beast
13 years ago

Beast - for someone who claims to play chess well, you sure spell it funny. I was joking about the physical aspect of it. Yes, it's physical. It's a sport. But give me a quick passing team over a physical running team any day of the week (if the defenses are the same). I've said this many times. In order of importance:
1) D
2) an elite QB

An good RB is nice to have, but not necessary.

Now back to Ryan Grant - he's a top 10 RB in the NFL. Don't believe me? Check his stats. He consistently gets 1200+ yards and TDs. That's what matters.

As for 3rd and 5, if a Coach doesn't call passing on the majority of 3rd and 5s, he's a fool. No WRs open? Throw it to a RB and pray for 5+ yards.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 



First off I said I used to be good at it. I've gotten pretty rusty at chess. And I've never been good at spelling or grammar but in that case, I was just thinking about something else =p~

I find it funny that the Packers are known for their offense and QBs but their two latest Super Bowl wins (arguable) the defenses carried them to them.

I think Grants stats don't tell the whole story... because he's a feature back while most teams stay away from the feature back because they prefer the dual roles of splitting carries. So he gets more yards than most guys because he gets more carries (and because it's good) ... sometimes a lot more carries.

That's why I wonder if yards per carry with a decent minimum number of carries (for a full season it would be something like 150 to 200 carries) would be a much better judge of ranking RBs or not... (of course blocking always comes into play as well...)

I'll look up the numbers from 2009... the chart below is from NFL.com of guys in order from their 09 averages or yards per carry (which is the stat on the very right)

I added only the guys that had both over 145 carries in 2009 and an average equal or better than Grant. If you look at the whole list Grant is tired in 15th. If you look at only the guys with 200 carries or more Grant is tied in 10th.


Name, Team, Position, # of Carries, Carries per game, Yards, average.


Jamaal Charles KC RB 190 12.7 1,120 5.9
Chris Johnson TEN RB 358 22.4 2,006 5.6
Pierre Thomas NO RB 147 10.5 793 5.4
Ray Rice BAL RB 254 15.9 1,339 5.3
DeAngelo Williams CAR RB 216 16.6 1,117 5.2
Jonathan Stewart CAR RB 221 13.8 1,133 5.1
Frank Gore SF RB 229 16.4 1,120 4.9
Michael Turner ATL RB 178 16.2 871 4.9
Ahmad Bradshaw NYG RB 163 10.9 778 4.8
Ricky Williams MIA RB 241 15.1 1,121 4.7
Rashard Mendenhall PIT RB 242 15.1 1,108 4.6
Fred Jackson BUF RB 237 14.8 1,062 4.5
Maurice Jones-Drew JAC RB 312 19.5 1,391 4.5
Beanie Wells ARI RB 176 11.0 793 4.5
Marion Barber DAL RB 214 14.3 932 4.4
Ronnie Brown MIA RB 147 16.3 648 4.4
Ryan Grant GB RB 282 17.6 1,253 4.4
Jerome Harrison CLE RB 194 13.9 862 4.4
Steven Jackson STL RB 324 21.6 1,416 4.4
Adrian Peterson MIN RB 314 19.6 1,383 4.4
UserPostedImage
StoicFire
13 years ago

Where does everyone get this idea that Grant is faster than Starks? LOL.
Alex Green is gonna look good. He's fast. One thing about the running game, imo: It's gonna help us on natural turf. We won the SB with a dome team. Yes, our home field is the frozen tundra. But it's to our disadvantage to actually play in those conditions. Go back and look last year. We blew out the Falcons in their dome. Then we barely squeaked by the Bares at the Mistake by the Lake.
These two new RB are gonna be the real deal, and they are gonna help us alot in those situations. Home field advantage, baby!
Both Starks and Green have more quickness, speed and vision than Grant. Not to mention their receiving ability.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



Combine 40 times:
Ryan Grant 4.43
James Starks 4.50
Alex Green 4.53

This is one place we go to get the idea that he is faster than Starks. Also, he looks fast in games. He is explosive, and a good downhill runner. I don't have stats for quickness and vision, but I honestly don't understand the Grant hating. He's been a really good back for us since we got him (averaging 72.4 yrds/game as a healthy Packer). Don't take this the wrong way... I really like Starks too. It just feels like Grant needed a little defending.


