Preseason #1: Browns at Packers, 08/14, 7:00 PM Local TV

[chuckleslove]

Some of those games actually back up what I'm saying.

Which is why I'm saying it in the first place,I watch the games and seen what Grant did and how he got his yards.

The Seattle game is a text book example.

He had 16 carries for 97 yards,not bad at all.

But he had 17 yards on his first 8 carries,way to establish the run.

He had 15 carries for 41 yards if you take away that one big 56 yard run,not very good.

He had other very similar games like that as well,that's Grant style.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

I don't want a guy whos going to suck ass on his first 10 carries then rip off one big run and have everyone say ''look at his numbers he's good''.

I want a consistent back that can pick up first downs and take some pressure off the passing game.

Your criteria would pretty much eliminate Barry Sanders as a good running back.

And every running back who ever played the game.

[El Duderino]

Rumor has it that the Bucs may release Derrick Ward. If that happens he is another guy I think would be a good fit on our team.

I like Ward, but i question if he'd be interested because he likely wouldn't get on the field much unless Grant got hurt. The third down back job is going to stay with Jackson given how much the team values his great ability to pick up the blitz and he has pretty good hands out of the backfield.

I as many others wanted to see Ted draft a speedy third down back like McCluster, but Jackson does have surprisingly good ypc averages over 67 receptions. Last year it was 8.9 yard per reception, which is what Brian Westbrook averaged over his career. Obviously though Westbrook did that over 426 receptions to only 67 for Jackson, but Jackson has done a better job overall as the 3rd down back than i think some give him credit for. My only real concern about the current RB depth chart is if Grant got hurt, i'm leery about if Jackson could produce as a 15-20 carry a game back.

[El Duderino]

Some of those games actually back up what I'm saying.

Which is why I'm saying it in the first place,I watch the games and seen what Grant did and how he got his yards.

The Seattle game is a text book example.

He had 16 carries for 97 yards,not bad at all.

But he had 17 yards on his first 8 carries,way to establish the run.

He had 15 carries for 41 yards if you take away that one big 56 yard run,not very good.

He had other very similar games like that as well,that's Grant style.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

I don't want a guy whos going to suck ass on his first 10 carries then rip off one big run and have everyone say ''look at his numbers he's good''.

I want a consistent back that can pick up first downs and take some pressure off the passing game.

Your criteria would pretty much eliminate Barry Sanders as a good running back.

And every running back who ever played the game.

I just think rilamann is letting his dislike of Grant cloud his judgment of what he thinks he sees from Ryan. This happens quite a bit among hardcore fans of their local sports teams. Fans sometimes take a strong dislike of certain players and this makes them highlight more all the negative things that player does, while also downplaying in their mind the positives.

I still remember reading a thread once on a Brewers forum, but i forget which one after Richie Sexson was traded by the Brewers. A lot of Brewers fans would rag that they thought while Sexson what a great power hitter, they said he padded his stats to much with nobody on base or non-clutch situations . Well, the problem with their argument was that through Sexson's career, he actually hit quite a bit better with runners on base and in clutch situations over his career compared to when nobody was on base. What happens though is if someone gets it in their mind that Sexson sucks with RISP or in clutch spots, when he failed in those situations, in their mind it was see how terrible he is with RISP, but the same high emotional reaction doesn't register when he came through in those spots.

Rilamann isn't alone in strongly disliking Grant and thus, criticizing Ryan more than he deserves for whatever reason. Almost everyone i know is a Packer fan and i'd guess around half of them thinks Grant is garbage as a starting back even though there is no factual data to back up that claim.

[chuckleslove]

Rilamann isn't alone in strongly disliking Grant and thus, criticizing Ryan more than he deserves for whatever reason. Almost everyone i know is a Packer fan and i'd guess around half of them thinks Grant is garbage as a starting back even though there is no factual data to back up that claim.

Yep, I had this exact same debate with my dad less than a week ago.

[RiotPunch]

I am in the "disliking Grant" camp, but also in the "tolerating Grant as the starter" camp... if that makes sense. He is solid enough and protects the football. Our pass offense is so elite that having a starter like Grant is OK. Running back definitely should be upgraded when the opportunity presents itself (ie: signing Westbrook) but even if we stand pat our offense is among the best in the league. Brandon Jackson should get alot more carries this year, thus a Grant/Jackson platoon at RB should be solid enough to be balanced between run and pass.

[xTitan]

The arguement on this team is about Ryan Grant?? Are you f'ing kidding? Grant is fine, he is work horse who gets better as the year goes on and doing it behind an average at best o-line....would I like a game changer? Sure I'd like a game changer, but this team is a passing team with a great QB and a stable full of very good receivers....money needs to be spent on the defense, trying to get some damn impact players, defense wins titles, the Packers defense is the reason they were champs in 96.....Grant is fine, agenda is noted.

