PDA

View Full Version : Ryan Grant and Packers Agree on Deal


PACKmanN
08-02-2008, 10:46 PM
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080802/PKR01/80802080/1058

He agreed on a four-year deal that could pay him 30 million if he hits the incentives and escalators.

Thoughts? He will make a total of 8 million the first 2 years of the contract which I am not happy with.

The Dynasty
08-02-2008, 10:58 PM
A little bit to much for a guy who was effective but Only played 10 games or so.

BeerBaron
08-02-2008, 11:19 PM
They were in a sticky situation....its not often you see an "Exclusive Rights FA" in a situation like that. He was trying to avoid having league minimum contracts shoved in his face for the next few years so I don't blame him at all for wanting more....

And the Packers are already going to be shaky at QB with a guy going into his first year as a starter. No need to go in with major questions at RB too as Grant was the surest thing they had.

neko4
08-02-2008, 11:46 PM
A little bit to much for a guy who was effective but Only played 10 games or so.
Not as bad as what rookies get paid who havent even stepped on the field yet.

Turtlepower
08-02-2008, 11:52 PM
Not as bad as what rookies get paid who havent even stepped on the field yet.

That has absolutely no relevance to making a this deal.

neko4
08-02-2008, 11:58 PM
That has absolutely no relevance to making a this deal.
What Im saying is, that a guy who has played well in 10 games should make more money than a rookie who hasnt played. I know GM's dont care about that and probably doesnt factor into the deal.

BeerBaron
08-03-2008, 12:03 AM
What Im saying is, that a guy who has played well in 10 games should make more money than a rookie who hasnt played. I know GM's dont care about that and probably doesnt factor into the deal.

no, the GM's do care about that. If Grant's agent had walked in and demanded a deal better than the top drafted running back got, the GM would have laughed right in his face and told him to get out.

neko4
08-03-2008, 12:05 AM
no, the GM's do care about that. If Grant's agent had walked in and demanded a deal better than the top drafted running back got, the GM would have laughed right in his face and told him to get out.
If he laughs in his face, then doesnt that mean he doesnt care?

nobodyinparticular
08-03-2008, 12:11 AM
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080802/PKR01/80802080/1058

He agreed on a four-year deal that could pay him 30 million if he hits the incentives and escalators.

Thoughts? He will make a total of 8 million the first 2 years of the contract which I am not happy with.

8 million in the first 2 years isn't a big deal at all, especially when considering that it includes his signing bonus.

Boston
08-03-2008, 12:44 AM
That has absolutely no relevance to making a this deal.

What? Aren't most deals based in some way off of other, relatively similar, situations?

Turtlepower
08-03-2008, 12:47 AM
8 million in the first 2 years isn't a big deal at all, especially when considering that it includes his signing bonus.

4.25 million in year 1 and 8 million in year 2 was how I read it.

Boston
08-03-2008, 12:50 AM
Grant is assured of making $4.25 million this season and at least $8 million over the first two years of the deal, his agent Alan Herman said

That's not bad at all.

PACKmanN
08-03-2008, 12:51 AM
4.25 million in year 1 and 8 million in year 2 was how I read it.

"at least $8 million over the first two years of the deal"

I read it as 8 million over the first two years, meaning the first two years of his contract would be a total of 8 million.

Turtlepower
08-03-2008, 12:53 AM
"at least $8 million over the first two years of the deal"

I read it as 8 million over the first two years, meaning the first two years of his contract would be a total of 8 million.

Yeah, I read it wrong. I still think it is overpriced for a less than 1 year performance in an offensive scheme that is conducive to a lot of RBs.

themaninblack
08-03-2008, 12:56 AM
As long as this deal is incentive laden, then I don't really see a problem paying the man. He has succeeded in limited time so you give him some money to make him happy. At the same time you allow for him to make elite player money if he can perform. I don't see this as a bad deal at all for either side.

PACKmanN
08-03-2008, 02:48 AM
Yeah, I read it wrong. I still think it is overpriced for a less than 1 year performance in an offensive scheme that is conducive to a lot of RBs.
Yeah I agree, I really don't like the amount we paid, compared to what Graham got from the Bucs.

nobodyinparticular
08-03-2008, 02:56 AM
Yeah, I read it wrong. I still think it is overpriced for a less than 1 year performance in an offensive scheme that is conducive to a lot of RBs.

I don't think people understand. That "$4.25 million in the first year" includes Ryan Grant's signing bonus--i.e. the stuff that is prorated over the length of the contract.

no love
08-03-2008, 03:31 AM
Yeah I agree, I really don't like the amount we paid, compared to what Graham got from the Bucs.

Are you kidding? Graham upside is not even close to that of Grant. Grant is only 25 in his second year, he is only going to get better with more experience and time in the offense. Grahams is 28 and has been with the same system for five years. Plus Grants 5.1 ypc makes him look like superman to average Grahams 4.0 ypc.

Grant could very well be the future of the Packers run game who lacked a feature back. Graham is no more than a stopgap till Caddy gets back to health. They are very different situations.

You should be happy that you locked up a young player to a long term deal that is not an enormous cap number.

Ness
08-03-2008, 03:39 AM
Hopefully he lives up to the contract.

PACKmanN
08-03-2008, 04:08 AM
Are you kidding? Graham upside is not even close to that of Grant. Grant is only 25 in his second year, he is only going to get better with more experience and time in the offense. Grahams is 28 and has been with the same system for five years. Plus Grants 5.1 ypc makes him look like superman to average Grahams 4.0 ypc.

Grant could very well be the future of the Packers run game who lacked a feature back. Graham is no more than a stopgap till Caddy gets back to health. They are very different situations.

You should be happy that you locked up a young player to a long term deal that is not an enormous cap number.

I used an example. Grant is still similar to Graham. One year production that would be credited to the o-line. I can not tell if Grant has greater upside then Graham or less. The thing I can tell you is that he has only produced for 10 games.

Bengalsrocket
08-03-2008, 07:05 AM
I didn't get to watch too many packers games last year (only like 3) but from what I saw and what I can imaging, Favre had that defense pretty far stretched out. On top of that, that offense line was making some good holes. I can't separate Grant's talent from his surrounding cast to figure out which one was the cause of his success.

However, the money doesn't seem to be that big of a problem, I wouldn't make a huge stink out of a 8 million over two years if a large part of it is including his signing bonus. And if he hits the hard incentives isn't that just a good thing for the packers? lol

NY+Giants=NYG
08-03-2008, 09:43 AM
I would have said let him play for 1 year before offering a contract. If he wanted to sit out, let him, you're system is mainly responsible for the success of the running game. He is a perfect fit for the things your trying to do, but it isn't him alone. And to see how things would go without Favre, I want to see him play for a fullseason without Brett. If he can still come up with huge numbers, then I have no problem with giving him a deal. Thought they gave in to this.

Actually I wonder how much PR actually plays a factor. A GM can play hard ball with him too, but then it can make people even more mad, because they may call TT and the front office cheap for offering Favre 20 million to sit out, but not pay Grant. So I can see this move as a PR move to say, ok well, at least now we have our running back at camp.

bigbluedefense
08-03-2008, 11:12 AM
Grant is a decent/solid RB, nothing more. He was 4th string on our team for a reason.

The Packers run game is built on that offensive line, the run blocking schemes, and a spread set that reduces the amount of bodies in the box. Grant is more of a product of the scheme than a great RB. He's good, don't get me wrong, but he's not great. He's very replaceable.


The Packers just don't have any RBs at all. None. Thats why they were forced to pay Grant his money. They made a mistake of not going after a RB in this deep class. For example, Choice in the 4th round. Tashard Choice wouldve gave you everything Grant gives you plus more, and for a hell of a lot less money.


