The Official Favre @ GB Thread

[Chavez]

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.

 

 

For my money, Jackson is doing well with what he's been given - 22 carries for 165 yds*, 8 catches for 54 yds - the past two weeks. Those numbers merit MORE touches than he's been getting.

 

AND watching him play, he doesn't have as much burst as you'd like, but he DOES appear able to run through an arm tackle, a skill that Grant only showed on an intermittent basis.

 

* - 71 yd run, blah blah blah - still a solid 21-94 without it.

[Chavez]

I think one thing you guys are overlooking is that there's a gradient between "All-Pro" and "suxxx."

 

Grant is NOT a creator, but he will get what's there. He's been durable and dependable on a game-to-game basis. I don't think anyone is confusing him with AD but he's probably better than many give him credit for.

[Balzac]

For my money, Jackson is doing well with what he's been given - 22 carries for 165 yds*, 8 catches for 54 yds - the past two weeks. Those numbers merit MORE touches than he's been getting.

 

AND watching him play, he doesn't have as much burst as you'd like, but he DOES appear able to run through an arm tackle, a skill that Grant only showed on an intermittent basis.

 

* - 71 yd run, blah blah blah - still a solid 21-94 without it.

 

What about the first 4 weeks? Guy was atrocious - he couldn't even avg 3 ypc against the Bills, for christ's sake. He's been ok last 2 weeks but I'd be shocked if he kept that up.

 

Re: your second post, I think that's all we were trying to say - Grant is better than he was being given credit for here. I don't recall anyone acting like he's an all-world talent. He's good - not great; much better than Brandon Jackson though.

[SatchDork]

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.

 

First of all, your Patriots example isn't that strong. The Patriots haven't had a stud back, but they've put together a productive running game between multiple guys. In both 2008 & 2009, they outranked the Packers in carries & yards. In '08, they also had better ypc & TDs (GB had .2 more ypc and 1 more TD in '09). The Pats haven't been in the bottom half of the NFL in rushing yards since '05 despite not having a true #1 (or even #2, #3, or #4) RB that whole time. This is kinda' my point with Grant. He was THE GUY for two full seasons and really didn't impress, stats-wise. I know it wasn't your argument before, but the touches. He had over 300 both seasons. Low-300s, but still, he had opportunities. You can't have it both ways (that he's a 300-carry workhorse who doesn't get enough touches).

 

Your point about the OL is fair, though. Perhaps with better blocking and a few more touches (not to mention if he had actually been healthy THIS season), Grant would have proven himself to be the stud that I am saying he is not. As it stands now, though, on a scale of 1 to 5, I give him a 3 and Jackson a 2. I just think Grant should have easily been a 4, if not 5.

 

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.

 

This is exactly my point, though, about choosing to go with Rodgers. Green Bay would rather ride Rodgers' arm than Grant's legs 9 games out of 10. To be fair about the play-off game, they did have to go with Rodgers' arm once the game starting turning into a ridiculous shoot-out. And to be fair to Grant, he did chip in 11 carries for 64 yards and 2 catches for another 18. Key phrase there is "chip in," though.

 

As for the Jackson projection, it wasn't to be taken overly seriously. I was simply making the point that, if you take an admittedly charitable view of what he's done so far this season, it pretty much projects out to what Grant has done the last two seasons. And, to be fair, if you're not going to count Jackson's 70+ yard run, you gotta' go back and take out Grant's long runs, too.

 

And your last sentence really gets at my overall point. Fantasy-wise, I don't see Grant's absence having a huge adverse affect on the passing game. NFL-wise, it definitely hurts, but not like it would hurt Minny to lose AP, Tenny to lose CJ, the Jags to lose MJD, etc. Any of those teams would be garbage without the guy mentioned, while Green Bay is still very much in the play-off hunt plugging in Jackson/Kuhn for Grant.

[SatchDork]

I think one thing you guys are overlooking is that there's a gradient between "All-Pro" and "suxxx."

 

Grant is NOT a creator, but he will get what's there. He's been durable and dependable on a game-to-game basis. I don't think anyone is confusing him with AD but he's probably better than many give him credit for.

 

Okay, yeah, that's more like where I'm at with Grant. I'll bring back my scale of 1 to 5. Obviously, AP and CJ are 5s (I'd even put MJD in there, if the Jags didn't suck so bad - and LT gets permanent 5 status). Your consistently solid guys and up-and-comers are 4s (Gore, Turner, SJax, Rice, Bradshaw, Mendenhall). Grant falls into the "he can get what's there, but nothing special" category at 3 along with the likes of Michael Bush, Ryan Torain, Justin Forsett, Matt Forte (though maybe he's a 4 or a 2, not sure), etc. Then you go down from there (like I said, I'd give Jackson a 2 right now, but he could move in either direction this season). Look at it this way, I think you could plug a Bush/Torain/Forsett/Forte/etc. into Grant's spot in GB the last few seasons and nothing much would be different (in fantasy or NFL football). One of the previous 9 guys I mentioned would have made a significant difference, IMO. Again, I'm not saying Grant is terrible, just that he isn't anything special while also saying Jackson isn't much less special than Grant. A downgrade? Yes. A major hit to the depth chart? For sure. A fall off a cliff? No way.

Edited October 21, 2010 by SatchDork

[Balzac]

First of all, your Patriots example isn't that strong. The Patriots haven't had a stud back, but they've put together a productive running game between multiple guys. In both 2008 & 2009, they outranked the Packers in carries & yards. In '08, they also had better ypc & TDs (GB had .2 more ypc and 1 more TD in '09). The Pats haven't been in the bottom half of the NFL in rushing yards since '05 despite not having a true #1 (or even #2, #3, or #4) RB that whole time. This is kinda' my point with Grant. He was THE GUY for two full seasons and really didn't impress, stats-wise. I know it wasn't your argument before, but the touches. He had over 300 both seasons. Low-300s, but still, he had opportunities. You can't have it both ways (that he's a 300-carry workhorse who doesn't get enough touches).

 

I wasn't comparing the Pats to the Packers, per se - the simple point is that great overall offense does not = great rushing attack. Take 2005, for example - 24th best rushing attack (3.4 ypc - yikes), but 2nd in passing; 7th offense overall. 2007 - 13th (a much more respectable 4.1 ypc but still mediocre) and 1st, respectively; 1st overall. They've had some pretty strong running games in other years but my overall point was just that a great overall offense doesn't necessarily mean that the running game is going to be great - i.e., just because the Packers pile on the overall points and yards doesn't mean that their feature RB should be a stud. Their line just isn't great at run-blocking.

 

How many guys who get low 300s total touches amass the stats you're talking about - 1600-1700 (I assume you meant combo) yards and 12 (I think is what you said) TDs? They're all in the mid-high 300s in total touches. If you're talking about straight rushing yards, only 3 guys have hit that range of yards in the last 2 years - CJ, ADP and Turner and they all did it with 350+ carries. You put Grant in that range and (based on his avg ypc), he'd be well over 1500 yards last season. Yeah - Grant is a "workhorse", but he's not a workhorse in the same sense that any of the guys who get 1600-1700 yards are . . . those guys are all 3 down backs. Grant isn't and never has been (for whatever reason).

 

As for the Jackson projection, it wasn't to be taken overly seriously. I was simply making the point that, if you take an admittedly charitable view of what he's done so far this season, it pretty much projects out to what Grant has done the last two seasons. And, to be fair, if you're not going to count Jackson's 70+ yard run, you gotta' go back and take out Grant's long runs, too.

 

Disagree - if Jackson had a history of long runs, I wouldn't discount the one from 2 weeks ago so easily. When you're looking at 2-3 years worth of stats like we are with Grant, those kinds of things even themselves out and trends evolve. When you're looking at 2 weeks worth of production, however (like you were with BJax), you can't put too much weight on any single run - this is why in many statistical analyses we discount the highest and lowest scores, as they may very well be outliers. If you do that for Grant over the course of his career, it would have no significant impact because he's got so many rushes.

 

And your last sentence really gets at my overall point. Fantasy-wise, I don't see Grant's absence having a huge adverse affect on the passing game. NFL-wise, it definitely hurts, but not like it would hurt Minny to lose AP, Tenny to lose CJ, the Jags to lose MJD, etc. Any of those teams would be garbage without the guy mentioned, while Green Bay is still very much in the play-off hunt plugging in Jackson/Kuhn for Grant.

