On the bright side, Ryan Grant notched an impressive game yesterday. That brings me hope and peace for the stretch run.
Goosfraba . . . goosfrabahhhh . . .
"Rockmolder" wrote:
I'm not one of those rabid fans who feels they're entitled to a blowout victory every time. I don't even mind if the Packers are defeated by a superior team, as long as they play a solid game. What bothers me is close games or losses caused by the team's own mistakes. It also seems like this team, or at least this coach, often seems to lack the aggressive instinct to firmly put away inferior teams; they dally and toy around with teams they should defeat convincingly. Of course there will be many close games; perhaps even mostly close games. But it should be because teams are close or superior to ours in skill, not because our team is bumbling around making the same foolish mistakes week after week.
"wpr" wrote:
I can accept both of these posts all though I would feel just a twinge better if half of Grant's yards didn't come on one single play.
He had 137 total. 62 on the first play. That means for the remainder of the game he had 75 yards on 19 carries for a 3.95 avg. It was adequate.
Normally the Bears have a pretty stout defense. This year they are 24th giving up 4.4 yards per carry. I know this is being picky. Just saying it would have been nice to see Grant's numbers a little higher for the remainder of the game.
"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:
You know how mediocre a back that'd make Adrian Peterson? Lol.
That said, I get what you mean. He's one of those guys who's dependant on pounding the rock, breaking off a big run very seldomly. I still think that you have to give him some props for this game, though. Like Billick said, he kept his pads low and just kept on trucking. Often, there wasn't a whole lot to work with, but he just kept his legs going, picking up another 2 yards in the process.
He's no elite back, but he's no slouch, either.
"Nonstopdrivel" wrote: