The Official Favre @ GB Thread

[SatchDork]

Minnesota is now 2-3 and the Packers (and Bears) just dropped a game. Now it's Favre back in Green Bay, Round 2. Start him, sit him, what do y'all think?

[APinMN]

AND the Pack have now lost 3 of the last 4....and the 1 that they won was barely against the Lions! (I know it doesnt really matter here...just had to say it!)

 

I would say start him, huge game and his passing game is far better now with Moss here and Harvin playing where he is best....Moss will also want a big game. Also I don't think the Pack D registered a sack today did they? or was there one(s) late in the game?

 

Of course depends on who your option is...

[Ed Hoyle]

I would love to see him beat them again and wave to TT.

 

But, it will be a good game. MN had their hands full with Dallas today and GB will get 3 of their D/ST guys back.

[SatchDork]

Unfortunately, my option is Detroit's QB (started Favre over Shaun Hill this week - also have Stafford), who is on the bye this week. So, personally, I'm going Favre no matter what. Just wondering what others think.

[piratesownninjas]

AND the Pack have now lost 3 of the last 4....and the 1 that they won was barely against the Lions! (I know it doesnt really matter here...just had to say it!)

 

I would say start him, huge game and his passing game is far better now with Moss here and Harvin playing where he is best....Moss will also want a big game. Also I don't think the Pack D registered a sack today did they? or was there one(s) late in the game?

 

Of course depends on who your option is...

Clay Mathews and Ryan Pickett should be back.

 

Even with those welcomed additions back, McCarthy hasn't put forth a decent gameplan since losing Grant and Finley. I have little confidence.

Although I think Rodgers will outplay Favre. Just not sure how they can pull it off with zero run game, zero creativity in the play calling and no one other than Jennings today stepping up to make something happen.

[Floor Tape]

I'm a Favre aficionado He's the best! Go Favre!

Edited October 18, 2010 by Floor Tape

[Jackass]

Say what you want about Favre but he makes these games more interesting.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Peyton's my QB1 but i see he has a bye next week so i'll be rolling with Favre. Both he and Peterson won my SB for me last year on Monday Night vs the Bears.

[Chavez]

Clay Mathews and Ryan Pickett should be back.

 

Even with those welcomed additions back, McCarthy hasn't put forth a decent gameplan since losing Grant and Finley. I have little confidence.

Although I think Rodgers will outplay Favre. Just not sure how they can pull it off with zero run game, zero creativity in the play calling and no one other than Jennings today stepping up to make something happen.

 

GB might not win, but the D hasn't been the main problem IMO. Today, and vs Was, they kinda fell off down the stretch but that may have been due to the offense leaving them out there for 40 minutes in each game.

 

Of course, this is dependent on the front 7 controlling the game and pressuring Favre, because GB's defensive backfield aside from Tramon Williams has been running from non-factor (Collins) to heinous (Woodson). Oh, Shields has been OK, as far as that goes.

 

But GB's D is decent. And that's who Favre has to match up against.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Chavez

[SatchDork]

To me, this one just has shoot-out written all over it. First of all, both defenses are good overall, but a little banged up right now. Favre has Moss, Harvin, Shiancoe, etc. plus AP. Rodgers has a Jennings, Driver, etc. plus no real run game. I am envisioning/hoping for big points on both sides (for the record, I am not only a Favre owner, but a Jennings owner as well).

[Cy_Hawk]

To me, this one just has shoot-out written all over it. First of all, both defenses are good overall, but a little banged up right now. Favre has Moss, Harvin, Shiancoe, etc. plus AP. Rodgers has a Jennings, Driver, etc. plus no real run game. I am envisioning/hoping for big points on both sides (for the record, I am not only a Favre owner, but a Jennings owner as well).

 

Which almost automatically means it'll be a 13-9 kind of game... Just seems to work out that way.

[SatchDork]

Which almost automatically means it'll be a 13-9 kind of game... Just seems to work out that way.

 

Fair enough

[SatchDork]

Isn't this "Decision Week" for Sidney Rice as well? I know he's not going to play this week or anything, but don't they have to either IR him or un-PUP him sometime this week?

[Big John]

Isn't this "Decision Week" for Sidney Rice as well? I know he's not going to play this week or anything, but don't they have to either IR him or un-PUP him sometime this week?

They have 3 weeks to decide.

[Balzac]

Would love for this to turn into a shootout but I think that all depends on how Favre's elbow is feeling this week. They clearly game-planned away from throwing too much this past week in order to save the arm . . . if that continues to happen, I wouldn't want to use Favre at all. All that said, I can't see Favre taking too much of a backseat in any game against GB. Maybe this is the week that Moss busts out.

[SatchDork]

yeah, we'll see how long the effects of the cortisone shot stick. You gotta' love Favre's motivation factor in Green Bay (that kind of stuff is what the Favre Magic is all about). They seem to be getting everyone healthy and, hopefully, on the same page. Meanwhile, Green Bay is pretty beat up on D. Gotta' figure Favre is good for 2 or 3 TDs and Rodgers, in turn, will have to put up similar numbers.

[piratesownninjas]

GB might not win, but the D hasn't been the main problem IMO. Today, and vs Was, they kinda fell off down the stretch but that may have been due to the offense leaving them out there for 40 minutes in each game.

 

Of course, this is dependent on the front 7 controlling the game and pressuring Favre, because GB's defensive backfield aside from Tramon Williams has been running from non-factor (Collins) to heinous (Woodson). Oh, Shields has been OK, as far as that goes.

 

But GB's D is decent. And that's who Favre has to match up against.

I'll agree with you on the Washington game, but they were god awful against Miami. If Miami would have wanted to, Marshall could have caught 25 balls. Without Clay Matthews this is a different defense. Him being back will have a massive impact. I also agree that the defense is put out there too often. I don't understand why Brandon Jackson is still getting meaningful carries. If you must run the ball, give it to Kuhn and dink and dunk ala early 2000's pats to make up for the lack of a running game.

 

To me, this one just has shoot-out written all over it. First of all, both defenses are good overall, but a little banged up right now. Favre has Moss, Harvin, Shiancoe, etc. plus AP. Rodgers has a Jennings, Driver, etc. plus no real run game. I am envisioning/hoping for big points on both sides (for the record, I am not only a Favre owner, but a Jennings owner as well).

What about a Packers offense without Jermichael Finley and Ryan Grant says capable of a shootout? This team is going to have to win on Defense, as they're lucky to get 17-20 points at this point.

 

 

You gotta' love Favre's motivation factor in Green Bay (that kind of stuff is what the Favre Magic is all about). They seem to be getting everyonehealthy and, hopefully, on the same page. Meanwhile, Green Bay is pretty beat up on D. Gotta' figure Favre is good for 2 or 3 TDs and Rodgers, in turn, will have to put up similar numbers.

I think the motivation thing was finished last year when he won both games. I think now it's a divisional game which is important, but he already stuck it to Green Bay twice last year.

Green Bay is beat up just as bad on the offensive side of the ball...

 

 

Saying all of that:

Packers 256, Vikings 3.

[SatchDork]

What about a Packers offense without Jermichael Finley and Ryan Grant says capable of a shootout? This team is going to have to win on Defense, as they're lucky to get 17-20 points at this point.

 

I think the motivation thing was finished last year when he won both games. I think now it's a divisional game which is important, but he already stuck it to Green Bay twice last year.

Green Bay is beat up just as bad on the offensive side of the ball...

 

Saying all of that:

Packers 256, Vikings 3.

 

I don't think Ryan Grant was all that much better than Brandon Jackson. And you've still got (a dinged up) Aaron Rodgers, Greg Jennings, (a dinged up) Donald Driver, James Jones, Jordy Nelson, (a dinger up) Donald Lee. Basically, all GB has right now is a passing game. And I don't think sticking it to Ted Thompson will ever get old for Favre (and he has to take his frustrations out SOMEWHERE now that texting is off-limits). Can't give you a final score or even a winner, but I got each team scoring at least 24.

[piratesownninjas]

I don't think Ryan Grant was all that much better than Brandon Jackson.

Then you

A. Don't know what you're talking about

B. Haven't watched either of them play, and you don't know what youre talking about.

 

In three years Ryan Grant ran the ball 782 times for 3412 yards and 23 rushing touchdowns while eating up the clock, getting tough yards and rarely turning the ball over. Grant hit the hole hard and punishes defenders with every carry. He wore defenses down. Teams were concerned about Grant and it opened up the passing game.

Defenses couldn't be less concerned with Jackson, who runs as if his feet are stuck in cement blocks. Teams are in constant pass pro and he has done nothing with it. To make a statement like what you just made is either fishing, or stupidity. Either way you lose.

 

And you've still got (a dinged up) Aaron Rodgers, Greg Jennings, (a dinged up) Donald Driver, James Jones, Jordy Nelson, (a dinger up) Donald Lee. Basically, all GB has right now is a passing game.

And without a rushing attack, it gets harder for the passing attack to prosper. You do realize that the Pass/Run have a ying-yang thing going on, right? As in the play action pass works if defenders are somewhat worried about the back getting the ball?

[SatchDork]

Then you

A. Don't know what you're talking about

B. Haven't watched either of them play, and you don't know what youre talking about.

 

In three years Ryan Grant ran the ball 782 times for 3412 yards and 23 rushing touchdowns while eating up the clock, getting tough yards and rarely turning the ball over. Grant hit the hole hard and punishes defenders with every carry. He wore defenses down. Teams were concerned about Grant and it opened up the passing game.