Having that said, it wouldn't surprise me to see him have a great year. But the #s don't tell the whole story. I credit the guys around Grant moreso than Grant himself when discussing the Packers run game. Theres very few RBs in this league that aren't the byproduct of the guys around them and are actually worth a large financial investment in. So this doesn't just go for Grant, but RBs in general.

TitleTown088
08-03-2008, 11:37 AM
For all of you arguing Grant is a product of the system... Do you remember the Packers run game before he came along?









Yeah, me either.

NY+Giants=NYG
08-03-2008, 12:02 PM
For all of you arguing Grant is a product of the system... Do you remember the Packers run game before he came along?









Yeah, me either.

O Grant still is, but he is a better fit than the other RBs you and I, and everyone else can't remember. There was a reason why you guys traded for him. He has the perfect skills for your system, but still doesn't make him a top notch runner. He is a good back, in a great system, and I am happy for him. But my point is your system, offensive formations, and play design is pretty damn sick! Put in "a good fit" for that system, and I am not suprised at his success.

Geo
08-03-2008, 12:09 PM
I think BBD is severely underrating Grant, I'd take him over any of the Giants' runningbacks. He's a very good combo of vision, speed, and power. He could improve a bit as a receiver, but he's almost fluid the way he moves through the first 5-10 yards past the LOS. Perfect fit for the Packers, well beyond the rest of their runningbacks so I'll agree with BBD on that point (Jackson and Wynn are more of a banger mold than slasher mold).

I have much less of a problem with this signing than the Cowboys' major deal for Marion Barber, which struck me as stupid when I heard it and still feel the same. It's completely stupid to give that much money to Barber, when they drafted Felix Jones in the 1st freaking round and Tashard Choice (who can't break a homerun like Grant, dream on BBD), when Barber plays such a physical game, and when they have serious concerns about the pathetic future at WR and the need to sign DeMarcus Ware long-term. You don't give that much money to a runningback when you have a franchise quarterback who can win you games, you give that quarterback weapons so he can do that.

NY+Giants=NYG
08-03-2008, 12:47 PM
I think BBD is severely underrating Grant, I'd take him over any of the Giants' runningbacks. He's a very good combo of vision, speed, and power. He could improve a bit as a receiver, but he's almost fluid the way he moves through the first 5-10 yards past the LOS. Perfect fit for the Packers, well beyond the rest of their runningbacks so I'll agree with BBD on that point (Jackson and Wynn are more of a banger mold than slasher mold).

I have much less of a problem with this signing than the Cowboys' major deal for Marion Barber, which struck me as stupid when I heard it and still feel the same. It's completely stupid to give that much money to Barber, when they drafted Felix Jones in the 1st freaking round and Tashard Choice (who can't break a homerun like Grant, dream on BBD), when Barber plays such a physical game, and when they have serious concerns about the pathetic future at WR and the need to sign DeMarcus Ware long-term. You don't give that much money to a runningback when you have a franchise quarterback who can win you games, you give that quarterback weapons so he can do that.

See that makes no sense.. So our 4th string RB, which Grant was, you'd take over our others? So you think our whole staff, front office and coaching made a mistake in seeing this? If he wasn't traded, he very well could be cut. I doubt he would have made the roster over Ward or Droughns.

Dude, he is a good player, in a sick system, with damn good offensive linemen. That's all he is. I actually agree with BBD in this case, especially since he was on our team.

ForOneDayHeWouldBeKing
08-03-2008, 12:56 PM
See that makes no sense.. So our 4th string RB, which Grant was, you'd take over our others? So you think our whole staff, front office and coaching made a mistake in seeing this? If he wasn't traded, he very well could be cut. I doubt he would have made the roster over Ward or Droughns.

Dude, he is a good player, in a sick system, with damn good offensive linemen. That's all he is. I actually agree with BBD in this case, especially since he was on our team.

So you actually think Grant isn't good enough to make the Giants roster? He outperformed every Giants runningback last season.

Also, the Packers run blocking was very inconsistent last season. They are built to pass block and it shows because they certainly do not dominate the run game.

Geo
08-03-2008, 01:06 PM
So Grant was undrafted and 4th string with the Giants last preseason before Green Bay traded for him. Heck, he was probably 4th string with the Packers behind Jackson, Morency, and Wynn. Who cares. Once he got his chance, Grant proved he can play and play very well. I'd take him over Willis McGahee who came into the league as a first round pick.

And the Giants run a very-good run-blocking offense themselves, as evidenced by a solid JAG like Ward coming in and doing very well until he broke his leg. I find it funny that we're giving so much credit to the Packers' offensive line but not the Giants' offensive line when it comes to their runningbacks. Maybe Jeremy Shockey blocked all seven guys on his lonesome, that's it, up until he got traded of course.

NY+Giants=NYG
08-03-2008, 01:10 PM
So you actually think Grant isn't good enough to make the Giants roster? He outperformed every Giants runningback last season.

Also, the Packers run blocking was very inconsistent last season. They are built to pass block and it shows because they certainly do not dominate the run game.

Nope, we weren't going to keep him. He wouldn't have fit in OUR system. Our system isn't the same as GB's system. Like i said a guy who couldn't crack our roster, had great success in another system, with their players executing that system. He was very productive in that system, which is one of the reasons why I never compare people in different systems, ie top 10 RBs, top 10 qbs, and junk like that. He played very well, but after watching that packers team play last season, and really figuring out how that system works, and what formations they use, I put alot of the success to their OC, and his creativity, and the offensive linemen. Just a very good system, and they managed to find a back that fits perfectly. Kudos to them on making that deal.

Now having said that, he isn't the right fit in our system, and thus never really rose in the depth charts for us.

bigbluedefense
08-03-2008, 01:10 PM
Grant is not better than our running backs. Not at least in our system. I think thats the point that me and Shock are trying to make. Grant is great for that system, but if you stuck him in a different one he becomes an average back rather quickly. Case in point, the Giants knew Grant like the back of our hand after practicing with him for 2+ years, and what happens in the NFC Championship game? He gets 20 yards. All we had to do was figure out that run blocking scheme and attack that, and force Grant to make things happen on his own against us. He couldn't do it. If you throw any RB with decent power, speed and cutback ability in that Packer system, they will flourish. Its the system more than its Grant. Theres a lot of RBs that would thrive in GB.

The problem for GB was besides Grant, they had terrible RBs. None had the vision, cutback, or power (outside a healthy Wynn, who btw was doing very well until he got hurt) to work in that system. Grant did, and he flourished. But stick Grant in say, Buffalo, and he'll be lucky to get 1000 yards over 16 games.

And theres no way on earth he's better than Ahmad Bradshaw. I might be alone in this, but if Bradshaw can keep his head on straight he's the next Brian Westbrook. He's a beast in the making. And for all the knocks I have on Brandon Jacobs, he had the 2nd highest YPC next to AD last year. Ward averaged 4.8 YPC which is not shabby either. And they weren't running against 6 in the box like Grant was.

I honestly think that had Wynn never gotten injured he wouldve been the breakout story that Grant is today. Wynn was doing well in GB and with more touches was getting more and more comfortable in that system. The problem with Wynn is that he'll never stay healthy. Its not Grant, its the system.

Ive seen Grant play longer than most GB fans, considering he's only been in GB for less than a year and played for around half a season. I know Ryan Grant. Throw Ryan Grant in Chicago, and he'd be an average player. He wouldn't suck by any means, but he's not a top tier RB either.


But like i said, most RBs these days aren't. Very few RBs are special, which is why im a big fan of the RBC.

Paranoidmoonduck
08-03-2008, 01:11 PM
I don't really like the deal in the grand scope of things. Zone Blocking running schemes have a history of one-year wonders who falter or don't quite produce the following year, and who knows how a Favre-less Packers will keep teams from stacking the line.