 

Yeah - we're certainly on the same page overall. I just like debating the minutae!

[SatchDork]

Yeah - we're certainly on the same page overall. I just like debating the minutae!

 

Same here!

 

How many guys who get low 300s total touches amass the stats you're talking about - 1600-1700 (I assume you meant combo) yards and 12 (I think is what you said) TDs? They're all in the mid-high 300s in total touches. If you're talking about straight rushing yards, only 3 guys have hit that range of yards in the last 2 years - CJ, ADP and Turner and they all did it with 350+ carries. You put Grant in that range and (based on his avg ypc), he'd be well over 1500 yards last season. Yeah - Grant is a "workhorse", but he's not a workhorse in the same sense that any of the guys who get 1600-1700 yards are . . . those guys are all 3 down backs. Grant isn't and never has been (for whatever reason).

 

First, yeah, I was talking total yards and I said "easy double-digit TDs" (again, total). Excellent analysis, but I think it supports my (our?) point more than disproves it. My overall point on Grant is that he's nothing special and put up numbers reflecting that, but also his situation in Green Bay was such that if he were special, and not just okay, he woulda/shoulda/coulda put up "special" numbers. Let me toss out a bunch of numbers before I proceed:

 

Grant '09 - 282 carries, 1253 yards, 4.4 avg, 11 TDs, 27 catches, 197 yards, 0 TDs

Grant '08 - 312, 1203, 3.9, 4, 18, 116, 1

Grant T - 639 touches, 2769 total yards, 16 total TDs; Brandon Jackson T - 133, 731, 4

 

AP '09 - 314, 1383, 4.4, 18, 43, 436, 0

AP '08 - 363, 1760, 4.8, 10, 21, 125, 0

AP T - 741, 3704, 28; Chester Taylor T - 284, 1525, 8

 

CJ '09 - 358, 2006, 5.6, 14, 50, 503, 2

CJ '08 - 251, 1228, 4.9, 9, 43, 260, 1

CJ T - 702, 3997, 26; LenDale White T - 272, 1025, 17

 

MT '09 - 178, 871, 4.9, 10, 5, 35, 0

MT '08 - 378, 1699, 4.5, 17, 6, 41, 0

MT T - 567, 2646, 27; Snelling/Norwood T - 421, 2288, 12

*Turner only played 11 games in '09 while Snelling & Norwood picked up the slack

**hypothetical '09 stats for Turner - 330, 1625, 14, 5, 35, 0; deduct from back-ups

 

Now, a few things jump right out. First of all, the other 3 backs were all on run-centric teams (with the exception of the '09 Vikings) while Grant was on pass-happy GB. So, one would expect his opportunities to be a little less than the other guys. However, he also was "vultured" less than the other backs. I should mention that, in '09, Ahman Green also had 41 carries for 160 yards and a TD for the Packers. Even with this factored in and "adjusting" Turner, Grant lost about 100 fewer touches to his back-ups than the other guys. So, he was more heavily featured, but in a more pass-oriented offense.

 

Given all this, I draw my conclusion that Grant just isn't special. First, completely hypothetical, but if you switch these players between teams, AP, CJ, and MT would have still all been absolute, 100% studs on GB and, IMO, Grant would have struggled to match his GB numbers in MIN, TEN, or ATL. More importantly, though, is that if Grant truly were special - let's say on par with Turner and a step below AP & CJ; a solid 4 - as some of his defenders are characterizing him (a workhouse who grinds out tough yards and puts away games), he woulda/shoulda/coulda warranted more touches, opportunites, and, therefore, production. I would expect him to have a little over 700 touches with at least 3000 total yards and 20 total TDs. Give me AP's '09 carries and yards with CJ's '09 rushing TDs and '08 passing stats and that's what I think Grant should've put up in '08, '09, and this season - if he were anything special.

 

I think a huge part of people's opinions on Grant are colored by what they expected of him THIS season. Was '08 the "real" Grant or was '09 a step on the way to a brilliant '10? If you think the later, then you're probably defending him right now. If you think the former, well, you're like me.

