I get a chuckle when some people say that "well Grant got those yards in garbage time".

Questions? Don't you think the opposing 'D' is aware the opposing 'O' is going to 'run the ball' to get time off the clock in 'garbage time'? Don't you think the opposing 'D' is aware that if they 'stop that run' they will get the ball back for their 'O'?

In 5 games Grant is ranked 17th amongst RB's and has 347 yards for a 3.8 avg. and on track for 1120 yards this year. He gets the job done behind the offensive line that many people are talking about in other threads as being the biggest problem position the Packers have.

Sure we all like to see the flashy, shifty and powerful RB's but I give Grant his due as a dependable RB that will get you 1000+ yards a season. What we need, imo, is another good RB at the #2 position to complement Grant and give the opposing 'D' more to plan for.

Oh, did I mention Grant has not fumbled this year?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought he fumbled against the Bengals?

True Larry, but can you really say with much confidence that an opposing D is playing as tough in, "garbage time" when their team is down by 3+ scores? Plus, are all their starters playing?

I'd say no to both.


Grant is an average runner. He can break a nice one off here and there, but he's completely neutralized by anything resembling a good rush defense.

No right or worng here, just my opinion. I don't like Ryan Grant- at least not as the feature back. Another perfect example yesterday. He broke free into the secondary, but caught from behind by (I think) a DE....or LB. That's a play where he absolutely needs to take it to the house. He's simply a RB that will give you what's there, and not a yard more.

He did but it was on a pass play I believe.

There are better backs in the NFL than Ryan Grant but he's not down the list of the Packer's problems.......

Grant is OK. He's servicable. He's what LMG said he is ,17th in the league. Middle of the road. What I think we really need is someone who can catch the ball, as that gives the linebackers one more thing to worry about. Grant is not that good at this. He doesn't catch on the run and turn upfield smoothly or quickly and his hands are suspect. It's why he's not a feature back IMO.

If you are a linebacker and B. Jackson comes in the game on third and 8 or more, what are you thinking?

He's what I'd call "servicable". Given good blocking he can do some good things. But he's not an impact player by any stretch. Doesn't make people miss and isn't a weapon in the passing game. He's "just a guy." If we had a dominating run blocking offensive line, I'd be more content with Grant as our starting RB.

Put him behind a top 5 offensive line and he can find success. But he's not going to get you a single thing that isn't there, and is not special in any way.

He's a transitional starter at best. Thompson made a foolish decision when he thought Grant could be our starter.

Grant is an average back. Now that Branden Jackson is back i hope we will see a lot more of him. I wish Sutton was still on the team. He ran hard like it was going to be his last carry.Another guy named Jackson via a trade from St. Louis sure would be nice.

If there were going to be a trade, I think improving the offensive line would be a better investment because it would improve both the pass protection and the run blocking.

IMO, Grant would be better if his holes were better. I think the potential for improvement there is considerable, and while I'm not saying there aren't better RBs in the league, o-line would get us the biggest bang for our buck.

Not to be rude, but...duh.

If the holes are big enough, you or I could run the ball.

Ok, maybe I should have said "Grant has the potential to gain significantly more yards per carry if he were provided with the sort of holes one would expect an NFL team to be able to open".

I put more of the blame here on MM and the playcalling.

I agree with LMG that "garbage time" should not be overlooked since the D will know your going to run the ball.

My issue is that before the 4th quarter, he only had 13 carries for 28 yards, a 2.1 yd average. Only 4 of those runs were on second down and none on third down. Its predictable. As much blame is placed on the Oline for the sacks, and rightfully so, when there is little to no threat of the run on 2nd or 3rd down, regardless of distance, the defense can just all out rush the passer. Im sure if I can see this, opposing D-Coordinators do as well and gameplan accordingly.

I don't know why they bother running the ball at all in the first half of games. The Patriots, for example, often have games where they throw all the time and eventually get back to the run. Other teams do that too.

Otherwie, another option would be the no huddle offense, that may open up the running game a little more.

The Lions gave up after the Bigby interception. OK, Grant had already gotten some of his fourth-quarter yards before then, but still, it's not the same deal as D Williams and J Stewart rushing for 76 of an 80-yard drive for a go-ahead TD.

