Skip to content

Ryan Grant thinks he’ll be the starter in Green Bay

0825_football_ryan-grant_400x280 AP

Running back Ryan Grant contributed only eight carries and 45 yards to the Packers’ 2010 title run.  But despite 703 regular-season yards from Brandon Jackson and a league-best 315 in the postseason from James Starks, Grant expects to still be at the top of the depth chart.

And the team does, too.  Grant thinks.

“From what I’ve heard, that’s the conversation that was told to me,” Grant told WSSP radio, via SportsRadioInterviews.com.  “I was told that by [former running backs coach Edgar Bennett], initially. Jerry [Fontenot, the new position coach] didn’t tell me that anything changed.  Jerry told me that as of right now I’m still the leader of the backfield and the expectations won’t change. . . .  I do believe there will be competition, which is fine.  I’m all for that.”

The Packers owe Grant $1 million on the 15th day of the new league year.  Unlike most league years, 2011 will give the Packers a chance to see whether Grant can truly compete before making a decision on that $1 million roster bonus.

And if in those early days of camp the Packers decide that Grant isn’t ready to reclaim his job, there’s a chance that the Packers will decide to save their money and go with the guys who helped take the team to the top of the league in 2010.

Permalink 81 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Green Bay Packers, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
81 Responses to “Ryan Grant thinks he’ll be the starter in Green Bay”
  1. daburgher says: Jul 11, 2011 1:15 PM

    If anything he’ll be splitting carries.. he’s definately not gonna be the man.. had one good season.. could very well be a fluke

  2. goawayeverybody says: Jul 11, 2011 1:22 PM

    James Starks is a beast. He averaged 5 yards per carry against the freaking Steelers.

  3. SpartaChris says: Jul 11, 2011 1:25 PM

    daburgher says:
    Jul 11, 2011 1:15 PM
    If anything he’ll be splitting carries.. he’s definately not gonna be the man.. had one good season.. could very well be a fluke
    ===============================
    Not a fluke at all. Had two consecutive 1200 yard seasons and almost had 1,000 yards his first season despite starting only half the games.

    I expect Grant to be the starter, but he’ll be splitting carries with Starks by the end.

  4. jimmysee says: Jul 11, 2011 1:28 PM

    Splitting carries = fresh legs.

    Could be a three-way split.

    OK with me

  5. theawkwardyears says: Jul 11, 2011 1:30 PM

    Starks looked like a good #2 He will compete with draft pick Alex Green. B. Jackson will be gone and Grant will be #1

    Look for us to bring in a free-agent to mix things up.

    Maybe a vet?

  6. gregjennings85 says: Jul 11, 2011 1:31 PM

    Keep dreaming. One thing about Thompson and McCarthy…they ride the hot hand, and who can argue with that approach.

    Day 1 starter: James Starks.

    Grant, following offseason ANKLE surgery at the ripe old age of 28, had better worry about 23-year-old rookie Alex Green taking his backup touches, at this point.

  7. superdanlp says: Jul 11, 2011 1:31 PM

    daburgher, how you can say Grant’s production has been a fluke, then deem James Starks ahead of him after 1 good postseason game?

    In before you say it was more than just 1 good game, after the eagles game he averaged 3.3 yards a carry.

    you’re comment is hypocritical and seems uneducated.

  8. gregwestlake says: Jul 11, 2011 1:33 PM

    I like James Starks chances

  9. firethorn1001 says: Jul 11, 2011 1:33 PM

    ‘If anything he’ll be splitting carries.. he’s definately not gonna be the man.. had one good season.. could very well be a fluke’

    ?

    Sorry, but I’m not buying one good season. In 08/09 he ran for 1,200+ yards (3.9 and 4.4 average). Granted, those are not spectacular numbers, but for what the Packers do that is good. Sorry, but I think he is past the ‘fluke’ stage.

    Granted he is a middle of the pack style back though.. (no pun intended on granted and middle of the pack)

  10. Luke Money says: Jul 11, 2011 1:38 PM

    daburgher:

    Which good season would that be? The year he rushed for more than 1,200 yards and four touchdowns, or the year he rushed for more than 1,200 yards and 11 touchdowns? As good a story as Starks was last year, the job is still Grant’s to lose.

  11. trbowman says: Jul 11, 2011 1:41 PM

    He had one good season? LOL. How quickly people forget.

    Comeback player of the year candidate.

  12. mjs2012 says: Jul 11, 2011 1:41 PM

    Ryan Grant has been severely underrated in Green Bay mostly because he’s not as flashy as some of the top RB’s in the NFL.