 

One caveat: I'm not really sure how each team's OL, which has been mentioned frequently, affects all this. I'm honestly asking, how do these four team's offensive lines really compare? My impression, mostly from reputation, is that Minny's is good (McKinnie & Hutchinson especially), Tennessee's & Atlanta's are solid and underrated, and Green Bay's is iffy but not terrible. I do know they've started four of the same guys for the last 4 or 5 seasons and just drafted Bulaga at T, but that's about it. Can you really blame Grant not putting up numbers at least close to AP, CJ, and MT on the respective OLs (again, honest question)? Of course, any opinion of the OL has to factor into one's opinion of BOTH Grant and Jackson (you can't blame Grant on the OL, then say Jackson just sucks - at least not without additional evidence)

 

Disagree - if Jackson had a history of long runs, I wouldn't discount the one from 2 weeks ago so easily. When you're looking at 2-3 years worth of stats like we are with Grant, those kinds of things even themselves out and trends evolve. When you're looking at 2 weeks worth of production, however (like you were with BJax), you can't put too much weight on any single run - this is why in many statistical analyses we discount the highest and lowest scores, as they may very well be outliers. If you do that for Grant over the course of his career, it would have no significant impact because he's got so many rushes.

 

I agree with your point. Like I said, I wasn't really trying to give a proper statistical comparison, but rather present Jackson in the most charitable light possible while still kinda' backing it up with stats. I'm not saying this is my opinion of Jackson or should be anyone else's, it's just one perspective on the whole debate. The point is that, if you take a favorable look at Jackson, he hasn't been that much worse than Grant.

 

Finally, sorry to everyone for being so long-winded and hijacking my own thread. Like Balzac, though, I love to hash all this stuff out as much as possible. I think it makes me/anyone a better fantasy football player and NFL "analyst."

[Balzac]

Given all this, I draw my conclusion that Grant just isn't special. First, completely hypothetical, but if you switch these players between teams, AP, CJ, and MT would have still all been absolute, 100% studs on GB and, IMO, Grant would have struggled to match his GB numbers in MIN, TEN, or ATL. More importantly, though, is that if Grant truly were special - let's say on par with Turner and a step below AP & CJ; a solid 4 - as some of his defenders are characterizing him (a workhouse who grinds out tough yards and puts away games), he woulda/shoulda/coulda warranted more touches, opportunites, and, therefore, production. I would expect him to have a little over 700 touches with at least 3000 total yards and 20 total TDs. Give me AP's '09 carries and yards with CJ's '09 rushing TDs and '08 passing stats and that's what I think Grant should've put up in '08, '09, and this season - if he were anything special.

 

Yeah - I don't think anyone is saying Grant is in the ADP/CJ class (they're simply dynamic talents that come along only so often), but I would make an argument that he's in the same bracket as Turner. They're actually very similar backs who have been put in very dissimilar situations (i.e., one on a running team; the other on a passing team). You give Grant 376 carries (like Turner had in 2008) and you'll have a guy with 1500+ rushing yards. But as we've alluded to, GB simply isn't the type of system that caters to that kind of touches. In Atlanta, they've had very pedestrian passing attacks so they've been forced to rely on the run (for years now). In GB though, they obviously favor the pass and have the luxury of having one of the best QBs in the league - I believe that no matter who they had at RB, they'd still be chucking the ball around just as much. I think Grant's overall numbers (postively or negatively, depending on how you look at it) are a direct product of the system he's in. If you put a "special" RB like CJ or ADP into that system, they'd likely avg more yards per touch - but I doubt they'd end up with more touches than GB has been doling out to its RBs recently (this season excluded, as they've clearly moved even farther away from the run with the loss of Grant).

 

I think a huge part of people's opinions on Grant are colored by what they expected of him THIS season. Was '08 the "real" Grant or was '09 a step on the way to a brilliant '10? If you think the later, then you're probably defending him right now. If you think the former, well, you're like me.

 

One thing we need to keep in mind is that Grant played basically all of 2008 with a bum hammy. While that doesn't give him a free pass for 2008, I think we all know that bad hammies can very significantly impair the production of skill players. He was clearly a much better back in 2009 when he was actually fully recovered. Not back to his 2007 numbers (which were arguably "special") but he's got a lot more tread on the tires now and playing a whole season injured can certainly take its toll.