Defenses couldn't be less concerned with Jackson, who runs as if his feet are stuck in cement blocks. Teams are in constant pass pro and he has done nothing with it. To make a statement like what you just made is either fishing, or stupidity. Either way you lose.

 

 

And without a rushing attack, it gets harder for the passing attack to prosper. You do realize that the Pass/Run have a ying-yang thing going on, right? As in the play action pass works if defenders are somewhat worried about the back getting the ball?

 

http://www.nfl.com/players/ryangrant/profile?id=GRA497823

 

Yeah, those are some stud RB numbers right there. Especially the 5 lost fumbles for a guy who rarely turns the ball over. And during these three years, when the Packers NEEDED to win a game, were they putting the ball in Ryan Grant's hands or Aaron Rodgers & Co.? Finally, the team IRed him when Grant himself said he could have been back this season. Sounds like a guy they really value. Grant is/was nothing special; same goes for Jackson. Are the Packers as a whole better off without him? No, of course not. But I don't think the fantasy prospects are that much worse.

 

Your second statement is almost true. In the NFL, without a rushing attack, it's harder for a passing attack to also prosper ("prosper" in the sense of helping win NFL games). You're missing a few points, though. First, it's much easier to pass in the NFL now than ever before, even without a running game. Just look at Rodgers or Orton so far this season. Second, the Packers might be worse off in the NFL, but we're talking about fantasy football. Green Bay being forced to pass all the time is better for the Rodgers, Driver, Jennings, or RIP-Finley owner (whose injury is much more significant than Grant's, IMO) than having some RB in there stealing touches and touchdowns, even if it's worse for Green Bay overall.

 

Sorry to get you all riled up, but I stand by my statements. Ryan Grant is nothing special and the Packers without a running game have better fantasy scoring potential than the Packers with a running game, particularly in this match-up with the Vikings.

Edited October 20, 2010 by SatchDork

[Balzac]

Ryan Grant is clearly a much, much better RB than Brandon Jackson and GB is a better team with the former.

 

Anyhoo, I'm smelling a huge game from Moss this week - I think the reins comeback off of Favre and he chucks like mad.

[piratesownninjas]

http://www.nfl.com/players/ryangrant/profile?id=GRA497823

 

Yeah, those are some stud RB numbers right there. Especially the 5 lost fumbles for a guy who rarely turns the ball over. And during these three years, when the Packers NEEDED to win a game, were they putting the ball in Ryan Grant's hands or Aaron Rodgers & Co.? Finally, the team IRed him when Grant himself said he could have been back this season. Sounds like a guy they really value. Grant is/was nothing special; same goes for Jackson. Are the Packers as a whole better off without him? No, of course not. But I don't think the fantasy prospects are that much worse.

 

Your second statement is almost true. In the NFL, without a rushing attack, it's harder for a passing attack to also prosper ("prosper" in the sense of helping win NFL games). You're missing a few points, though. First, it's much easier to pass in the NFL now than ever before, even without a running game. Just look at Rodgers or Orton so far this season. Second, the Packers might be worse off in the NFL, but we're talking about fantasy football. Green Bay being forced to pass all the time is better for the Rodgers, Driver, Jennings, or RIP-Finley owner (whose injury is much more significant than Grant's, IMO) than having some RB in there stealing touches and touchdowns, even if it's worse for Green Bay overall.

 

Sorry to get you all riled up, but I stand by my statements. Ryan Grant is nothing special and the Packers without a running game have better fantasy scoring potential than the Packers with a running game, particularly in this match-up with the Vikings.

Last year Grant had one fumble in 300 carries. He doesn't turn the ball over. And 1200 yards rushing is stud runningback numbers. Last year he was a top ten runningback, which merits that status.

As far as who were they giving the ball to when they needed to win games? Umm... Grant had 300 carries last year. He put the close games away and ate up clock. If they were behind with little time left then they gave it to Rodgers. It's called a 4 and a 2 minute offense. Congrats you've stumbled across what EVERY team in the league does late from behind.

I'll also say that Rodgers fantasy wise isn't in a better situation than last season. Before Finley went out his completion % and INTS are way up, and it can be directly connected to the lack of a running game.

 

You know what? I'm tired of arguing with a fool. Ignore function enabled.

[SatchDork]

Last year Grant had one fumble in 300 carries. He doesn't turn the ball over. And 1200 yards rushing is stud runningback numbers. Last year he was a top ten runningback, which merits that status.

As far as who were they giving the ball to when they needed to win games? Umm... Grant had 300 carries last year. He put the close games away and ate up clock. If they were behind with little time left then they gave it to Rodgers. It's called a 4 and a 2 minute offense. Congrats you've stumbled across what EVERY team in the league does late from behind.

