Zero2Cool
15 years ago
Source Link 


Ryan Grant lobbied the Green Bay Packers to sign veteran running back Ahman Green and applauded their decision to finally make the move last Wednesday.[img_r]http://media.jsonline.com/images/199*130/ahman102409.jpg[/img_r]

Should he have?

There are two ways to look at it if you're Grant.

On the one hand, bringing in Green relieves some of the pressure on Grant to produce like a guy who is worthy of the four-year, $18 million contract he received in August 2007. On the other hand, it implies that the Packers no longer think Grant is capable of being a franchise back and probably would be better suited for a job-sharing role.

If the Packers simply wanted to fill the position vacated when third-down back DeShawn Wynn was lost for the season with a knee injury, they would have signed veteran free agent Dominic Rhodes or elevated practice squad running back Kregg Lumpkin. Instead, they turned to Green, a former franchise back whose career took a detour because of injuries.

There are several reasons the Packers took a shot with Green, but simple logic will tell you he might be able to fill gaps that are missing in the team's mediocre running game.

Things like:

Better production on first down.
Better production on screen passes and check-downs.
Better production running to the left side.

Upon signing Green, no one on the Packers' coaching staff, including head man Mike McCarthy, characterized the move as having anything to do with Grant, even though the fourth-year back ranks 18th in the NFL in yards with 347, 31st in yards per carry at 3.8 and 28th in runs of 20 or more yards with one.

Still, McCarthy did say he thought the move upgraded the position and provided the Packers with someone who is a good fit for his zone running scheme.

"He still has excellent in-line quickness," McCarthy said after Green's first practice Wednesday "He really has the ability to drop his pads and run with forward lean and the things you always liked about his running style.

"I'd like to see more of him."

Could make debut vs. Vikings

Green, who has been out of football since November, won't play against the Cleveland Browns on Sunday at Cleveland Browns Stadium, but there's a chance he'll be available when the Minnesota Vikings come to Green Bay next Sunday. Common sense would tell you it's going to be awhile before he's effective - if he's effective at all at age 32.

At this point, the Packers' running game shouldn't really scare anyone. Green Bay ranks 19th mostly on the strength of some strong late-game finishes against St. Louis and Detroit, when the Packers were able to beat down a demoralized opponent.

When you're talking about production in key areas, such as on first down, the Packers are not a good running team. Obviously, the offensive line plays a part in that, but the right side of the line is solid, and backup center Scott Wells has done a fine job against some tough opponents.

McCarthy's reluctance to stick with the run is another factor. The Packers are running the ball just 39.6% of the time, and that's not enough to get a rhythm going. But still, he should be able to count on 4 yards on first down.

Through five games, the Packers are running the ball 44% of the time on first and 10. They rank 28th in yards on those downs. Grant averages 3.4 yards a carry on first and 10 and, while full rankings weren't available for that stat, San Diego's LaDainian Tomlinson ranks 20th in the league with an average of 4.3, so you can imagine how far down the list Grant is.

It's something the Packers acknowledge is a problem.

"If you're averaging 3.2 yards on first down, that's not good enough," offensive coordinator Joe Philbin said. "Obviously you want to mix some explosives (runs) in there. You're really looking at the consistency of winning the down.

"The thing that is more helpful is looking at your second and 8 call sheet and how many times you're filling that thing up. If you're up at 8, 10, 12, you know you have some issues."

Green likes to bang inside

To say Green can come in and immediately prop up those numbers is wishful thinking. Given his recent injury history, it's questionable whether he can help the Packers' running game at all. But the decision to take a chance on him is because he runs the ball the way the Packers would like to see Grant run it more often.

Green described his style this way:

"I love running in between the tackles. I love banging around in there. I like saying hello to the 'backers in the middle, let them know I'm going to be here and it's going to be for four quarters."

The Packers have to be hoping Green's style of keeping his head up, making decisive cuts and pumping his knees high so he can't be brought down with arm tackles will rub off on Grant. Running backs coach Edgar Bennett has made it clear in the past two weeks that he'd like all of his backs to get their knees up and start breaking more tackles.

Green envisions that he and Grant will complement each other.

"We're going to be battering up the linebacker crew and softening it up for each other," he said. "Whenever I do get in there, along with Brandon Jackson, it's like when it was myself and Dorsey (Levens) in the backfield. You give that defense something to think about."

It remains to be seen how many carries Green will take away from Grant, but if he has anything left in the tank he'll push the Packers' starter. One area where he might be most effective is on third downs.

Possible passing target

Since he left after the 2006 season, the Packers haven't had a back with more than 30 catches. Grant had 18 last season and has 12 in five games this year.

If you examine the Mike Holmgren and Mike Sherman years, the running backs made up for low per-carry averages with production in the passing game. From 1993-'95, Bennett ranked second on the team in catches each season.

The trend continued through the Sherman era when Green ranked first twice, second three times and third once during a seven-year stretch. This team has not used the screen pass or check-downs effectively.