    The Packers are in a great situation now with their RB’s. You have a reliable veteran in Grant, a young up and comer with a huge upside in Starks, an impressive rookie in Alex Green. You also have Kuhn at fullback/halfback.

    As feared as the Packers’ passing game will be this year, I could still see them gaining some serious yards on the ground with this combination.

  13. herlies says: Jul 11, 2011 1:41 PM

    Grant had back-to-back 1200 yard seasons before getting hurt in week 1 last year.

    He’s not an elite back, but I wouldn’t call him a fluke either.

  14. trbowman says: Jul 11, 2011 1:42 PM

    He had one good season? LOL. How quickly people forget. Comeback player of the year candidate.

  15. minnesconsin says: Jul 11, 2011 1:43 PM

    I would say the chance of the Packers cutting bait on Grant is about 0. Really. He’s young, only 2.5 seasons of wear on those tires. he could end up splitting carries with Starks, who also shows promise, but there’s absolutely zero chance that Brandon Jackson figures into the equation for starting running back.

    Jackson has a career average of 3.8 YPC.

    Grant has a career 4.4 YPC average over 2.5 seasons, in which he amassed close to 3500 yards on the ground.

  16. paulseiferth says: Jul 11, 2011 1:43 PM

    Just figure out who the starter is before my fantasy draft pl0x

  17. danimalk82 says: Jul 11, 2011 1:44 PM

    If anything he’ll be splitting carries.. he’s definately not gonna be the man.. had one good season.. could very well be a fluke.

    First of all, I’m a grammar nazi… it’s “definitely”.

    2nd, You obviously don’t know Mike McCarthy very well or you think Ryan Grant is a scrub, because MM has said very clearly he doesn’t like to split carries or to have a committee of running backs. He did last year out of necessity to find the hot hand considering our depth (or lack-there-of) at the RB position.

    3rd, I would argue that he has been an above average back since he has been here. The first season he was with Green Bay he was traded after the final round of cuts in training camp he was given 2 months to learn the system and in week 8 he took over and his per game production was among the top 5 in the league. The second year (that good year you are referring to) he had 1200+ yards & 11 TDs. He then had a “down” year 1200+ yards + 5 TDs (which I think is still a good year minus some red-zone looks). And last year he suffered a season ending injury in week one.

    I would be willing to say that with continued growth on the offensive line + his ability to rehab 100% from last years injury + our passing game takings defenders out of the box he could be a top 5 back this year in terms of production.

  18. jmohr107 says: Jul 11, 2011 1:45 PM

    He’s been recovered from his injury since last December, and probably could have made it back for the playoff run last year had he not been placed on IR.

    Brandon Jackson might not be back, Alex Green is a rookie more suited for the third-down role, and James Starks, while he has shown flashes has played in only 7 games in his entire career.

    Grant is one of the most under-appreciated backs in the league and is still the best running back in the Packers backfield.

  19. castleofcheese says: Jul 11, 2011 1:46 PM

    One good season? Since taking over as the Packers starter in mid 2007 to when he got hurt last year, he was the second leading rusher in the NFL during that time. The only RB with more yards was AP. I’m not saying he is some kind of super star, but he is definitely a quality back when healthy.

  20. latrainian says: Jul 11, 2011 1:46 PM

    Grant has shown flashes of talent, but he has been a disappointment since getting his big contract. Last year he got hurt, so it’s hard to fault him for that. The year previous to that, he was not the same player either. Does anyone remember the last time he broke a tackle?

    I really want to like the guy, but he’s getting paid a lot, so a lot more is expected of him. He seemed to play better when old man Ahman came back to town and stole some carries from him and showed him how it was done. I hope that an open competition between him and Starks will bring back some punch to the run game.

  21. daburgher says: Jul 11, 2011 1:46 PM

    Luke,
    you got me.. he had 2 good seasons out of 5.. thats not very good. running backs are a dime a dozen.. why pay a guy coming off an ankle injury going into his 6th season?

  22. kwwkkwwk says: Jul 11, 2011 1:47 PM

    I don’t see why not.. All he’s ever done is prove everyone wrong while hardly ever fumbling. Don’t forget about his 2007 year of 900+ yrds and 8 TD’s after finally starting halfway through the season

  23. packattack1967 says: Jul 11, 2011 1:48 PM

    In our offense all we need is 70-80 yards a game rushing. I think we have the horses for that.

  24. ddjesus says: Jul 11, 2011 1:49 PM

    It’s misleading to say he only had x yards on y carries, because he only played like 2 quarters all last year. Tom Brady only threw one touchdown in ’08 (just my educated guess, don’t grill me on this stat heads), therefore he is terrible.