Through three quarters Grant had 13 runs for about 30 yards with a long gain of 7. That's not average.



The offensive line isn't as bad this year in the running game as in pass protection. Barbre, for instance, has made some nice plays on running downs. Even so, it's far from being an elite unit, and should share some of the blame for Grant's mediocre stats.



It really isn't difficult to get 1000 yards on a one-back team. He needs only 63 yards a game. At an NFL average (4.2) clip he can get there in 15 carries.

But tell me this. If Grant is so dependable, why did he only get the ball a dozen times while the game was competitive? Why did the Packers run on consecutive downs only once during the first three quarters against a depleted, third-rate defensive line in a game where they led by two scores before the first quarter was out? The problem is not that we fans don't trust Grant; it's that his own coaches don't.

Here's what happens to offenses that are prolific but unbalanced: they win shootouts one week, and lose to Oakland the next. McCarthy is as costive as Andy Reid with regards to run offense. Sure, successful offenses have to be able to pass, but look at the Saints and the Vikes compared with last year. It's all about balance. Grant doesn't provide that balance.



Agreed.



Sshhhhhhhhh!!

I'll offer one more excuse for Ryan Grant. It's not that the coaches don't trust him, they just are too damn pass happy thinking they are going to "outsmart" the other team. The biggest obstacle for GRant to get touches or in the end zone is McCarthy. I was at the game Sunday and 2 series in a row they went away from Grant after he had some productive runs. Just liek the Viking game when had the hard run down to the 1. The Genius MM decided to hand off to Kuhn who tripped and then throw twice. Sunday after Grant picked up 7 to the Lions 7, they try to throw and take a sack. and eventually end up with another field goal. What is wrong with handing the ball off 2 plays in a row in a quarter other than the 4th?

On a separate note, Grant has not helped himself. He dropped that flat pass on the 10 yd line on a first down and he would have had 1 guy to beat for a TD. The next series he watched while Jackson was in the backfield in the red zone.

On another series, this actually happened twice where Rodgers went to play fake to his right and Grant was on the worng side of him for the fake. Hard to sell that, and on one it had to be Grant's fault because his job would have been to pick up the blitzer who came free and had a cake walk sack.

I just don't want MM getting into genius mode every time they go into the red zone. Some time it is that damn simple as pounding the ball.

Bob McGinn's Take on Grant (and the running game):


Leroy Butler says.....


And there’s this from GBPG


Grant is not an elite RB but is that what this offense needs? I think what this offense needs is consistent OLine play. Get that and they'll tear it up on the ground just like they already do in the air.

IMHO

Grant's problems have more to do with:

1) lack of talent on the OL
2) lack of carries due to poor down & distance situations because of penalties & sacks

than

his presumed 'lack of talent'

There are better backs in the NFL but RB is down the list of weaknesses this team has....

I used to believe that. Now I look at it differently. I think a great RB can make the O line look really good. Unless you have just an outstanding O line (which hardly anyone does in today's NFL) there aren't many holes. A great RB creates big plays by bouncing outside and turning the corner. Or finding small crease and banging for seven yards instead of one.

That's the problem with grant. Sure, he doesn't get much help most of the time from blocking up front. But look at big runs from the great backs, and much of the time it's individual effort.

It's always a combination of the two, but I think an explosive RB would make this offense a lot better- especially in the red zone where they're really hurting.

And his name would be... Ahman Green

Welcome back, Batman! Let's hope you have a little gas left in the tank.

OK, let's put some myths to bed, starting with number 2)....

These stats are from the first three quarters of the Lions game. They include plays that were run but annulled by penalties. They exclude the Packers' last possession of the first half, which began with less than a minute to play.

The Packers ran 24 first down plays. Two of them were "poor down & distance situations because of penalties"; the other 22 were 1st-and-10 or 1st-and-goal.

Of the 24 first-down plays, 10 were runs, 14 were dropbacks by Rodgers.