Comparing Grant's contract to someone like Justin Fargas (3 years, 12 million, 2 million of which is incentive), Grant definitely got an excess of money. However, Fargas is known as an injury risk and he's 3 years older than Grant.

Green Bay has protected themselves decently with this deal. The only Grant collects the full amount is to be a top runner the next few seasons, so that is a win-win for the Pack. I think the overall value of the deal is too high, but the Packers needed Grant in camp and they had to overpay to do it.

bigbluedefense
08-03-2008, 01:13 PM
So Grant was undrafted and 4th string with the Giants last preseason before Green Bay traded for him. Heck, he was probably 4th string with the Packers behind Jackson, Morency, and Wynn. Who cares. Once he got his chance, Grant proved he can play and play very well. I'd take him over Willis McGahee who came into the league as a first round pick.

And the Giants run a very-good run-blocking offense themselves, as evidenced by a solid JAG like Ward coming in and doing very well until he broke his leg. I find it funny that we're giving so much credit to the Packers' offensive line but not the Giants' offensive line when it comes to their runningbacks. Maybe Jeremy Shockey blocked all seven guys on his lonesome, that's it, up until he got traded of course.

thats bc our RBs are the product of the system as well. i'll never toute Jacobs or Ward as top tier guys. I see Bradshaw having that potential, but he's not there yet. Thats why I rave about Bradshaw. Thats also why I never felt losing Barber was that big of a deal as many outsiders felt it was. Our run game is the product of the system as well. The only RB we have that I can see flourish anywhere is Ahmad Bradshaw.


Ward and Grant are mirror images of each other in a sense that they thrive on their respective systems. Outside of the system, theyre average guys.

As for our oline, its one of the best run blocking units in the league. Its weakness however is pass protection, in particular, containing speed rushers on the edges.

Geo
08-03-2008, 01:15 PM
LOL. This cracks me up. The same few cutbacks Bradshaw makes, Grant does it better and more often. And Grant is bigger and yet more of a fluid runner. Grant has better vision inside than either Bradshaw or Jacobs, at least what Bradshaw exhibited this past season (fair to mention that he is a rookie).

Because the Giants defense stifled the Packers' running game, that is Grant's fault. Okay, sure. Put Grant on the one-yard line against the Giants and see if he doesn't score like Jacobs and Bradshaw did. Mind you, Bradshaw was stopped like the scat back he is, "he scored a TD" because his lineman bear-hugged him and took him into the endzone for the score. But that's all Bradshaw, because he's the next Westbrook. Sure.

NY+Giants=NYG
08-03-2008, 01:19 PM
So Grant was undrafted and 4th string with the Giants last preseason before Green Bay traded for him. Heck, he was probably 4th string with the Packers behind Jackson, Morency, and Wynn. Who cares. Once he got his chance, Grant proved he can play and play very well. I'd take him over Willis McGahee who came into the league as a first round pick.

And the Giants run a very-good run-blocking offense themselves, as evidenced by a solid JAG like Ward coming in and doing very well until he broke his leg. I find it funny that we're giving so much credit to the Packers' offensive line but not the Giants' offensive line when it comes to their runningbacks. Maybe Jeremy Shockey blocked all seven guys on his lonesome, that's it, up until he got traded of course.

Geo, you're missing the point completely man. Yes we have a good run blocking offensive line, BUT WE RUN A DIFFERENT SYSTEM! Within our system, he couldn't do what we asked him to do effectively like the other backs. We saw he had talent, hence us signing him, and bringing him back I believe 2 training camps or so.

But we many different concepts that GB doesn't run on offense. The two systems are night and day dude! Yes both offensive linemen are good for their respective teams, but they execute different systems at a high level. He didn't fit in our system, and when he had a shot couldn't do it. So he gets traded to a system that can best showcase his abilities.

As for Shockey he was a huge part of our running game. Once he went down, we couldn't run our bread and butter play,( favorite play) on offense anymore effectively, because Boss would get his jock handed to him consistently.

bigbluedefense
08-03-2008, 01:20 PM
LOL. This cracks me up. The same few cutbacks Bradshaw makes, Grant does it better and more often. And Grant is bigger and yet more of a fluid runner. Grant has better vision inside than either Bradshaw or Jacobs, at least what Bradshaw exhibited this past season (fair to mention that he is a rookie).

Because the Giants defense stifled the Packers' running game, that is Grant's fault. Okay, sure. Put Grant on the one-yard line against the Giants and see if he doesn't score like Jacobs and Bradshaw did. Mind you, Bradshaw was stopped like the scat back he is, "he scored a TD" because his lineman bear-hugged him and took him into the endzone for the score. But that's all Bradshaw, because he's the next Westbrook. Sure.

Grant is not even close to Bradshaw when it comes to burst, speed, or cutback ability. Bradshaw is almost identical to Westbrook in those categories. Bradshaw has some of the best vision and balance ive seen of any RB in the league. The only issue with him is his size and potential durability. Thats the only reason why I haven't hailed him as already as good as Westbrook. He can block, run, catch, he can do everything Westbrook can, he even runs harder between the tackles. However, he's still unproven and needs to show he can handle an excess of carries before I declare him that good without caution.

Grant is Derrick Ward with less ability in the pass game. Thats why we cut Grant and kept Ward. I think youre severely overrating Ryan Grant.

And Grant cuts back more often bc we're not a cutback run game. Its built for power runs on the outside. Not to mention our sample size of Bradshaw is much smaller than that of Grant.

Geo
08-03-2008, 01:22 PM
And theres no way on earth he's better than Ahmad Bradshaw. I might be alone in this, but if Bradshaw can keep his head on straight he's the next Brian Westbrook. He's a beast in the making. And for all the knocks I have on Brandon Jacobs, he had the 2nd highest YPC next to AD last year. Ward averaged 4.8 YPC which is not shabby either. And they weren't running against 6 in the box like Grant was.
That's a complete load of BS that Grant was running against six in the box. Look at the games against Carolina, Oakland, Seattle, and so on. More like eight in the box, than six.

To be fair, Green Bay had a tight end blocking and a fullback, as they sought to accentuate their running game once Grant emerged.

bigbluedefense
08-03-2008, 01:26 PM
Im probably coming off as a Grant hater when thats not my intentions. I just think he's being overrated based on the production that his #s indicate.


According to the #s, Jacobs was just as effective as AD. I think you'd have to be legally insane to think Jacobs is anywhere near the RB AD is.

Grant is solid, but he's nothing to lose sleep over. I guarantee you if GB had a credible backup RB behind Grant they wouldn't make this deal. Only reason why this deal was done was because GB had no leverage to be able to walk away from him without skipping a beat on offense.

ForOneDayHeWouldBeKing
08-03-2008, 01:32 PM
Im probably coming off as a Grant hater when thats not my intentions. I just think he's being overrated based on the production that his #s indicate.


According to the #s, Jacobs was just as effective as AD. I think you'd have to be legally insane to think Jacobs is anywhere near the RB AD is.

Grant is solid, but he's nothing to lose sleep over. I guarantee you if GB had a credible backup RB behind Grant they wouldn't make this deal. Only reason why this deal was done was because GB had no leverage to be able to walk away from him without skipping a beat on offense.

Are you kidding me? How is Jacobs as effective as AD from a statistical perspective?

http://i34.tinypic.com/3006zc2.jpg

NY+Giants=NYG
08-03-2008, 01:37 PM
That's a complete load of BS that Grant was running against six in the box. Look at the games against Carolina, Oakland, Seattle, and so on. More like eight in the box, than six.

To be fair, Green Bay had a tight end blocking and a fullback, as they sought to accentuate their running game once Grant emerged.