  25. minnesconsin says: Jul 11, 2011 1:52 PM

    daburgher says:
    Jul 11, 2011 1:15 PM
    If anything he’ll be splitting carries.. he’s definately not gonna be the man.. had one good season.. could very well be a fluke
    ————-

    Really? Do a little research before you post. The numbers tell a different story:

    2007
    7 games started, 956 yards, 5.1 YPC, 8 TD

    2008
    14 games started, 1203 yards, 3.9 YPC, 4 TD

    2009
    16 games started, 1253 yards, 4.4 YPC, 11 TD

    Over the same period of time, there are only a small handful of NFL running backs with better production than Ryan Grant.

  26. abqpacker says: Jul 11, 2011 1:53 PM

    Jackson averaged 3.7 ypc last year – as opposed to Grants’ career average of 4.4.

    As well as Starks played in the Super Bowl the main reason he led the league in playoff rushing is that he played in more games than any other back.

    Ryan Grant is a very solid NFL back and is clearly the starter. Anyone who doesn’t think so hasn’t been paying attention.

  27. minnesconsin says: Jul 11, 2011 1:55 PM

    daburgher says:
    Jul 11, 2011 1:46 PM
    Luke,
    you got me.. he had 2 good seasons out of 5.. thats not very good. running backs are a dime a dozen.. why pay a guy coming off an ankle injury going into his 6th season?
    ——————-

    2 good seasons out of 5?

    He’s had 2.5 good seasons out of 2.5 possible seasons, and was injured all of 2010. figure it out.

  28. shieldsisland37 says: Jul 11, 2011 2:03 PM

    Im one of the few Packer’s fans that feels that our rb talent is in this order: Green, Starks, and Grant. I would like to see Grant on the team, however, I feel Green has more power, speed, better catching, and was in a similar spread offense in Hi. Starks, runs very hard and breaks tackles. Grant has had some big games for us, and god bless his soul, but I do not see him beating out Green or Starks.

  29. indianheadmeatpackingcompany says: Jul 11, 2011 2:06 PM

    Maybe this is Gado the 2nd. It wouldn’t be the first time GB a RB that had a good season or two and then as quickly disappeared as he first appeared. I am wondering though why this is news. There would be a story here if Grant did NOT want to be a starter. But a story where an NFL player wants to be a starter is not a story. Here’s an idea for you next story: “Stevens Point man wants to breath”.

  30. theawkwardyears says: Jul 11, 2011 2:11 PM

    Starks may have been a beast those few weeks but having suffered from Samkon Gado syndrome I doubt the Pack will be quick to pass the torch.

    Grant = Proven Performer

  31. gregjennings85 says: Jul 11, 2011 2:35 PM

    I’ll say this as plainly as I can.

    Grant has nice top-end speed, but watching him waste opportunities can become frustrating.

    Grant possesses average acceleration, his running lanes close up quickly, so he often times is tasked with making at least one defender miss.

    Like any professional sport, opponents amass game file of your tendencies. The word is out: Tackle Grant around the legs, and he goes down. Tackle him up high, and he his adept at stiff-arming you.

    Teams have chosen to go after his legs, and he has consistently gone down, sometimes losing yards, in his inability to avoid clutter around his legs.

    Enter: James Starks. Whether you attack him high, low, around the waist, the kid continues to churn his legs and refuses to lose yards.

    The Packers implement the Zone Blocking Scheme which has made many an average RB into a quality runner, Grant included.

    You have to ask yourself one thing: With a proven-in-the-clutch workhorse back in James Starks already in-tow, why would Green Bay use a valuable 3rd round pick on a multi-dimesional RB?

    Answer: Because they intend to move on from Ryan Grant, following the 28-year-old’s recent ankle surgery.

    I like Ryan Grant as a person, but as a RB, I’ve seen better. Nothing against him, but with his limited vision, acceleration and tackle-breaking, it’s easy to see why he was not drafted in 2005 out of Notre Dame, despite possessing great straight-line speed (4.43 in the 40 at the combine).

  32. imjinbrdgr says: Jul 11, 2011 2:54 PM

    Grant does seem to up his game a little with some competition. I see him and Starks battling for carries all year which will be great for the team. People say McCarthy likes to stay with one back but when has he ever really had more than one back to choose from?

  33. mhartman7 says: Jul 11, 2011 3:13 PM

    “You have to ask yourself one thing: With a proven-in-the-clutch workhorse back in James Starks already in-tow, why would Green Bay use a valuable 3rd round pick on a multi-dimesional RB?

    Answer: Because they intend to move on from Ryan Grant, following the 28-year-old’s recent ankle surgery.”