Grant had nine of the runs. They netted 4, 4, 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, 4 and -4 yards. According to The Hidden Game of Football, a first-down play needs to gain 4.5 yards to be considered 'successful' (ie, likely to lead to another first down). Grant thus had 2/9 successful runs, plus (let's be charitable) four that were borderline, leaving three stinkers. (Jackson added a 2-yarder.)

On second down, the Packers ran 23 plays. A mighty four of these were rushes, versus 19 dropbacks by Rodgers. Down and distance were a factor: the Packers needed seven or more yards for the first down on 13 occasions (57%). On such downs, they ran only once (Grant lost a yard). But on 2nd-and-6-or-fewer, the Pack chose to run only three times, versus seven Rodgers dropbacks. Those three Ryan Grant runs netted 0, 4 and 1 yards. The four-yard gain was Grant's only first-down pickup. (Four of these second downs were 2nd-and-3-or-fewer. They ran only once in such situations.)

Let's eliminate the obvious passing situations: the first-and-15s and the second-and-longs (7 yards or more to go). That leaves 32 plays. Thirteen were runs (41%), 19 were dropbacks (59%). In a game where the Packers led by two scores from the get-go. The Packers whose QB has been sacked a record number of times through five games.

If Grant is not getting enough opportunities, it's not because of penalties and sacks. It's because his own coach doesn't believe in him.

As for part 1).....

If there is a lack of talent on the OL, surely it makes sense to run the ball more. The alternative is getting your quarterback killed.

Has anyone heard from larry Johnson lately? Or anyone seen Brandon Jacobs average per carry? What about matt forte or steve slaton? Micheal turner? Are these guys suddenly terrible or are there other factors that explain their low averages or fewer total yards than Grant.

The Run game is a combination of cohesion of the oline, and the ability of the running back. The back and oline have to have time to work together consistently and because of injuries this year and the musical lineman last year that has not happened.

Don't get me wrong Adrian Peterson could get better production from this line, but people have to be realistic and realize that most running backs in the NFL are more like Grant and a very few elite are like Peterson. To expect that any back that plays to be considered good put up numbers like Peterson is just a pipe dream.

As I have said before Grant is not the best but he ain't too bad either. GB could do alot worse.

Yes there are other factors. The difference — as you imply — is that these other backs were good last year (except Johnson, who is past his prime), whereas Grant wasn't. Production ebbs and flows for all but the truly great running backs, of course it does.

The trouble with Grant is, he has been mired in mediocrity for almost a season and a half. His good spell, prior to that, only lasted half a season. At some point the imbalance between the two becomes ridiculous. Thus it is reasonable to predict that Jacobs, Turner et al will to rediscover their good form; Grant (and Johnson) not so much.

I don't think Larry Johnson is a very good example. He hasn't been a great RB for at least a couple years now. And I always thought Jacobs was overrated. Very similar to Grant, only he runs with a little more power.

Sure the Packers could do worse than Grant (I have seen that comment a lot.) Is that the bar we want to set at a position?

I hear you guys say "We could do a lot worse than Grant" but I'm having trouble believing that. What does he bring to our running game that almost any other RB in the NFL can't? I truly believe you could pluck any random RB in the league, put him in Grant's spot, and that guy would have put up pretty much the same numbers Grant has.

Exactly. I'm dead serious, if Lumpkin started all year would the numbers be any different? I wouldn't be surprised if Lumpkin did a little better.

Last year Grant came on late from an injury and was running well later in the year, against even teams who were strong on the run like Minnesota and Tennessee, this year he is doing ok not great but ok, behind a first time starter at right tackle Barbre, who I think will be good eventually just needs more experience, a new center and a new right guard, all different from last year. Traditionally most teams run to the right more than to the left, significantly more so, that is the reason right tackles are usually the more mauler types where the left guard is the more athletic in order to protect from the speed rush on the blind side.

With the "newness" of the right side along with some un-inspirational play calling Grant is doing as good or better than any other back not named Peterson would do given the same circumstances.

Now I might get flamed for this but I am going to throw this out there anyhow.

Rogers has yet to have that significant come from behind win or final drive to put the nail in the coffin so to speak in his carreer. Anyone wonder if the opposing defenses aren't just loading up on the run and waiting for Rogers to beat them? I think that this is one of the main reasons, and it is not entirely Rogers fault either.