I'll also say that Rodgers fantasy wise isn't in a better situation than last season. Before Finley went out his completion % and INTS are way up, and it can be directly connected to the lack of a running game.

 

You know what? I'm tired of arguing with a fool. Ignore function enabled.

 

Wow, keeping it civil. Nice.

 

Grant didn't have 300 carries in 2009. He did in 2008, when he also had about 1,200 yards, only 4 TDs, and 4 fumbles. Not saying he's fumble-prone, just not much more secure than your average back (again, nothing special). He also started off slowly in 2009, taking until Week 7 to have a 100-yard game as well as score his third TD. 6 of his 11 TDs came in the last 4 games. Great if you were in the fantasy play-offs; bad if you missed them because you had Grant starting all season.

 

Now, these aren't bad numbers, but they aren't all that great either. Grant isn't special when he really should be. He spent 2 years as the more-or-less undisputed #1 RB on a high-powered offense (something that rarely happens anymore) and all he put up, on average, was 297 carries, 1228 yards (4.1 avg), and 7-8 TDs and adding very little in terms of receiving. In both seasons, Green Bay was about 15th in the NFL in carries and rushing yards. Solid numbers, but nothing special. In that offense with no competition, though, he should be getting 1600-1700 total yards and easy double-digit TDs.

 

It's a QB-central league, though, and Green Bay is a Rodgers-centered team. He had 68 more completions in 2009 than Grant had carries. He accounted for over 3 times as many yards and TDs. It was his arm they had to ride (to defeat) in the play-offs. Maybe I was a little too hard on Grant, but the bottom line is he was only so-so on a team that features Rodgers anyway. So, losing Grant is not really that big a deal. C'mon, you know Rodgers is Top 3 in your fantasy league right now. Finley's injury is much more substantial because it more directly impacts Rodgers. With or without Grant, he's gonna' throw it around (witness both Minny games last season). No Finley makes that a lot tougher.

 

BTW - if you project Brandon Jackson's season stats out based on his 4 games started, he'd have 268 carries for 1220 yards and 4 TDs.

[policyvote]

Greg Jennings will put the team on his back. (WARNING: extremely strong language)

 

Peace

policy

Edited October 20, 2010 by policyvote

[Balzac]

Now, these aren't bad numbers, but they aren't all that great either. Grant isn't special when he really should be. He spent 2 years as the more-or-less undisputed #1 RB on a high-powered offense (something that rarely happens anymore) and all he put up, on average, was 297 carries, 1228 yards (4.1 avg), and 7-8 TDs and adding very little in terms of receiving. In both seasons, Green Bay was about 15th in the NFL in carries and rushing yards. Solid numbers, but nothing special. In that offense with no competition, though, he should be getting 1600-1700 total yards and easy double-digit TDs.

 

Why should he be special? That GB line has been atrocious - do you recall how badly Rodgers got his ass kicked last year? How quickly Ds penetrated the line to get to Grant? The only reason he did so well (and he did - 4.4ypc last year is no joke) is because he's a truck who ran through people. The only way Grant gets to 1600-1700 yards and double digit TDs is if they give him the touches to do it, which they didn't. Brandon Jackson has been the third down back for the last few years, so it's not like Grant had a Chris Johnson role going on there - he was off the field on a huge proportion of the passing downs. Had they actually thrown to him and given him more carries, his stats would be much more gaudy.

 

In short, high-powered offense does not = great running game. Look at the Patriot offenses throughout the decade - they couldn't run to save their lives with some of those teams.

 

It's a QB-central league, though, and Green Bay is a Rodgers-centered team. He had 68 more completions in 2009 than Grant had carries. He accounted for over 3 times as many yards and TDs. It was his arm they had to ride (to defeat) in the play-offs. Maybe I was a little too hard on Grant, but the bottom line is he was only so-so on a team that features Rodgers anyway. So, losing Grant is not really that big a deal. C'mon, you know Rodgers is Top 3 in your fantasy league right now. Finley's injury is much more substantial because it more directly impacts Rodgers. With or without Grant, he's gonna' throw it around (witness both Minny games last season). No Finley makes that a lot tougher.

 

BTW - if you project Brandon Jackson's season stats out based on his 4 games started, he'd have 268 carries for 1220 yards and 4 TDs.

 

I don't think they had to ride his arm to the playoffs - they chose to. The Jackson projection is silly, as it's based on 4 whole games, one of which is hugely skewed by a 75yd scamper. Look at his other games this season and what he did last year . . . he's junk.

 

From a fantasy standpoint, losing Grant is no big deal. In a real-life football sense, though - it's a huge deal.