    Real answer…because Brandon Jackson won’t be around anymore and they want another back for 3rd downs/receiving and also because it is Grant’s last year on his contract and Ted Thompson thinks into the future rather than just on the next upcoming season.

  34. qoojo says: Jul 11, 2011 3:29 PM

    I feel sorry for Grant because he has to listen to idiots like in the first post talking about how he is a one year wonder. Up until he was injured last year, he was around 3rd highest in yardage gained since he became full time starter. Also, how did that running game work after he went out? I swear the guy gets no respect at all.

  35. superdanlp says: Jul 11, 2011 3:29 PM

    This burger guy clearly has no idea what hes talking about. Also, who said hes coming off “offseason ankle surgery” because he clearly has no idea what hes talking about either. Some people just shouldn’t talk football.

  36. ruvelligwebuike says: Jul 11, 2011 3:33 PM

    14-2 either way.

  37. shadowgm1 says: Jul 11, 2011 3:59 PM

    @theawkwardyears –

    It’s funny you mention the Samkon Gado syndrome. Because that defines Grant’s career, benefitting from operating in a spread system and backed off linebackers – if his one dimensional straight line “talent” (which is highly questionable) can hit a five foot wide hole in a dead sprint. Can anyone recall Gary Brown of the then Houston Oilers in the mid-nineties, gaining over 1,000 yards rushing in eight games? Same principle here. The Oilers had Moon and a bevy of receiving talent (Haywood Jeffires, Drew Hill and Ernest Givins) in their spread Run and Shoot variation offense, which ballooned the statistics of the RB, as LB’s backed off into coverage rather than staying in the box. Minnesconsin’s statistics interestingly left out his total carries, which dramatically increased in those three years with minimal benefit, and reduced his per carry average significantly. Quite simply, outside of favorable ’08 games with terrible defenses (such as a pre-Suh Lions front seven twice a year for starters), Grant was corralled as the team gave him more opportunities to prove his overinflated hijacked salary in the ’08 preseason, and he botched them all. Add to the fact that he is an absolute HORROR as a receiver out of the backfield, the emergence of Starks (though he cannot learn plays as he should, which held him out until the San Fran game at Lambeau), and the fact that Ted used a THIRD ROUND pick on eventual SUPERDEMON starter Alex Green, and Grant isn’t a lock to make the team – provided that Jackson would sign for a low deal and the Pack could avoid a $1 million roster bonus to a dud.

    I can never figure out what games (if any) that the Grant supporters are watching for him to garner such blind faith among our fan base, maybe it’s just that they shelled out a ton of ching for one of his jerseys before the shine wore off his horseapple of a career in the 2007 NFC Championship game against the Giants.

    @ Minnesconsin –

    Also take a look at how standard numbers of RB’s across the league dropped overall in favor of the new flavor of offense – seam bursting spread formations and aerial preferences from teams such as Indianapolis, New Orleans, New England, Green Bay and Atlanta. The arguement that he is among the top RB’s in production during that span is ludicrous. He is playing second fiddle in a top offense geared towards tossing downfield.

    @shieldsisland37 –

    Couldn’t agree more buddy. Green will blow doors off by mid season and be what we may need to contend and try to get back to the big one.

  38. teal379 says: Jul 11, 2011 4:35 PM

    I like Grant – okay. Just okay.

    Everyone’s getting excited about him putting up 1200 yards a year. That’s 75 yards a game. I believe a combo of Green/Starks can produce 75 yards a game at a cheaper price. Let’s spend Grant’s money on a LG.

    Also – when’s the last time a team put 8 in the box to stop him? How about never? When really looked at what offense he plays in – 75 yards a game is kind of low considering everyone but the line and maybe one LB are usually 15 yards down field on every play covering the WR’s and TE’s that Aaron’s tossing 4000 yards and 30 TD’s a year to.

    Nice guy, good citizen but he can’t run arround the end, can’t catch a pass, can’t break a tackle below his mid torso and is close to 30, had major injury last year and is due some large money. If Ted releases him it will be most likely due to that age/cash deal but in the end it won’t be fretted over that GB can’t produce at the RD possition.

    Starks did what he did without playing any football in basically 2 years. Was hurt his last year of college and spent the first 1/2 of the year on the PUP list. He has a lot more upside than Grant.

  39. stvang says: Jul 11, 2011 5:20 PM

    Losing Jackson will hurt alot. He has always been a spetacular situational back. He doesnt have flahsy noumber and is no way an everydown back. But his utility will be missed.

    Grant will be the old man showing the new kids the ropes. His veteran leadership will be valuable.

  40. minnesconsin says: Jul 11, 2011 5:44 PM

    @shadowgm1

    So you’re saying Grant benefited from his involvement in a pass-heavy offense. Why didn’t Brandon Jackson have the same kind of production in that offense this year?