"the Quarterback can run if he wants to, but with this rocket attached to your body... who would?" -Aaron Rodgers
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
I don't think anyone is hating on Ryan Grant. I don't think he needs defending, his numbers do that for him.
UserPostedImage
earthquake
13 years ago
The simple answer to the question is: YES

Anyone who watched the games last year saw how dominate the packers offense was once Starks hit his stride. Without Grant they lacked a legitimate running threat. Sure you can argue how important running the ball *really* is in the pass happy NFL, but I think its hard imagine anyone would really think that losing Grant didn't have a huge effect.
blank
nerdmann
13 years ago
I flat out don't believe Grant's 40 time. Grant is a "between the tackles" guy. A bit of a long strider. Meanwhile, Starks can not only get to the corner, but he can make a guy miss once he gets there.
Grant also doesn't have vision and he can't catch the ball. Don't get me wrong, he's been a godsend. We had no RBs that one year, and he came out of nowhere.
But he's got limitations that these younger guys do not have, imo.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago
I still have not seen Starks be as consistent or as good as Grant has been. Until that happens you are arguing a hypothetical. It seems the guy on the bench is always getting credit for something he has not done and the guy out there producing isn't good enough.

Regardless of your perception of Grant, he did get 4.4 per in '09 like AP and Steven Jackson. Nobody has ever tried to say those guys are not great.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
nerdmann
13 years ago

I still have not seen Starks be as consistent or as good as Grant has been. Until that happens you are arguing a hypothetical. It seems the guy on the bench is always getting credit for something he has not done and the guy out there producing isn't good enough.

Regardless of your perception of Grant, he did get 4.4 per in '09 like AP and Steven Jackson. Nobody has ever tried to say those guys are not great.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 





LOL. Come on now. You can have Grant. I'll take EITHER of those guys.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Zero2Cool
13 years ago

I still have not seen Starks be as consistent or as good as Grant has been. Until that happens you are arguing a hypothetical. It seems the guy on the bench is always getting credit for something he has not done and the guy out there producing isn't good enough.

Regardless of your perception of Grant, he did get 4.4 per in '09 like AP and Steven Jackson. Nobody has ever tried to say those guys are not great.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



I wonder if it's because Adrian Peterson and Steven Jackson were 1st Round draft picks and Ryan Grant was undrafted?
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago

LOL. Come on now. You can have Grant. I'll take EITHER of those guys.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 


You can take Steven Jackson with his 4.2 career average and declining production and I will take Grant with his 4.4 career average.

The difference between perception and actual hard facts.

I think it is kind of irrelevant any way. Changing running backs won't increase the odds of us winning another super bowl. Better or worse.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
beast
13 years ago

You can take Steven Jackson with his 4.2 career average and declining production and I will take Grant with his 4.4 career average.

The difference between perception and actual hard facts.

I think it is kind of irrelevant any way. Changing running backs won't increase the odds of us winning another super bowl. Better or worse.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



Yeah but those hard facts by them selves don't mean one is better in a real team game like football is.

Because you also have to factor in Steven Jackson was the Rams offense for a while. Other teams game plans where don't let this guy kill us, make the rest of the team beat us.

Grant on the other hand (at least while with the Packers) has always had a pretty good passing attack around him which other team defenses focused on, which took pressure off of him.
UserPostedImage
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    packerfanoutwest (30m) : Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst says Green Bay’s roster can win, even without adding anyone in the draft.
    Zero2Cool (47m) : It's a poor design. New site has SignalR like our gameday chat
    wpr (1h) : Ah today's Shout was very quick to post.
    wpr (1h) : now 3
    Zero2Cool (2h) : Who? What?
    beast (10h) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?
    Martha Careful (15h) : meh
    Zero2Cool (19h) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026
    Zero2Cool (19h) : It's so awesome.
    Zero2Cool (19h) : new site fan shout post fast
    wpr (22h) : Slow posting in Fan shout.
    wpr (22h) : Only 4
    wpr (22h) : Only 4
    Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!
    dfosterf (21-Apr) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am
    wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days
    beast (18-Apr) : 6 days
    wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
    Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
    dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
    Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
    Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
    Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
    Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
    dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move
    dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish
    Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need
    dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.
    dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.
    Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.
    dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation
    Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what
    Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife
    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
    Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Recent Topics
    3m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    17-Apr / Random Babble / wpr

    16-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

    11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

    2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    30-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    29-Mar / Random Babble / wpr

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.