Grant is no where near the player Bradshaw has from a skill set point of view. Bradshaw had a 3rd-4th round round grade on him, but dropped due to that college character incident. And for the record I am not Jacobs fan, I think our most talented runner is Bradshaw. I think from a talent, skill set point of view he is better than Jacobs, Ward, Droughns, and Grant.

8 in the box means nothing from what they run. They run outside zone, inside zone, and stretch, but this is where the creativity makes in from their OC. They run 2 concepts in one play!!! That's amazing in my opinion, so meaning, they run outside zone on the playside, and LEAD on the backside. And to do this they have 2 FBs in the backfield, as any GB fan can agree on. From I saw they run one RB playside, and the other targeting the trailing backside LB. And Grant does have good vision, and good agility, and balance that allows him to make a read playside, and if nothing is open, he can follow the backside LB, and take off. Great, Great play design in my option. So if the players all flow playside to stop outside zone, then he can cut back and hit the weakside option, and catch the whole freakin defense flowing the wrong way!!!

Look at the diagram below. First row, upper right play. Actually the more people in the box the better, because you get people flowing one way, and because they combo, and chip off they can leach themselves onto the 2nd level guys, meaning there are less players in the 3rd level.

In the play I mentioned below, if Strahan doesn't make that tackle, we are in trouble. That TE shivers Strahan and chips off and gets the SS. The weakside FB gets the weakside LB, meaning no one is left to catch Grant if he breaks out. It's honestly a sick system! I wish we did more of that, then what we do, to tell you truth. I think our system is pretty damn boring!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/Minion6990/GB-NYG%20NFCCG/gbrun1_0001.jpg

bigbluedefense
08-03-2008, 01:37 PM
Are you kidding me? How is Jacobs as effective as AD from a statistical perspective?

http://i34.tinypic.com/3006zc2.jpg

look at those #s again, and tell me if you see a glaring difference statistically between the 2.


Peterson mind you played 3 more games and essentially rushed for 300 more yards in the season than Jacobs did.

They are not very far off from a statistical perspective. But Jacobs isn't even 30% of the RB that Peterson is. It goes beyond the numbers, and thats the case for Ryan Grant as well. While he, similarly to Jacobs, puts up great #s, he's not the RB that those numbers indicate. He's just not.


I give props to those who I feel deserve it. I never hate on the game of another player just because he doesn't play for my team, I give credit where credit is due. And I like Grant, but I just think that he's being severely overrated based on last season. I know Ryan Grant. Theres a lot of RBs in this league that I would take over Ryan Grant.

bigbluedefense
08-03-2008, 01:41 PM
Shock always explains it so much better lol. Love having a poster like that post for us, he diagrams everything. Can't wait to see your breakdowns this year Shock.

It adds more validity to what we're trying to say.

ForOneDayHeWouldBeKing
08-03-2008, 01:41 PM
look at those #s again, and tell me if you see a glaring difference statistically between the 2.


Peterson mind you played 3 more games and essentially rushed for 300 more yards in the season than Jacobs did.

They are not very far off from a statistical perspective. But Jacobs isn't even 30% of the RB that Peterson is. It goes beyond the numbers, and thats the case for Ryan Grant as well. While he, similarly to Jacobs, puts up great #s, he's not the RB that those numbers indicate. He's just not.


I give props to those who I feel deserve it. I never hate on the game of another player just because he doesn't play for my team, I give credit where credit is due. And I like Grant, but I just think that he's being severely overrated based on last season. I know Ryan Grant. Theres a lot of RBs in this league that I would take over Ryan Grant.

Peterson averages 0.6 more YPC, which is a ton for that statistic. That alone shows you the difference in caliber statistically. Throw in the fact that he has 3 times the amount of touchdowns, 300+ more yards, more receiving yards, etc. and it's not close. If you think they are close statistically, then basically every starting RB in the league could be said to be similar statistically to each other.

You would take Drougns and Ward over Grant? That is laughable.

bigbluedefense
08-03-2008, 01:47 PM
Peterson averages 0.6 more YPC, which is a ton for that statistic. That alone shows you the difference in caliber statistically. Throw in the fact that he has 3 times the amount of touchdowns, 300+ more yards, more receiving yards, etc. and it's not close. If you think they are close statistically, then basically every starting RB in the league could be said to be similar statistically to each other.

1. Jacobs wasn't our goalline back for the majority of the season. Rouben Droughns was. (why?...no idea, ask Coughlin. i think its bc Jacobs runs high and can fumble).

2. Jacobs doesn't run many WR routes bc our system asks the RB to stay in and block majority of the time. We abandoned this vertical strike offense in the playoffs for the most part, but for the majority of the season still ran it. (Which is a big reason why Ive been saying for 3 years now that we need to rid of the vertical style offense for Eli to flourish. We rid it in the playoffs along with option routes, and like magic, Eli shines. It wasn't coincidence. It wasn't an imaginary "corner" being turned, it was a coaching adjustment that us Giant fans have been begging for 3 years now to happen).

3. Peterson in 3 more games played, really only rushed for 300 more yards. That was a very reachable plateau for Jacobs had he played an equal amount of games to Peterson.

So yes, in my opinion, they were similar statistically. Not even close as players, but statistically I do feel they were similar.

ForOneDayHeWouldBeKing
08-03-2008, 01:52 PM
1. Jacobs wasn't our goalline back for the majority of the season. Rouben Droughns was. (why?...no idea, ask Coughlin. i think its bc Jacobs runs high and can fumble).

2. Jacobs doesn't run many WR routes bc our system asks the RB to stay in and block majority of the time. We abandoned this vertical strike offense in the playoffs for the most part, but for the majority of the season still ran it. (Which is a big reason why Ive been saying for 3 years now that we need to rid of the vertical style offense for Eli to flourish. We rid it in the playoffs along with option routes, and like magic, Eli shines. It wasn't coincidence. It wasn't an imaginary "corner" being turned, it was a coaching adjustment that us Giant fans have been begging for 3 years now to happen).

3. Peterson in 3 more games played, really only rushed for 300 more yards. That was a very reachable plateau for Jacobs had he played an equal amount of games to Peterson.

So yes, in my opinion, they were similar statistically. Not even close as players, but statistically I do feel they were similar.

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about if you think those stats don't clearly show that Peterson is significantly better from a statistical standpoint. 0.6 YPC is a huge difference for NFL RBs and Peterson has him beat in essentially every statistical category.

NY+Giants=NYG
08-03-2008, 01:54 PM
Shock always explains it so much better lol. Love having a poster like that post for us, he diagrams everything. Can't wait to see your breakdowns this year Shock.

It adds more validity to what we're trying to say.

Well when it comes to our offense, I certainly know what I am talking about. Usually I don't really care about our defense. I just fast forward through that "boring" stuff! But I saw right away this GB system was damn creative, and so I documented their formations, and their passing and running plays, and I loved it. Compared to them, our stuff is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo boring!

I am still applying to college programs, and then try HS, but if I can't get on this year, the one positive will mean I can actually watch all the games early on in the season in detail.

Football is turning into a #s thing now. NO one watches to see what plays are being run and strategy involved. The AVG fan just looks at #s, or for the younger ones, uses madden rating, and fantasy league points for players to judge, who is good and who is bad. I see this watching some of the younger Giants members on Giants.com, since I mod there. I had this talk with a DC for one of the HS teams on our giants.com board. Madden, and FF league are killing football. #s is good to analyze as a supplement to what's going on.

But if you really want to learn more about the game, disregard all #s, and see how each player can run the same play. So for us see who Jacobs runs "power" vs Bradshaw. Then see how the results changfe when Shockey went down. How does production change based on 1 player gettng injuried? It happened for us. Jacobs couldn't run power without Shockey sealing the edge, but Bradshaw could because he has better vision, and agility than Jacobs.

bigbluedefense
08-03-2008, 01:57 PM
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about if you think those stats don't clearly show that Peterson is significantly better from a statistical standpoint. 0.6 YPC is a huge difference for NFL RBs and Peterson has him beat in essentially every statistical category.

actually, Id make an argument that Jacobs has him beat in the pass game statistics, or at the very least, was equal, considering he played 3 less games.

which is a point that should not be overlooked.