    It seems like you want to argue that the NFL’s change to a pass-happy offensive game somehow validates your argument that Grant is not a good running back. I don’t see the correlation.

    The last time Grant played a full season, he had the same yards/carry average as Adrian Peterson, 4.4 — That was 2009, Favre’s last hurrah. But I suppose AP didn’t benefit from linebackers playing back to defend the pass at all.

    I hope Alex Green is great. But y’all sound awfully confident that he’s the next Chris Johnson, and he hasn’t even stepped foot on an NFL field. Lot to expect from a 3rd rounder from Hawaii — who do not run a pro style offense at all. Factor in the missed off-season & OTAs, rookie camp, etc, and it’s asking a lot for him to be ready to contribute in a big way this year. The Packers need Grant to bridge the gap, for at least another year. This is the last year of his contract, and with a base salary of $3.75M, it’s not like he’s breaking the bank.

    This year — 1. Grant 2. Starks 3. Green

    Next Year — Green & Starks battle it out for feature back, draft pick or less expensive veteran to fill the 3rd spot.

    Best case scenario — you go into this season w/ Grant, Starks, Green, not knowing what you’ll get out of the rookie. If Green is impressive beyond expectation and proves he can contribute early on, you trade Ryan Grant and at least get something in return. Letting him walk makes no sense at all.

  41. wafflestomp says: Jul 11, 2011 6:25 PM

    Grant will make the team this year and most likely lead the team in carries. Book it.

    I, like most fans, was extremely happy to have Starks as an option over B. Jack. for the obvious reasons. But I find it hard to believe McCarthy would leave our running game in the hands of a 2nd year pro, who only started a handfull of games.

    I like the rookie Green but he will not even see the field till he can prove he can be effective in pass protection schemes. That much I do know about McCarthy.
    Couple that with the lack of minicamps and the fact that Green hasn’t yet proven that he can run between tackles consistantly. I just don’t see Green Bay leaving themselves that vulnerable.

    Grant has never been flashy and rarely breaks alot of tackles but he is a decent runner and a far better option than Jackson ever was.

  42. paulharghis says: Jul 11, 2011 6:31 PM

    ruvelligwebuike says:
    Jul 11, 2011 3:33 PM
    14-2 either way.
    =============================
    Jesus, this crap is starting already? I don’t know why I am suprised. You are, after all, a Packer fan.

  43. ruvelligwebuike says: Jul 11, 2011 6:45 PM

    “Jesus, this crap is starting already? I don’t know why I am suprised. You are, after all, a Packer fan.”
    ———————

    Just like when us lowly hicks from Wisconsin thought we’d win our 13th championship last year. Man, what a bunch of non-elite, low-life, football-loving, beer drinking retards!

  44. kcjohnson2 says: Jul 11, 2011 6:47 PM

    Did no one get the memo? There is no such thing as a #1 RB anymore in the NFL and if there is it’s the exception, not the rule (e.g. AD).

    Like most intelligent NFL teams, the Packers will deem the incumbent (player with the longest tenure with the team) the starter and then split carries.

    Look for the Packers to consider keeping four running backs. It’s an oft injured position and the Packers have shown in the past they aren’t afraid to keep an untraditional number of players at skill positions (4 tight-ends and 3 fullbacks last season).

  45. favreblows says: Jul 11, 2011 9:11 PM

    Grant has been a stud in the past and still has young legs. There is NO way the Pack cuts him over $1M. Are you people on crack??!! Grant will be the starter hands down and Starks will get plenty of carries. Green will be the third down back IF he can prove himself. I would not be surprised if they sign Jackson cheap to a one year deal. He will not get much on the open market, but he fits into the Packers 3rd down schemes beautifully. His biggest asset is his pass blocking. If Green can’t do that, he won’t see the field that much.

    I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Grant has a huge year.

  46. paulharghis says: Jul 11, 2011 10:54 PM

    ruvelligwebuike says:
    Jul 11, 2011 6:45 PM
    “Jesus, this crap is starting already? I don’t know why I am suprised. You are, after all, a Packer fan.”
    ———————

    Us lowly hicks from Wisconsin,man, what a bunch of non-elite, low-life, football-loving, beer drinking retards!
    ===========================
    Ruvell, Icouldn’t have said it betterr myself. Atleast you know what you are, I’ll give you that mch.

  47. shadowgm1 says: Jul 12, 2011 12:07 AM

    @ Minnesconsin-

    I obviously enjoy arguing with thick, brick walls.