 

One caveat: I'm not really sure how each team's OL, which has been mentioned frequently, affects all this. I'm honestly asking, how do these four team's offensive lines really compare? My impression, mostly from reputation, is that Minny's is good (McKinnie & Hutchinson especially), Tennessee's & Atlanta's are solid and underrated, and Green Bay's is iffy but not terrible. I do know they've started four of the same guys for the last 4 or 5 seasons and just drafted Bulaga at T, but that's about it. Can you really blame Grant not putting up numbers at least close to AP, CJ, and MT on the respective OLs (again, honest question)? Of course, any opinion of the OL has to factor into one's opinion of BOTH Grant and Jackson (you can't blame Grant on the OL, then say Jackson just sucks - at least not without additional evidence)

 

Well, you look at their output and it's pretty clear that Jackson just isn't performing as well. If he rips off a few more long gainers and keeps his avg per touch up, I'll eat my words in a second - I just think that, based on what I've seen, he's able to do less than Grant was doing behind the same line.

 

I'm also of the school that RBs are made by O-lines, not vice versa. There have been a few truly special talents who I think could've succeeded if my kids were blocking for them (e.g., Barry Sanders) but, for the most part, RBs can only produce so much behind crappy lines. Look at guys like Larry Johnson, LT, etc., whose production changed dramatically by simply playing behind different lines. That being my view of the world, the only way to REALLY determine who is better than whom in the RB world is to run the players being compared behind the same o-lines. Obviously not possible to do in most cases (and I've kinda veered off track, I think) but with Grant/BJax, Moreno/Maroney, Charles/Jones, McFadden/Bush type comparisons, it works great.

 

Finally, sorry to everyone for being so long-winded and hijacking my own thread. Like Balzac, though, I love to hash all this stuff out as much as possible. I think it makes me/anyone a better fantasy football player and NFL "analyst."

 

Apology not accepted. I'm horribly offended by pretty much everything you've said here.

[SatchDork]

Yeah - I don't think anyone is saying Grant is in the ADP/CJ class (they're simply dynamic talents that come along only so often), but I would make an argument that he's in the same bracket as Turner. They're actually very similar backs who have been put in very dissimilar situations (i.e., one on a running team; the other on a passing team). You give Grant 376 carries (like Turner had in 2008) and you'll have a guy with 1500+ rushing yards. But as we've alluded to, GB simply isn't the type of system that caters to that kind of touches. In Atlanta, they've had very pedestrian passing attacks so they've been forced to rely on the run (for years now). In GB though, they obviously favor the pass and have the luxury of having one of the best QBs in the league - I believe that no matter who they had at RB, they'd still be chucking the ball around just as much. I think Grant's overall numbers (postively or negatively, depending on how you look at it) are a direct product of the system he's in. If you put a "special" RB like CJ or ADP into that system, they'd likely avg more yards per touch - but I doubt they'd end up with more touches than GB has been doling out to its RBs recently (this season excluded, as they've clearly moved even farther away from the run with the loss of Grant).

 

Right, I wouldn't put Grant in the AP/CJ class either (they are very special), but I think he's a step below the Turner's of the world as well. Certainly, Grant operates with a systemic disadvantage, but if he were a "solid 4" RB, he would demand a larger role in the offense. In '08 & '09, Green Bay was Top 10 in passing attempts and yards. Of the other teams in the Top 10, only about half also ended up in the top half of the NFL in rushing yards ('08 - HOU, DEN, MIA, TB, KC; '09 - MIN, DAL, NE, NO, ATL & GB). These are all representative of efficient and balanced offenses. In '09, Grant's best season, Green Bay was one of them. Only three of these teams - MIN, ATL, and GB in '09 - had a "featured" back; Turner got hurt and the rest were committees. Again, given Grant's situation (good, but pass-happy offense; no real "vulture") and all the comparisons, I would think he shoulda/coulda/woulda put up numbers similar to AP and/or some of the committees (if he were a 4). As it stands, I think '09 was his "ceiling," at least without a MUCH better line. A better back could put up better numbers in the same system.

 

Well, you look at their output and it's pretty clear that Jackson just isn't performing as well. If he rips off a few more long gainers and keeps his avg per touch up, I'll eat my words in a second - I just think that, based on what I've seen, he's able to do less than Grant was doing behind the same line.