.6 yards per carry is a huge difference when we're talking about 3.8 compared to 4.4

when you average 5+ ypc, youre doing pretty good regardless. at that point, the significance of the deviation is less significant.

ForOneDayHeWouldBeKing
08-03-2008, 02:00 PM
actually, Id make an argument that Jacobs has him beat in the pass game statistics, or at the very least, was equal, considering he played 3 less games.

which is a point that should not be overlooked.

.6 yards per carry is a huge difference when we're talking about 3.8 compared to 4.4

when you average 5+ ypc, youre doing pretty good regardless. at that point, the significance of the deviation is less significant.

Your homer shades are beyond ridiculous if you believe what you're writing.

BeerBaron
08-03-2008, 02:05 PM
BBD, I would really like to try and stop you here..... I can see a little bit of your points but your arguments are becoming a bit crazy man.

AP and Jacobs have a few things in common sure, and the stats aren't all that wildly far apart, but....c'mon man. AP was a rookie and had one HELL of a season for a rookie even with missing a few games. Both guys were also injured for portions of last year so you can't even really use the injury prone argument to want to take Jacobs over AP.

I think right now, if you polled the board on who would you rather add to your team right now, AP or Jacobs, absolutely everyone is going to take AP. Jacobs is a good back but AP had godly potential if he can avoid injuries.

So while I can see the semblings of a point in what you say......its just sounding like mad homer craziness.

bigbluedefense
08-03-2008, 02:08 PM
BBD, I would really like to try and stop you here..... I can see a little bit of your points but your arguments are becoming a bit crazy man.

AP and Jacobs have a few things in common sure, and the stats aren't all that wildly far apart, but....c'mon man. AP was a rookie and had one HELL of a season for a rookie even with missing a few games. Both guys were also injured for portions of last year so you can't even really use the injury prone argument to want to take Jacobs over AP.

I think right now, if you polled the board on who would you rather add to your team right now, AP or Jacobs, absolutely everyone is going to take AP. Jacobs is a good back but AP had godly potential if he can avoid injuries.

So while I can see the semblings of a point in what you say......its just sounding like mad homer craziness.

Nooo, youre mistaking my point. Ive clearly stated that AD is 1 billion times the player that Jacobs is.

I was using stats as a way of saying, based on statistics, they seem to be not far off from each other from a skill perspective, when in fact that is far from the truth. Jacobs is 30% of the RB AD is, yet according to stats, they at the very least seem both to be pretty good. Like i said, 5.6 ypc compared to 5.0 ypc is pretty good considering they both have a sick ypc average.

I brought that up to illustrate how stats are useless in football. A lot of ppl will claim that Grant is a great RB and throw the stats out. Im using this specific example as a means of illustrating how stats don't necessarily show the true worth of a player.

Get what im saying now? Maybe Im not being clear with how im trying to word my arguments.

ForOneDayHeWouldBeKing
08-03-2008, 02:12 PM
Nooo, youre mistaking my point. Ive clearly stated that AD is 1 billion times the player that Jacobs is.

I was using stats as a way of saying, based on statistics, they seem to be not far off from each other from a skill perspective, when in fact that is far from the truth. Jacobs is 30% of the RB AD is, yet according to stats, they at the very least seem both to be pretty good. Like i said, 5.6 ypc compared to 5.0 ypc is pretty good considering they both have a sick ypc average.

I brought that up to illustrate how stats are useless in football. A lot of ppl will claim that Grant is a great RB and throw the stats out. Im using this specific example as a means of illustrating how stats don't necessarily show the true worth of a player.

Get what im saying now? Maybe Im not being clear with how im trying to word my arguments.

Statistics are a measure of how productive a player was. Basically you're trying to argue that Jacobs was about as productive as Peterson. That is just blind homerism.

bigbluedefense
08-03-2008, 02:12 PM
Im probably coming off as a Grant hater when thats not my intentions. I just think he's being overrated based on the production that his #s indicate.


According to the #s, Jacobs was just as effective as AD. I think you'd have to be legally insane to think Jacobs is anywhere near the RB AD is.

Grant is solid, but he's nothing to lose sleep over. I guarantee you if GB had a credible backup RB behind Grant they wouldn't make this deal. Only reason why this deal was done was because GB had no leverage to be able to walk away from him without skipping a beat on offense.

highlighted for emphasis.

BeerBaron
08-03-2008, 02:13 PM
Nooo, youre mistaking my point. Ive clearly stated that AD is 1 billion times the player that Jacobs is.

I was using stats as a way of saying, based on statistics, they seem to be not far off from each other from a skill perspective, when in fact that is far from the truth. Jacobs is 30% of the RB AD is, yet according to stats, they at the very least seem both to be pretty good. Like i said, 5.6 ypc compared to 5.0 ypc is pretty good considering they both have a sick ypc average.

I brought that up to illustrate how stats are useless in football. A lot of ppl will claim that Grant is a great RB and throw the stats out. Im using this specific example as a means of illustrating how stats don't necessarily show the true worth of a player.

Get what im saying now? Maybe Im not being clear with how im trying to word my arguments.

Right, right, I get what your saying but to someone coming in in the middle of that (me) it sounded pretty bad for you....and I think several other people made the mistake too.

Anyways, if you go back to my initial post in all of this, I said that Grant was simply the best the Packers had which is true, and with already going into this season with questions at QB (presumably) theres no need to go in with questions at RB as the guys behind Grant on the roster are even less experienced than he is. It was an awkward situation for both the team and the player as you rarely see an Exclusive Rights FA turn out this way. He was facing something like 2 more seasons of the league minimum salary if he didn't get a new deal and clearly, he deserves more than that at least....

So yeah, I think you got a little off track there, heh

NY+Giants=NYG
08-03-2008, 02:14 PM
Nooo, youre mistaking my point. Ive clearly stated that AD is 1 billion times the player that Jacobs is.

I was using stats as a way of saying, based on statistics, they seem to be not far off from each other from a skill perspective, when in fact that is far from the truth. Jacobs is 30% of the RB AD is, yet according to stats, they at the very least seem both to be pretty good. Like i said, 5.6 ypc compared to 5.0 ypc is pretty good considering they both have a sick ypc average.

I brought that up to illustrate how stats are useless in football. A lot of ppl will claim that Grant is a great RB and throw the stats out. Im using this specific example as a means of illustrating how stats don't necessarily show the true worth of a player.

Get what im saying now? Maybe Im not being clear with how im trying to word my arguments.


I see what you're saying.. Tell me if I am close in stating what your talking about.




The issue I see is talent vs talent & one from a production standpoint (stats).
Someone can be a BILLION times better, in terms of skill set, than another player, and still have similar production or stats. Now that doesn't mean they are close in talent. It just means production was similiar for whatever reason.

I think he is talking about production(stats) point. Everyone knows that AP is better, in terms of skill set than Jacobs. Hell, I'd rather start Bradshaw than Jacobs, but that's whole different topic.

But talent vs talent is one topic, and production as it reflects in stats vs another plays stats is another topic. He is just comparing production without saying who is better, because he knows AP is better than Jacobs. People to need realize someone stats can be similar, but talent can be worlds apart.

bigbluedefense
08-03-2008, 02:14 PM
Statistics are a measure of how productive a player was. Basically you're trying to argue that Jacobs was about as productive as Peterson. That is just blind homerism.

stats mean nothing in football. and i suggest you either reread my posts more carefully, or improve your reading comprehension skills.

