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



I can't recall who, but I think it was on this website here somewhere it was said that Ahman Green wasn't that good or shouldn't be considered elite.

As per someone elses argument about fumbles. Check his fumbles per carry. Compare that to the rest of the NFL during those times.


edit, Career.
Carries 2015
Fumbles 35 (1 fumble : 57 carries)
Fumbles lost 23 ( 1 fumble lost : 87 carries)

"SlickVision" wrote:



Hah. Ryan Grant couldn't carry Ahman Green's jockstrap. Ted should have mentioned that to him during the contract negotiations.

Ted: "I have seen Ahman Green run the football sir. I know Ahman Green. You sir, are no Ahman Green."

You know, kinda like this:

Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy 

...shoulda seen the back strokin' young Dan feebly attempted on that day.

Tom Brokaw: Senator Quayle, I don't mean to beat this drum until it has no more sound in it. But to follow up on Brit Hume's question, when you said that it was a hypothetical situation, it is, sir, after all, the reason that we're here tonight, because you are running not just for Vice President (Applause) and if you cite the experience that you had in Congress, surely you must have some plan in mind about what you would do if it fell to you to become President of the United States, as it has to so many Vice Presidents just in the last 25 years or so.
Quayle: Let me try to answer the question one more time. I think this is the fourth time that I've had this question.
Brokaw: The third time.
Quayle: Three times that I've had this question and I will try to answer it again for you, as clearly as I can, because the question you are asking is, "What kind of qualifications does Dan Quayle have to be president," "What kind of qualifications do I have," and "What would I do in this kind of a situation?" And what would I do in this situation? [...] I have far more experience than many others that sought the office of vice president of this country. I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency. I will be prepared to deal with the people in the Bush administration, if that unfortunate event would ever occur.
Judy Woodruff: Senator [Bentsen]?
Bentsen: Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. (Prolonged shouts and applause.) What has to be done in a situation like that is to call in the
Woodruff: Please, please, once again you are only taking time away from your own candidate.
Quayle: That was really uncalled for, Senator. (Shouts and applause.)
Bentsen: You are the one that was making the comparison, Senator and I'm one who knew him well. And frankly I think you are so far apart in the objectives you choose for your country that I did not think the comparison was well-taken.




That was a smack-down...one of the best ever. And I'm a republican, for the record.


Anybody that says Ahman Green wasn't the absolute shit in his prime apparently never watched him play.
all_about_da_packers
15 years ago
Let's not underestimate the talent around Green, namely on the O-line.

The continuity was tremendous, and frankly we had 4 pro-bowl offensive linemen clearing paths for Green.

Not to undermine Green by any means, but our current o-line is not even in the same ball park when it comes to that offensive line (albeit scheme doesn't help our O-line much, seemingly).
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
Zero2Cool
15 years ago

Let's not underestimate the talent around Green, namely on the O-line.

The continuity was tremendous, and frankly we had 4 pro-bowl offensive linemen clearing paths for Green.

Not to undermine Green by any means, but our current o-line is not even in the same ball park when it comes to that offensive line (albeit scheme doesn't help our O-line much, seemingly).

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:



I'm on THIS side of the fence, now THIS side of the fence! Don't under estimate the talent around Green, don't underestimate Green's talent ... c'mon!

I think we derailed the shit out of this thread. I don't think Green is going to be on the roster this year.

I'm all for ...
Grant
Jackson
Wynn
Lumpkin
Johnson

if we keep 5.
UserPostedImage
all_about_da_packers
15 years ago
^ We'll to be fair, talking of Green can contribute to our current RB situation.

Green had the o-line, and was in a scheme that played to his talents. He was a great player, but those things made him a real playmaker. Grant showed shades of that in his first year, but last year... yeah no.

Perhaps the key to our RB situation is tweaking the scheme? Can Jackson and Wynn even play in a more man-blocking run scheme? Jackson developed in the ZBS in Nebraska, so perhaps he's real limited in that way?

McCarthy talks about scheme development and the like ... perhaps he needs to develop a scheme that better puts Grant in a position to succeed?

Personally, I think Grant can succeed in the ZBS - he just needs a path to get to the second level.
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
packersfan101101
15 years ago

Note how Pelissero avoided mentioning Brandon Jackson's yards per carry (5.5) because he wanted to make him look bad. This is what drives me nuts about these writers sometimes. I agree with PackFanWithTwins that Jackson should be used way more than he was last season. I also agree that less ZBS would be a good thing.

"Greg C." wrote:



Yea i agree thats ridiculus, Brandon Jackson is much better then the write makes him sound and in my opinion he should be the starter. In Grant you have someone who will just repeatedly run up the middle and is no threat in the passing game, but in jackson you have someone who can go up the middle but also bounce outside and and make some people miss. Also he is a threat in the passing game.
brandon jackson is amazing
zombieslayer
15 years ago



Yea i agree thats ridiculus, Brandon Jackson is much better then the write makes him sound and in my opinion he should be the starter. In Grant you have someone who will just repeatedly run up the middle and is no threat in the passing game, but in jackson you have someone who can go up the middle but also bounce outside and and make some people miss. Also he is a threat in the passing game.

"packersfan101101" wrote:



I wouldn't go as far as say Jackson should start over Grant. However, in an offensive scheme I would run, we'd see probably 60/40 Grant/Jackson.

I am anti-run, unless you have an elite back. We do not have an elite back.

In the WCO, you can get by with a mediocre RB and still win SB after SB. Can anyone name the starting RB on all five of the 49er SB teams? I live in San Francisco and I can't. Heck, we didn't even have a 900 yard rusher when we won the SB.

Jackson brings more diversity. He's more a WCO back. With Grant, you have no screen threat. You know he's going to get the ball and run up the middle for 3.9 yards a carry. Big deal.

Grant is tough though, and can carry a good workload. I was happy with him in '07 but the drop off was significant and he better show some improvement in '08.

Yes, our OL is mediocre, but Grant holding out for more money and getting more money, he better produce.

More importantly, Jackson is more WCO, and we are a WCO team, like it or not. Jackson MAY be a better long-term fit. We will see in 2009.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Dulak
15 years ago
wynn had some good runs in 07 too from what I saw
zombieslayer
15 years ago

wynn had some good runs in 07 too from what I saw

"Dulak" wrote:



Wynn is a very talented kid. Problem with him is upstairs. If he gets his head together, he could be a decent RB.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Fan Shout
packerfanoutwest (58m) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (2h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (12h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (12h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (12h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (12h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (12h) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (16h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (16h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (16h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (19h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (19h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (19h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (19h) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (19h) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (19h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (19h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (19h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (20h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (20h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (20h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (21h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (21h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (21h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (21h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (21h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (22h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (22h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (22h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (22h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
2h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

8h / GameDay Threads / Mucky Tundra

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.