 

I feel the same way about Grant had he been able to play this season. He may have taken another step forward and completely proved me wrong.

 

I'm also of the school that RBs are made by O-lines, not vice versa. . .

 

Completely agree. Only a handful of guys belong in that "Barry Sanders" category. It's basically the RB Hall of Fame. I think AP & CJ are well on their way there. LT's already in. I might also slip MJD in considering how effective he's been on a pretty terrible team. Old timey examples include Faulk, Sweetness, and JB. Turner I kinda' put a step down with guys like Curtis Martin, Jamal Lewis, Thomas Jones, Frank Gore, and Steve Jackson. Proven talents capable of putting up solid numbers without great lines and great numbers with great lines ("special," but not "very special"). Grant's in the next group; don't expect anything more than "solid" without an All-Pro line.

[alexgaddis]

IPackers 256, Vikings 3.

 

 

Hey, thats better than Longwell has done for my fantasy team lately...

[Balzac]

Right, I wouldn't put Grant in the AP/CJ class either (they are very special), but I think he's a step below the Turner's of the world as well. Certainly, Grant operates with a systemic disadvantage, but if he were a "solid 4" RB, he would demand a larger role in the offense. In '08 & '09, Green Bay was Top 10 in passing attempts and yards. Of the other teams in the Top 10, only about half also ended up in the top half of the NFL in rushing yards ('08 - HOU, DEN, MIA, TB, KC; '09 - MIN, DAL, NE, NO, ATL & GB). These are all representative of efficient and balanced offenses. In '09, Grant's best season, Green Bay was one of them. Only three of these teams - MIN, ATL, and GB in '09 - had a "featured" back; Turner got hurt and the rest were committees. Again, given Grant's situation (good, but pass-happy offense; no real "vulture") and all the comparisons, I would think he shoulda/coulda/woulda put up numbers similar to AP and/or some of the committees (if he were a 4). As it stands, I think '09 was his "ceiling," at least without a MUCH better line. A better back could put up better numbers in the same system.

 

I think this is the only spot where we disagree - I just don't think they'd give a much bigger role to any RB (unless we're talking one of the "special" guys) because their passing attack is so good.

[SatchDork]

What about the first 4 weeks? Guy was atrocious - he couldn't even avg 3 ypc against the Bills, for christ's sake. He's been ok last 2 weeks but I'd be shocked if he kept that up.

 

For the record, I took a $1 flyer on BJax in my league's auction. I got the 1 TD out of him in a game I lost anyway, then dropped him after the back-to-back fantasy stinkfests @CHI and vs. DET (thankfully he was on my bench during both those games).

[SatchDork]

Anyway, I say both Favre and Rodgers are good for a minimum of 200 yards and 3 TDs each*

 

*I am not stipulating to which team these TDs will be thrown

[Balzac]

Anyway, I say both Favre and Rodgers are good for a minimum of 200 yards and 3 TDs each*

 

*I am not stipulating to which team these TDs will be thrown

 

As long as Randy Moss accounts for 100 of those yards and a TD, I'll be thrilled. I'm sitting Driver, so I wish him nothing but the worst.

[tosberg34]

they are predicting 80% chance of rain/storms at kickoff tonight. Anyone think that's going to affect the passing game and Favre/Rodgers numbers?

[Valhalla]

they are predicting 80% chance of rain/storms at kickoff tonight. Anyone think that's going to affect the passing game and Favre/Rodgers numbers?

 

I'm pretty sure it'll mean about 5 picks for Rodgers....AP and Minnesota will be just fine though

[Valhalla]

 

[Ursa Majoris]

<bump>

 

What the hell sort of throw was that?

[bushwacked]

Hell hath no fury like a Packer fan getting beat up by there former QB. Kind of like a chick.

[BeeR]

Why are we talking about the game? I thought this was the Grant vs Jackson thread.

[stethant]

In other news, why are the Vikings making life difficult for themselves by subbing out AP for Gerhart? Did NBC ask them to keep the game as close as possible?

[Big John]

Keep shooting themselves in the foot.

[Ursa Majoris]

 

[CaptainHook]

FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRVE!

[DaFreak]

I think Favre is still a Packer!