I think Rogers is a great qb and Green Bay has great receivers, but without adequate protection Rogers has a hard time winning those games coming from behind, and until the oline gets more solid and provides better pass protection or gets much better at opening holes for the running game to slow down that rush then Grants numbers are going to suffer, Rogers is going to progressively get worse for fear of being hit trying to make plays he shouldn't, and the losses will mount. As it is right now teams just have to hold the running game in the first half, get a two score lead so McCarthy abandons the run almost altogether(ala new orleans last year) blitz Rogers and collect the sacks or ints and coast to a win.


It is cliche but it is true that it all starts up front.

Did you see the end of the Bears game?

Because of penalties and such, we are already at down and long, so no reason to run the ball. Its not trust in Grant, its trust in O LINE.

Can you name very many things he does well? I honestly can't and I kind of like the guy. I think if you take any starting or backup running back from any other team you wouldn't see a drop off.

Negatives:
Poor Vision
Slow Feet
Can't make anyone miss
Horrible receiver
No breakaway ability

Positives:
Rarely fumbles
Decent on blitz pickup

6th leading rusher in the NFL (and has had a bye week)......Just sayin.....

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/player/_...09/seasontype/2

All garbage yards.

To dig a little deeper his career average per carry is 4.3. So far this year he is 4.2. Yesterday's 5.5 helped his average, but his best game before then was against the queens with a 4.6. Will take that again this Sunday.

I had a feeling there'd be some "told-you-so" posts on this thread.

Grant ran well yesterday. McCarthy finally called the type of game that many of us have been willing him to call for weeks now. The first drive didn't net any points but it allowed the Packers' line to establish what it could do. And the line was the key to everything.

Three of our young linemen are, at this point, much better run blockers than pass blockers. For a first-year starter, Sitton is a very, very fine run blocker indeed. Barbre and Lang have the build, the attitude and the basic skills in terms of balance and technique to become first-rate run blockers. They all lack confidence — a result of the dismal performance in pass protection so far. They need more games like yesterday's.

One performance — against the Browns! — doesn't mean this is the Grant of 2007. He left some yards out there. Through three quarters he had 20 runs but only two of them had gone over ten yards (for 12 and 15). Then he broke off that 37-yarder (via a great lead block by Quinn Johnson) and it felt like the old days were back. But Grant still lacks the vision and speed (and downfield blocking) to be a consistent big-play threat.

What has been consistent this season is the scrimmage play. The Packer backs had only two negative plays all day. That makes 18 for the season, one of the very lowest rates in the league. Opponents aren't marauding into the Packer backfield as they did last year (and in 2007!). Grant can now run the inside zone without fear of being hunted down before he has even made it back to the LoS.

So, progress, but still a way to go.

My 'told you so' post hasn't changed from last week - he's not spectacular but he's a ways down the list of problems...

Will be interesting to see how this works going forward. Against other teams, "establishing what you can do" when that doesn't produce any points may be less useful!

I strongly agree with points that you made last week. A lot of Grant's runs in normal situations haven't been productive, even versus lowly Detroit. He doesn't run more than he does because MM doesn't trust running plays to be more successful. Unless a coach is very confident that his defense can shut down the opposition (cleveland example), it's hard to give away the ball. You want to get first downs and keep the ball. If running on 1st or 2nd downs isn't often enabling 1st downs, you're going to stop doing it.

I expect we'll have some typical 1st-down runs on Sunday. But if they don't work, MM will back off and throw more passes.

Down-and-distance has been mentioned. But one of the reasons down-and-distance often works against runs being called on 2nd down is, well, because so often bad 1st down runs are why 2nd down distances are unsuited. (Prior to Cleveland.)



Very important point. And, for a guy who you mention as a better run blocker, Sitton hasn't really allowed any of the multiple sacks. I think we may have a fixture.



What is your take on Barbre at this point? I'm hoping that he's really getting better. Is that just hope, Detroit, and Cleveland? Or is he really improving after all, and there's a chance that we have a keeper? I don't know what to think at this point.



I hadn't appreciated that. Thanks for a very important point.