    Pass heavy offenses and spread systems pull the LB’s out of “the box”, which is the “imaginary area near the line of scrimmage where the defensive linemen and linebackers line up prior to the offense putting the ball into play.” Now, depending on the defense (and taking into account six games in the division against 43 fronts- two of which being cover 2 defenses), the goal of these spread formations are to pull the outside linebacker(s) into coverage with a slot receiver and TE/HB in the flat, leaving a consistent rhythmic (if effectively using a play action scheme – which McCarthy’s play calls struggle mightily to maintain) four man push to be handled by five offensive linemen. In the cover 2, the MLB drops back as the “third safety” cover the mid field zone (see the effective Brian Urlacher as the definitive cover 2 MLB). Grant is not the offensive centerpiece, hence any run called versuses such fronts being gashed for 5 to 8 yard pass plays tends to yield higher ypc as the backers drop back in space to defend the real threat of Rodgers and our passing game, then being forced to redirect and close to stop the run yardage bleed. The mismatch up front (four on five or six) creates his yardage chunks early on, but when the defense begins to tune in or run calls increase due to score differential or clock control, his true nature shows as a limited downhill runner with ZERO field vision or block anticipation. Add to it his awful pass receiving skills, and you are paying what ends up being in the ballpark of $5 million (after his $1m bonus) in one season for a detriment to your ball club. That sir, should be more correlation than even the most ignorant debater on Grant’s side in this issue.

    You ask anyone on these boards, if preparing for playing Adrian Peterson or Ryan Grant – which would they focus on…and I assure you it’s better than 90% for Peterson. That “statistical” arguement belongs in Fantasy Football. And Favre benefitted from Peterson, not vice versa, in 2009. Prior to his arrival, Peterson was among the top in attempts over a two year span, Childress rode him as far as he would go. That run heavy play calling jump-started Favre’s renaissance – the complete reverse to what THIRD STRING GIANTS RB RYAN GRANT walked into in Green Bay in 2007. The only thing to derail Favre’s prophetic return to the elite (in the NFC title game in 2009 and the 2010 season) was Childress’ stubborn will to make Favre the more the centerpiece and neglect AP his touches. It cost him his job, and well it should have.

    GREEN BAY DOES NOT RUN A PRO STYLE OFFENSE. WE ARE A SPREAD OFFENSE, AND QUITE SIMILAR TO THE RUN AND SHOOTS OF THE NINETIES. How else would someone of Grant’s limited capabilities produce yards? The Giants weren’t idiots, they ran a pro style offense.

    And…I’m spent. I apologize if I sound as if I’m going off on you, but this pro-Grant arguementative that is slowly dwindling within the Packers fan base is, well, old.

  48. shadowgm1 says: Jul 12, 2011 12:39 AM

    @ Minnesconsin –

    P.S. – Brandon Jackson isn’t a #1 RB, but he’s a clutch 3rd stringer and an ace when receiving out of the backfield. His skill set lent McCarthy’s play calling to slant more toward the pass. He begged, borrowed and stole 703 rushing yards last season (including a 99 yard effort in a near upset over the Pats), not too shabby considering McCarthy’s penchant for utilizing the TE over the RB position in games two through fourteen – when his attempts per game didn’t break fifteen in platoon work with Kuhn and eventually Starks. 703 yards for a third down back like Jackson only further illustrates my point about the spread system and it’s benefit to it’s RB’s. They are a dime a dozen in this offense…so why overpay someone for what the offense makes him?

    I would really like to see what types of non-Madden or Fantasy Football trades you could make for Grant. I guarantee it wouldn’t go higher than a sixth round pick, five if they find a team that runs a spread and are desperate.

    *addendum to my last post: Also in mentioning performance in 2009 and Grant mirroring Peterson, not only keep in mind my above point regarding the symbiotic relationship of Favre to Peterson, but also the fact that the Packers coming off of a horrendous 2008, had the 30th ranked strength of schedule and faced laughable defenses as a result.

  49. minnesconsin says: Jul 12, 2011 9:20 AM

    @shadowgm1

    wow, you have really impressed me with your vast knowledge of the game. your username is certainly apropo — in fact, I bet you’re just Ted Thompson in disguise, trying to find ways to kill time during the lockout. If you’re not a GM, you really should be. You, my friend, are a GREAT FOOTBALL MIND.

  50. mhartman7 says: Jul 12, 2011 9:47 AM

    shadowgm1
    “I can never figure out what games (if any) that the Grant supporters are watching for him to garner such blind faith among our fan base, maybe it’s just that they shelled out a ton of ching for one of his jerseys before the shine wore off his horseapple of a career in the 2007 NFC Championship game against the Giants.”