Twiddler
08-03-2008, 02:16 PM
Statistics are a measure of how productive a player was. Basically you're trying to argue that Jacobs was about as productive as Peterson. That is just blind homerism.

Did you read his post? At all?

bigbluedefense
08-03-2008, 02:17 PM
Right, right, I get what your saying but to someone coming in in the middle of that (me) it sounded pretty bad for you....and I think several other people made the mistake too.

Anyways, if you go back to my initial post in all of this, I said that Grant was simply the best the Packers had which is true, and with already going into this season with questions at QB (presumably) theres no need to go in with questions at RB as the guys behind Grant on the roster are even less experienced than he is. It was an awkward situation for both the team and the player as you rarely see an Exclusive Rights FA turn out this way. He was facing something like 2 more seasons of the league minimum salary if he didn't get a new deal and clearly, he deserves more than that at least....

So yeah, I think you got a little off track there, heh

no, i agree with you. ive stated that too. i feel that theyve given him the money bc basically they had no other options. they had terrible depth behind him, and had to pay him or at least get him on the field in some way for them to have a successful running attack this year.

ForOneDayHeWouldBeKing
08-03-2008, 02:17 PM
stats mean nothing in football. and i suggest you either reread my posts more carefully, or improve your reading comprehension skills.

I never said statistics were important. I said they are a measure of productivity, which Shock agrees with as evidenced by his post above.

You're trying to argue that last season Brandon Jacobs and Adrian Peterson produced at a similar level. I know that you're not talking about their skill, talent, or whatever else and I'm not either. But Peterson was significantly more productive, and thus significantly better statistically. Saying otherwise is just stupid.

Draft King
08-03-2008, 02:19 PM
I understand BBD's argument, and actually tend to agree with it.

bigbluedefense
08-03-2008, 02:21 PM
I see what you're saying.. Tell me if I am close in stating what your talking about.




The issue I see is talent vs talent & one from a production standpoint (stats).
Someone can be a BILLION times better, in terms of skill set, than another player, and still have similar production or stats. Now that doesn't mean they are close in talent. It just means production was similiar for whatever reason.

I think he is talking about production(stats) point. Everyone knows that AP is better, in terms of skill set than Jacobs. Hell, I'd rather start Bradshaw than Jacobs, but that's whole different topic.

But talent vs talent is one topic, and production as it reflects in stats vs another plays stats is another topic. He is just comparing production without saying who is better, because he knows AP is better than Jacobs. People to need realize someone stats can be similar, but talent can be worlds apart.

exactly. thats why when we analyze players, i try to stray away from looking at statistics, because in football they only tell 20% of the real story. the Xs and Os in football and the big picture is much more telling than any ypc, TD total or any other useless stat will tell you. Maybe in fantasy football this means something, but not in real football.

AD vs Jacobs is what i felt a good example of how misleading stats can be in football.



And to the Packer fans, I want to make this clear. I think Grant is solid, and I think he's a great match for your scheme. All Im saying is, he's not a top tier RB even though he seems like one. He's a replaceable player. He's great, but a lot of players would be great in that system. If anything, its more of a compliment to McCarthey and the great run blocking scheme you guys run. It really is brilliant, and I love McCarthey as a coach. He's a brilliant coach who runs a brilliant system.

Draft King
08-03-2008, 02:23 PM
I never said statistics were important. I said they are a measure of productivity, which Shock agrees with as evidenced by his post above.

You're trying to argue that last season Brandon Jacobs and Adrian Peterson produced at a similar level. I know that you're not talking about their skill, talent, or whatever else and I'm not either. But Peterson was significantly more productive, and thus significantly better statistically. Saying otherwise is just stupid.

He's trying to argue that stats don't mean anything. Take Jerious Norwood's YPC, which is up on par with Adrian Peterson. All Day is still the better back, but what those stats say is that if Norwood had the same amount of carries he would be just as good. He's just trying to shun off the Packers fans who will bring up Grant's stats in those 10 games, and trying to claim he's an elite RB.

ForOneDayHeWouldBeKing
08-03-2008, 02:25 PM
He's trying to argue that stats don't mean anything. Take Jerious Norwood's YPC, which is up on par with Adrian Peterson. All Day is still the better back, but what those stats say is that if Norwood had the same amount of carries he would be just as good. He's just trying to shun off the Packers fans who will bring up Grant's stats in those 10 games, and trying to claim he's an elite RB.

I agree that statistics do not tell the whole story. But to argue that STATISTICALLY Brandon Jacobs and Adrian Peterson are similar is stupid. It's a bad example.

bigbluedefense
08-03-2008, 02:26 PM
I never said statistics were important. I said they are a measure of productivity, which Shock agrees with as evidenced by his post above.

You're trying to argue that last season Brandon Jacobs and Adrian Peterson produced at a similar level. I know that you're not talking about their skill, talent, or whatever else and I'm not either. But Peterson was significantly more productive, and thus significantly better statistically. Saying otherwise is just stupid.

they can be a measure of productivity, but not for an individual player. considering every play run in a game has 11 guys working together to make that play happen, i don't think its fair to give sole responsibility of any stat to a singular individual.

and like i said, even considering that, i felt the #s weren't that far off. its not like the numbers made Jacobs look like half the RB AD is. the #s made them look similar, and if you disagree with that, then you disagree. i'll just leave it at that.

ForOneDayHeWouldBeKing
08-03-2008, 02:28 PM
they can be a measure of productivity, but not for an individual player. considering every play run in a game has 11 guys working together to make that play happen, i don't think its fair to give sole responsibility of any stat to a singular individual.

and like i said, even considering that, i felt the #s weren't that far off. its not like the numbers made Jacobs look like half the RB AD is. the #s made them look similar, and if you disagree with that, then you disagree. i'll just leave it at that.

Like I said, it was a bad example.

Twiddler
08-03-2008, 02:31 PM
And to the Packer fans, I want to make this clear. I think Grant is solid, and I think he's a great match for your scheme. All Im saying is, he's not a top tier RB even though he seems like one. He's a replaceable player. He's great, but a lot of players would be great in that system. If anything, its more of a compliment to McCarthey and the great run blocking scheme you guys run. It really is brilliant, and I love McCarthey as a coach. He's a brilliant coach who runs a brilliant system.

Its hard to argue with someone who has that much love for our team and coach, haha. But, overall I don't think that this was too bad of a deal for us. Yes, it is a lot of money for a runningback who has only started half a season but it is very incentive based. And even if he is replaceable, we still can't replace him with anyone on our roster so we really needed him to get out there. Plus, we have plenty of cap room so its not like we couldn't afford to give in to some of his demands.

ForOneDayHeWouldBeKing
08-03-2008, 02:33 PM
I think the Packers overpaid for Grant. I think he's a good runningback who showed a lot last season and his talent level is about in line with what he's getting paid. With that said, the Packers had all the leverage here and probably could have forced him to sign a lesser contract. There is something to be said to keeping your players happy and showing players that good play will be rewarded financially.

NY+Giants=NYG
08-03-2008, 02:37 PM
exactly. thats why when we analyze players, i try to stray away from looking at statistics, because in football they only tell 20% of the real story. the Xs and Os in football and the big picture is much more telling than any ypc, TD total or any other useless stat will tell you. Maybe in fantasy football this means something, but not in real football.

AD vs Jacobs is what i felt a good example of how misleading stats can be in football.



And to the Packer fans, I want to make this clear. I think Grant is solid, and I think he's a great match for your scheme. All Im saying is, he's not a top tier RB even though he seems like one. He's a replaceable player. He's great, but a lot of players would be great in that system. If anything, its more of a compliment to McCarthey and the great run blocking scheme you guys run. It really is brilliant, and I love McCarthey as a coach. He's a brilliant coach who runs a brilliant system.