[LarryHarris]

I'd say I'm in the camp of not loving Grant and thinking we need another guy at that position with some skills. I'd love to take a RB in the first or second round next year. Depth is important, I like Grant more as a number 2 back than a number one... if he is going to be number one, we need a better number two. Many good teams switch up with two or sometimes three backs... Grant is an average player. I don't feel like he is in the top 15 rbs, and even if the stats say he is, Dallas has three RBs who, if given the carries Grant gets, would have more impressive numbers. It seems like TT hates "sexy" picks. Drafting a fast back would be, maybe, too sexy for him.

[LarryHarris]

The arguement on this team is about Ryan Grant?? Are you f'ing kidding? Grant is fine, he is work horse who gets better as the year goes on and doing it behind an average at best o-line....would I like a game changer? Sure I'd like a game changer, but this team is a passing team with a great QB and a stable full of very good receivers....money needs to be spent on the defense, trying to get some damn impact players, defense wins titles, the Packers defense is the reason they were champs in 96.....Grant is fine, agenda is noted.

Also, we had two good RBs. Maybe Jackson is good, we don't know. He seemed like a reach when we drafted him and had a promising year last year, but nothing that blew me away. Agree that money needs to be spent on D. No one is saying we need to go out and sign a top five running back, Westbrook could have been had for a fair some that wouldn't have broken our backs but, of course, we chose to stand pat...

[rilamann]

Rilamann isn't alone in strongly disliking Grant and thus, criticizing Ryan more than he deserves for whatever reason. Almost everyone i know is a Packer fan and i'd guess around half of them thinks Grant is garbage as a starting back even though there is no factual data to back up that claim.

First let me say that I stand by what I said,as a starting RB Grant Sucks.

But I admit and I said it a few posts back that Grant probably isn't quite as bad as I'm making him out to be.I also admit that I cannot stand soft football players,especially RBs and I don't think it's up for debate that Grant is incredibly soft.

The fact that Grant is not that good mixed the fact he's soft probably makes me be a little harder on him than I should be.

[chuckleslove]

I don't understand what you mean by Grant is soft. He plays every game, since he took over as the starter in week 8 of 2007 he has played in every single game. Usually in a football player soft to me means someone who is always out with some minor injury. I'm really not sure how you are defining soft with Ryan Grant because I don't see any way it fits him.

[El Duderino]

I'd say I'm in the camp of not loving Grant and thinking we need another guy at that position with some skills. I'd love to take a RB in the first or second round next year. Depth is important, I like Grant more as a number 2 back than a number one... if he is going to be number one, we need a better number two. Many good teams switch up with two or sometimes three backs... Grant is an average player. I don't feel like he is in the top 15 rbs, and even if the stats say he is, Dallas has three RBs who, if given the carries Grant gets, would have more impressive numbers. It seems like TT hates "sexy" picks. Drafting a fast back would be, maybe, too sexy for him.

Dallas has also had a much better run blocking line than the Packers have had and Marion Barber has a career 4.3ypc average, Grant is nearly identical at 4.4 yards per carry. Barber also got 200 plus carries the last three seasons. It would be interesting to see what Barber would have averaged the last three years if he had to run behind the Packers offensive line instead of the Cowboys or if Grant ran behind a good run blocking offensive line instead of the Packers line.

Clifton and Tauscher have still been quality pass blockers as they've aged, but neither of them are exactly known for blowing lineman off the ball. Colledge hardly has been some big power guard pancaking defensive tackles. Sitton is becoming a quality run blocker, but prior to him getting the job, Jason Spitz was solid opposite of Colledge at RG, but he was a fringe level starting guard. Our TE groups have been pass catching types more than good run blockers. As i said before, i'd bet 90 plus percent of scouts would have rated the Packers offensive line in regards to a run blocking unit as being below average, yet for some baffling reason, many Packer fans act like Grant only gets his solid numbers from what the offensive line gets for him. What is this belief based on? Who have been all these great run blockers that Grant has run behind?

Grant obviously isn't an elite running back and sure it would be nice to have Chris Johnson or Steven Jackson instead, but Grant for whatever reason doesn't get the credit he deserves from many Packer fans for being the solid starting RB that he is. Nothing more, nothing less. If next year Ted finds an upgrade, that would be great. Until then, the Packers pass defense is a vastly bigger concern.

[Flames24Rulz]

People really need to realize that offensive lines usually make running backs, not the other way around. What Grant did last year with a pretty porous run blocking unit was extremely impressive. He's really not a problem at all, as far as I'm concerned.

That being said, we should probably still throw the football 75% of the time just because our aerial attack is seriously unstoppable.