    “Green will blow doors off by mid season and be what we may need to contend and try to get back to the big one.”

    You go on about blind faith…yet you are fawning over a rookie who played in a spread offense that inflates numbers and has yet to see an NFL field?

    Its not blind faith to like a guy who has produced quite well in his 2.5 years in the system.
    Its knowing that he does the things in this offense that he needs to.
    Its not flashy…but it works.
    Green will be lucky to see the field more than 3rd downs (thats if he can block…if he can’t, he won’t even see much time at all…same as Starks didn’t til he could she that he could block at least a little bit).

  51. mhartman7 says: Jul 12, 2011 9:50 AM

    “GREEN BAY DOES NOT RUN A PRO STYLE OFFENSE. WE ARE A SPREAD OFFENSE, AND QUITE SIMILAR TO THE RUN AND SHOOTS OF THE NINETIES. ”

    Putting it in bold does not make it true.
    Not entirely at least.

  52. mhartman7 says: Jul 12, 2011 9:55 AM

    “*addendum to my last post: Also in mentioning performance in 2009 and Grant mirroring Peterson, not only keep in mind my above point regarding the symbiotic relationship of Favre to Peterson, but also the fact that the Packers coming off of a horrendous 2008, had the 30th ranked strength of schedule and faced laughable defenses as a result.”

    That was the preseason strength of schedule.
    And lets see why it was so low (btw, Minny’s was 31st for Peterson…Chicago was 32). Could it be that it was skewed just a tad by a team that went 0-16 in our division that we played twice?

  53. ruvelligwebuike says: Jul 12, 2011 10:53 AM

    Us lowly hicks from Wisconsin,man, what a bunch of non-elite, low-life, football-loving, beer drinking retards!
    ===========================
    Ruvell, Icouldn’t have said it betterr myself. Atleast you know what you are, I’ll give you that mch.
    ————————

    What, the part about loving football, drinking beer or the part you left out…that a lot of Packer fans thought we’d win our 4th Super Bowl and 13th Championship and ended up correct.

    Now comes the part where you say “there’s more to life than football in Minnesota” while you’re posting on profootballtalk.com. Isn’t there a forum out there about Loring Park, Somalian housing project beautification, or losing sports franchises to post your classy and elite thoughts on?

  54. ruvelligwebuike says: Jul 12, 2011 11:14 AM

    @shadowGM-

    Let me see if I’m following you correctly.

    Ryan Grant was fourth in the NFL in rushing over the 2.5 years he was a starter because…they are in a pass happy offense?

  55. shadowgm1 says: Jul 12, 2011 12:46 PM

    @ruvelligwebuike –

    That is exactly what I am saying. The offensive spread creates his ease of yardage production.

  56. ruvelligwebuike says: Jul 12, 2011 1:53 PM

    “That is exactly what I am saying. The offensive spread creates his ease of yardage production.”
    ——————–

    I suppose next you’re going to tell us that Prince Fielder is going to lead the league in at-bats because he leads the league in walks.

  57. paulharghis says: Jul 12, 2011 7:37 PM

    ruvelligwebuike says:
    Jul 12, 2011 10:53 AM
    Us lowly hicks from Wisconsin,man, what a bunch of non-elite, low-life, football-loving, beer drinking retards!
    ===========================
    Ruvell, Icouldn’t have said it betterr myself. Atleast you know what you are, I’ll give you that mch.
    ————————

    What, the part about loving football, drinking beer or the part you left out…that a lot of Packer fans thought we’d win our 4th Super Bowl and 13th Championship and ended up correct.

    Now comes the part where you say “there’s more to life than football in Minnesota” while you’re posting on profootballtalk.com. Isn’t there a forum out there about Loring Park, Somalian housing project beautification, or losing sports franchises to post your classy and elite thoughts on?

    =============================
    Dummy, You Packer fans think you have the Super Bowl win locked up EVERY year. It’s only July12th and here you are predicting 14-2 again. It’s pathetic how homeristic your fanbase is.
    Next, why do you assume because I’m a Vikings fan, that I automatically live in Minnesota?
    I, in fact am a resident of Wisconsin. So your little jab about Minnesota, does not bother me one whit.

    I am glad at least that you understand that I am your better. Thank you for acknowloding that my thoughts are elite and classy.
    Stick around and pay attention to my posts kid, you may just learn something.

    Back to your prediction. Free agency has not even taken place yet, you don’t even know what the rosters will look like. Yet here you are calling out 14 wins. It’s the same thing every year with guys like you. It’s the reason I cannot root for the Packers if the Vikings are out of it. The superiority complex you Packer fans have is nauseating. Let me guess, you’re a “stockholder” too.