I don't even use stats, which is a problem when debating why I am not a fan of Jacobs, and why his skill set isn't nothing to brag about. People keep pointing to the yards per carry, again with the stat thing, but fail to see what skill set he possess run in and run out. Stats are nice for madden, and fantasy football, but I try to use them as a supplement to watching the Xs and Os.

Hopefully we run more unique formations and running plays out of them this season. I will be bored to death if see the same running plays ran again in our scheme.

Twiddler
08-03-2008, 02:39 PM
I think the Packers overpaid for Grant. I think he's a good runningback who showed a lot last season and his talent level is about in line with what he's getting paid. With that said, the Packers had all the leverage here and probably could have forced him to sign a lesser contract. There is something to be said to keeping your players happy and showing players that good play will be rewarded financially.

We may have had some leverage, but I think the impact that Grant has on our running game gave him a good amount of leverage. Especially with a new starter at QB, we need him more than ever this year.

ForOneDayHeWouldBeKing
08-03-2008, 02:43 PM
We may have had some leverage, but I think the impact that Grant has on our running game gave him a good amount of leverage. Especially with a new starter at QB, we need him more than ever this year.

The Packers definitely need the consistency he provides at runningback. Don't get me wrong. I just think that Grant would have no choice but to report and play for the Packers, even without a new contract. What else could he do?

bored of education
08-03-2008, 03:26 PM
I hope he breaks both legs whiney *****

TitleTown088
08-03-2008, 04:40 PM
Thats why we cut Grant and kept Ward.
.

Cut? You mean traded for a 6th? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading that when the Packers made that trade the Giants essentially said " take your pick" of Ward, Grant, and Bradshaw and the Packers choose Grant.

ALD
08-03-2008, 04:41 PM
O Grant still is, but he is a better fit than the other RBs you and I, and everyone else can't remember. There was a reason why you guys traded for him. He has the perfect skills for your system, but still doesn't make him a top notch runner. He is a good back, in a great system, and I am happy for him. But my point is your system, offensive formations, and play design is pretty damn sick! Put in "a good fit" for that system, and I am not suprised at his success.

That's the exact reasoning why I hope Jacobs doesn't ask for a ridiculous number in FA this season. He's huge and we'll definately miss his size and ability to just crush all but big defensive lineman, but with an Oline and scheme that work as effectively as ours he's not crucial. I honestly I think that BJ could be even more effective than grant with some seasoning in GB which is why I don't like the idea of making too much of a commitment right now. Let Grant start for a whole season on a reasonable, say 3 mill for this season, deal and then work out an extension if you don't see any progress from Jackson and Grant lights it up again.

ALD
08-03-2008, 04:44 PM
Statistics are a measure of how productive a player was. Basically you're trying to argue that Jacobs was about as productive as Peterson. That is just blind homerism.

Considering your post starts off with a false statement I can't say I'm surprised your entire argument is faulty.

ForOneDayHeWouldBeKing
08-03-2008, 04:45 PM
Considering your post starts off with a false statement I can't say I'm surprised your entire argument is faulty.

Stats don't show how productive a player was? How do you measure productivity then?

TitleTown088
08-03-2008, 04:48 PM
Stats don't show how productive a player was? How do you measure productivity then?
A wise man once told me...
statistics are like bikinis, what the reveal is suggestive, but what the conceal is vital.

GB12
08-03-2008, 04:53 PM
I do think we overpaid. I think we could and should have got him for cheaper. That said, I don't really care. We put a lot of the guarenteed money in the first couple of years where we have a ton of cap, before the deal we had $30 million in free space. Other than the early guarenteed money it's largely incentive based. He reaches every incentive he's more than worth every penny of the $30M. If he doesn't the deal ends up at around $18 million if he's just decent. We have him for four years which is the perfect time length and we shouldn't be hurting for cap space during that time.

Grant is solid, but he's nothing to lose sleep over. I guarantee you if GB had a credible backup RB behind Grant they wouldn't make this deal. Only reason why this deal was done was because GB had no leverage to be able to walk away from him without skipping a beat on offense.
Pretty far off. It'd be ugly but we could have gone to the day before the season starts with him unsigned and he'd still play for us. He'd eventually sign the ERFA tender because he has no other options and holding out does nothing to help him.


Also I don't like this argument of saying it's the system and a lot of credit goes to the offensive line. Yes, it is a zone blocking system but just because Denver has a history of finding RBs no problem it's not always like that. The guys we had were supposed to fit the ZBS, but didn't work out anywhere near as well as Grant. Morency looked to be a good fit in the system, but he struggled. Jackson was drafted (maybe a bit early even) specifically for our system. You can't just plug in any back and have it work.

I do think the system is a part of Grant's success, but I think you're underating Grant to a degree. How well he runs after he breaks through shows his skills. It doesn't matter what system you're running after you're through the hole, then it's on the RB to pick up the extra yards.

As for the offensive line being the reason, I'm kind of sick of hearing this. Our line was considered the biggest reason why the running game wasn't working early in the season. We have one of if not the best pass blocking lines, but the same can't be said when it comes to the run. Tauscher and Clifton are fine run blockers, but the interior of our line is poor. Wells is about average, it's the guards that really struggle getting a push. It wasn't until Grant started to get carries that our run game got going.

You mentioned Wynn could have had a similar story had he been the starter for the time Grant did, but even though Wynn was better than our previous runners he wasn't close to Grant.

Even if Grant is just a product of our system and is nothing special as you say, although I disagree with that I could really care less. Grant's going to be here for the next four years and unless something crazy happens McCarthy and his system will be too.

ALD
08-03-2008, 04:59 PM
Stats don't show how productive a player was? How do you measure productivity then?

To answer your first question yes they don't.

Stats on a team level may describe productive if you really break them down into very specific splits, such as down and yardage, specifics of the defenses faced, point of the game in which stats are accumulated, and plethora of other factors that simply make stats too much of a pain to deal with as truth.

If you want to measure productivity good luck, but if you want to get a sense for a players productivity focus on the context of the stats and not the actually numerical value themselves.

ForOneDayHeWouldBeKing
08-03-2008, 05:01 PM
To answer your first question yes they don't.

Stats on a team level may describe productive if you really break them down into very specific splits, such as down and yardage, specifics of the defenses faced, point of the game in which stats are accumulated, and plethora of other factors that simply make stats too much of a pain to deal with as truth.

If you want to measure productivity good luck, but if you want to get a sense for a players productivity focus on the context of the stats and not the actually numerical value themselves.

So you don't think things like YPC, total yards, touchdowns, etc. measure a players productivity? Why do you think the league's top player are consistently at the top of the league in key statistics?

ALD
08-03-2008, 05:08 PM
So you don't think things like YPC, total yards, touchdowns, etc. measure a players productivity? Why do you think the league's top player are consistently at the top of the league in key statistics?

I'm sorry but do you not see the logical falicy implicit in your second statement? Since good players usual have A then A is a way to measure good players. Stats do reflect a players effectiveness to a degree, but remember the context.

For example Mark Anderson of the bears notched a bunch of sacks as a rookie coming in against tired olines and blazed past them for sacks in passing situations, does that make him a better passrusher than a defensive end like Osi who was a starter and himself got worn down over the course of the game and had to focus on the run as well?

Or do you think that Joey Porter went from a very productive player to a terribly unproductive one over one offseason when he left the Steelers for the phins? His stats would indicate that to be true but the truth is much closer to his stats on the steelers coming as a result of the teammates and DC, which took attention away from him and gave him open lanes at the quarterback.

There are many explanations for why players put up good or bad stats and productivity is only one of them, which is why I say remember to keep in mind the context.