"Every year is different," Bennett said. "I think lately we're getting back into that, as far as check-downs and things of that nature. We take pride in being complete backs, being a complete unit. When we are getting out we have to make the most of the opportunities. Catch the ball, look it in and make a play after."

Opportunity may be a big reason why the catches haven't come. Quarterback Aaron Rodgers has been stubborn about giving up on downfield throws and taking the check-down, and a lot will depend on him. It's possible Green's presence will make him feel more confident about doing it, given Grant and Wynn each have dropped two passes on check-downs.

Another area where Green can help is running to the left side, a problem for the Packers this season. According to the NFL's statistical database, the Packers average 2.67 yards when they run at the left guard, 3.18 at left tackle and 3.52 at left end. All of their runs to the right and middle average more than 4 yards.

Green is left-handed and it's more natural for him to turn that direction. During his record-breaking 2003 season, he averaged 8.78 yards running off left tackle and just over 4.0 at left end and left guard.

Adding Green is a desperation move for the Packers and uncharacteristic for general manager Ted Thompson, who prefers to bring up younger players when there is an opening.

But it shows their concern that they're not getting enough out of Grant.


UserPostedImage
LambeauEast
15 years ago
Maybe Green will rub off on Grant like the article pointed out that Bennett said. I'd like to see them break a few more tackles as well.
UserPostedImage
Dulak
15 years ago
What if grant knew that GB wanted a back; so grant thought well if we get a aged old back with many injuries - he will be least likely to take my job away and only be good on select plays anyways ...?

... just conjecture here
nerdmann
15 years ago
Just remember, they're also going to be playing Lang. That in and of itself should help the run game.
“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.”
gbguy20
15 years ago
Didn't read too much of the article but judging by the beginning of it is written like Green will receive a bunch of playing time, and not like he was signed as the #3 back, which automatically makes this a pile of trash.
BAD EMAIL because the address couldn ot be found, or is unable to receive mail.
Zero2Cool
15 years ago

Didn't read too much of the article but judging by the beginning of it is written like Green will receive a bunch of playing time, and not like he was signed as the #3 back, which automatically makes this a pile of trash.

"gbguy20" wrote:



If you're not going to read the entire article, don't comment on it's point if you don't know it.
UserPostedImage
15 years ago
I think Silverstein is a little off base this time. We would've signed Rhodes or brought up Lumpkin? Why Rhodes, if Green is the better option and we signed him for the veteran's minimum?
UserPostedImage
Brettizzle
15 years ago

I think Silverstein is a little off base this time. We would've signed Rhodes or brought up Lumpkin? Why Rhodes, if Green is the better option and we signed him for the veteran's minimum?

"MassPackersFan" wrote:




I agree, I read that and was a little confused. It doesn't make sense to bring Rhodes in instead of Green for any reason.
Jermichael Finley

We will be in Indianapolis

Greg C.
15 years ago
Like some others here, I found that the article pretty much lost me from the beginning. Silverstein is overanalyzing by saying that bringing in Green implies that Grant is not good enough. I'm assuming that they brought in Green because he was the best player available and the price was right. He's the replacement for their #3 RB, who was hurt.
blank
gbguy20
15 years ago

Didn't read too much of the article but judging by the beginning of it is written like Green will receive a bunch of playing time, and not like he was signed as the #3 back, which automatically makes this a pile of trash.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



If you're not going to read the entire article, don't comment on it's point if you don't know it.

"gbguy20" wrote:



"If the Packers simply wanted to fill the position vacated when third-down back DeShawn Wynn was lost for the season with a knee injury, they would have signed veteran free agent Dominic Rhodes or elevated practice squad running back Kregg Lumpkin. Instead, they turned to Green, a former franchise back whose career took a detour because of injuries.

There are several reasons the Packers took a shot with Green, but simple logic will tell you he might be able to fill gaps that are missing in the team's mediocre running game.

Things like:

Better production on first down.
Better production on screen passes and check-downs.
Better production running to the left side."

This was enough for me to stop reading the article. That whole segment is written as if Green is going to be the main back, which we all know is wrong. Judging by everyone else's comments in this thread, it seems they all got the same feeling from it as I did.

But just for you I went back and read the whole thing. The rest of the article goes on to talk about Green's running style, etc. Not really saying much of anything.
BAD EMAIL because the address couldn ot be found, or is unable to receive mail.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (39m) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (1h) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (15h) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (15h) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Oh snap!!!
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Even Stevie Wonder can see that.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Nah, you see Lions OC leaving to be HC of Bears is directly related to Packers.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ohhhhhhh Zero is in TROUBLE
packerfanoutwest (21-Jan) : Zero, per your orders, check Bearshome, not packershome
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Then he'll land with another team and flourish.
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Ben going to Bears. He'll be out in 3 years.
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
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
22-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

22-Jan / Random Babble / packerfanoutwest

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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