ForOneDayHeWouldBeKing
08-03-2008, 05:12 PM
I'm sorry but do you not see the logical falicy implicit in your second statement? Since good players usual have A then A is a way to measure good players. Stats do reflect a players effectiveness to a degree, but remember the context.

For example Mark Anderson of the bears notched a bunch of sacks as a rookie coming in against tired olines and blazed past them for sacks in passing situations, does that make him a better passrusher than a defensive end like Osi who was a starter and himself got worn down over the course of the game and had to focus on the run as well?

Or do you think that Joey Porter went from a very productive player to a terribly unproductive one over one offseason when he left the Steelers for the phins? His stats would indicate that to be true but the truth is much closer to his productivity on the steelers coming as a result of the teammates and DC, which took attention away from him and gave him open lanes at the quarterback.

There are many explanations for why players put up good or bad stats and productivity is only one of them, which is why I say remember to keep in mind the context.

I'm not saying statistics are the only tool we should use when evaluating players. I'm not even saying they are a good tool. I'm just saying they are a measure of productivity.

Peterson rushed for 1341 yards last season. That is how productive he was. Regardless of what the context was, that's how productive Peterson was.

My whole argument is that Peterson and Jacobs are not the same statistically which is what BBD was saying. 300+ more yards, 3x more TDs, 0.6 higher YPC, etc.

ALD
08-03-2008, 05:24 PM
I'm not saying statistics are the only tool we should use when evaluating players. I'm not even saying they are a good tool. I'm just saying they are a measure of productivity.

Peterson rushed for 1341 yards last season. That is how productive he was. Regardless of what the context was, that's how productive Peterson was.

My whole argument is that Peterson and Jacobs are not the same statistically which is what BBD was saying. 300+ more yards, 3x more TDs, 0.6 higher YPC, etc.

I guess we have very different definitions of productivity then. Your definition of a players productivity is much more dependant on a player's team-mates, coaching and other extenuating circumstances. Here's another more similar example, Marshawn Lynch vs. Brandon Jacobs, having watched a lot of both Marshawn is a lot more productive per my definition although guessing by that fact that he had worse stats I'm assuming you'd say he was less productive.

Peterson was more effective than his stats indicate IMO for reason that stats just can't measure, at least not common stats, such as how much a defense focuses on him, how often his big plays lead to new sets downs, etc. Your also neglecting that AD had about 2 games worth of carries more than jacobs, 35 more carries, and if you add in those 2 games worth of stats their numbers are much closer even though I'd agree that Peterson is infinitely more productive.

ForOneDayHeWouldBeKing
08-03-2008, 05:31 PM
I guess we have very different definitions of productivity then. Your definition of a players productivity is much more dependant on a player's team-mates, coaching and other extenuating circumstances. Here's another more similar example, Marshawn Lynch vs. Brandon Jacobs, having watched a lot of both Marshawn is a lot more productive per my definition although guessing by that fact that he had worse stats I'm assuming you'd say he was less productive.

Peterson was more effective than his stats indicate IMO for reason that stats just can't measure, at least not common stats, such as how much a defense focuses on him, how often his big plays lead to new sets downs, etc. Your also neglecting that AD had about 2 games worth of carries more than jacobs, 35 more carries, and if you add in those 2 games worth of stats their numbers are much closer even though I'd agree that Peterson is infinitely more productive.

Peterson still averaged 0.6 more YPC. And the fact is that Jacobs didn't get those carries. You simply cannot make the argument that they were close statistically last season and that's the only point I'm trying to make.

ALD
08-03-2008, 05:40 PM
Peterson still averaged 0.6 more YPC. And the fact is that Jacobs didn't get those carries. You simply cannot make the argument that they were close statistically last season and that's the only point I'm trying to make.

Well here are their per game averages:
17 carries per game
96 yards per game
.86 tds per

18 carries per game
92 yards per game
.45 tds per game

now tell me those two aren't similar statistically, outside of TDs, where we got a lot of ours through the air and Minnesota had no passing game to score for AD.

ForOneDayHeWouldBeKing
08-03-2008, 05:43 PM
Well here are their per game averages:
17 carries per game
96 yards per game
.86 tds per

18 carries per game
92 yards per game
.45 tds per game

now tell me those two aren't similar statistically, outside of TDs, where we got a lot of ours through the air and Minnesota had no passing game to score for AD.

You're right, Jacobs was as productive as Peterson.

ALD
08-03-2008, 06:10 PM
You're right, Jacobs was as productive as Peterson.

I'll try and be more simple:

Similar stats does not equal similar production, comprende?

I just showed that Jacobs and AD had similar stats, and it's blatant that they didn't have similar productivity. I hope that makes sense to you, although I know it's tough to accept that your assumptions are wrong for some people.

NY+Giants=NYG
08-03-2008, 07:27 PM
That's the exact reasoning why I hope Jacobs doesn't ask for a ridiculous number in FA this season. He's huge and we'll definately miss his size and ability to just crush all but big defensive lineman, but with an Oline and scheme that work as effectively as ours he's not crucial. I honestly I think that BJ could be even more effective than grant with some seasoning in GB which is why I don't like the idea of making too much of a commitment right now. Let Grant start for a whole season on a reasonable, say 3 mill for this season, deal and then work out an extension if you don't see any progress from Jackson and Grant lights it up again.

No, in the zone system, BJ would get his lunch handed to him. What makes grant a good fit is his vision, balance, and ability to cut back. All traits Ward and Bradshaw have, but Jacobs doesn't. Jacobs is more of a north/south running back, and thus we need to run more ISO and LEADs to better utilize him. We managed to get good production from him, when Shockey was healthy because he was so vital in sealing the edge when we ran our various running concepts, but once Shockey got hurt, Jacobs couldn't run it. Now that's not ALL his fault, because Boss offered bad quality run blocking. Again sorta his fault, but was expected, especially going from D2 college to NFL. I understand it, but then Gilbride needs to change things up in the running game. Instead we changed our passing game and went 4 wide, which helped Eli. I expect us, if we can't develop Boss fast enough, to go more 4 wide again like this past year.

I just realized you meant B. Jackson, not our BJ, who is a FA as well.. Ok well disregard everything else. I haven't seen your B. Jackson to make an opinion on him.

Iamcanadian
08-03-2008, 10:44 PM
I think BBD is severely underrating Grant, I'd take him over any of the Giants' runningbacks. He's a very good combo of vision, speed, and power. He could improve a bit as a receiver, but he's almost fluid the way he moves through the first 5-10 yards past the LOS. Perfect fit for the Packers, well beyond the rest of their runningbacks so I'll agree with BBD on that point (Jackson and Wynn are more of a banger mold than slasher mold).

I have much less of a problem with this signing than the Cowboys' major deal for Marion Barber, which struck me as stupid when I heard it and still feel the same. It's completely stupid to give that much money to Barber, when they drafted Felix Jones in the 1st freaking round and Tashard Choice (who can't break a homerun like Grant, dream on BBD), when Barber plays such a physical game, and when they have serious concerns about the pathetic future at WR and the need to sign DeMarcus Ware long-term. You don't give that much money to a runningback when you have a franchise quarterback who can win you games, you give that quarterback weapons so he can do that.

I disagree to a certain extent. Grant came into a perfect situation. Defenses were spread out to stop GB's passing attack led by Favre. They paid little attention to stopping the run. If Favre isn't there, teams will pay a lot more attention to stopping the run until Rodgers can prove he is a solid passer.
Grant had an easy ride in GB with Favre around as would most RB's. You take Favre out of that offense and Grant and even their WR's may struggle quite a bit. Favre may have made them all look a lot better than they actually are.

bored of education
08-03-2008, 10:45 PM
This just reeeks of I TOLD YOU SO.

Dr. Gonzo
08-03-2008, 11:48 PM
All I have to say to this is

BRING BACK SAMKON GADO!!!