  58. supersuckers3 says: Jul 12, 2011 9:40 PM

    “Free agency has not even taken place yet”

    —-

    The teams that participate in that method of core building will suffer. Humans adjusting to new cities, living in hotels, and trying to cram for a season on short notice is not condusive to a prodoctive team environment. Free Agency is an attempt to compensate for a teams inability to draft and develop.

  59. nflpuppetmaster says: Jul 12, 2011 9:56 PM

    Ask this question when you’re wondering whether Ryan Grant is a stud RB or not: do you think any D coordinator in the league, going into a game against the Packers, worries about Ryan Grant beating him? I know if I’m a D coordinator, I’m going to worry Rodgers, Jennings, Driver, and any other player wearing an number in the eighties. If the Packers want to hand the ball off to Grant, great, that’s one less passing attempt I worry about.
    Don’t get me wrong, Grant can be/is an effective player, but he is in no way special. There are plenty of RBs in the league who can do what he does.

  60. supersuckers3 says: Jul 12, 2011 11:20 PM

    nflpuppetmaster says:
    Jul 12, 2011 9:56 PM
    Ask this question when you’re wondering whether Ryan Grant is a stud RB or not: do you think any D coordinator in the league, going into a game against the Packers, worries about Ryan Grant beating him? I know if I’m a D coordinator, I’m going to worry Rodgers, Jennings, Driver, and any other player wearing an number in the eighties. If the Packers want to hand the ball off to Grant, great, that’s one less passing attempt I worry about.
    Don’t get me wrong, Grant can be/is an effective player, but he is in no way special. There are plenty of RBs in the league who can do what he does.
    —-

    Agreed. James Starks the World Champion is one of them..

  61. favreblows says: Jul 13, 2011 12:00 AM

    @ paul harghis

    You are a tool. The Packers were loaded with talent last year and most educated observers knew that going in. They had a great QB, incredible WRs and TE….and a top-notch defense. Their team going into this year looks even better. They have a ton of talent coming back from injury. Check out the Vegas odds pal…..you might learn something.

    Typical of a moron Viking fan though. I have never seen such an idiot fan base. You guys seriously have no clue about the game.

    Oh…..and nice point about free agency genius. Yeah……the Queens are going to turn it around next year because of free agency. Good one. Why don’t you worry about your lack of a quality QB and your pathetic O-line and you crappy secondary and your OLD D-line. Yeah…..free agency is going to make a BIG difference for you.

  62. ruvelligwebuike says: Jul 13, 2011 10:28 AM

    “I am glad at least that you understand that I am your better. Thank you for acknowloding that my thoughts are elite and classy.
    Stick around and pay attention to my posts kid, you may just learn something.”
    ———————

    You just followed the above paragraph with this….

    “Back to your prediction. Free agency has not even taken place yet, you don’t even know what the rosters will look like. Yet here you are calling out 14 wins. It’s the same thing every year with guys like you. It’s the reason I cannot root for the Packers if the Vikings are out of it. The superiority complex you Packer fans have is nauseating. ”
    ———————

    Everyone with one shred of football knowledge knows that GB strives for continuity and to build their core. Outside of Starks/Grant/Jackson/Green at RB, whoever starts at ROLB and the FA situations with James Jones and Cullen Jenkins, everyone and their mom could put the Packers starting lineup down on paper today and be 99% correct. You see, unlike the Vikings, the Packers actually develop players instead of throwing $88 million at Bernard Berrian.

    The funniest part of your post is when you said your thoughts were classy and elite and that I’m a child who should learn from someone with wisdom like you… and then told me I have a superiority complex.

  63. paulharghis says: Jul 13, 2011 5:58 PM

    Favreblows:

    I hesitate to even respond to you. Not because I think you are right,but because your screen name tells me that you are an unstable lunatic.
    I’ve seen some of your posts regarding Favre.
    It’s been years since he has been in GB, yet you are still butt-hurt over it. Only an unstable mind would still be spewing venom years later.
    Anyway, I’m going to give it a shot. Maybe I can knock some of the few marbles rolling around your head loose?
    Who are the educated observers you speak of? Packer fans? Supersuckers has so eloquently put that if you don’t wotk for a sports team, you are a know nothing. So I don’t want to hear which publications reported it.

    Evidently, you don’t know the meaning of the term complacency. There is a reason no team has repeated since the Cowboys. That was a different era and the way the NFL is set up, it makes it nearly impossible to do it again.
    By the way, anyone who quotes Vegas odds is an idiot who doesn’t understand the oddsmaking system. They set these to induce betting on both sides. There are morons like you though, who look at that and get a funny feeling in thier pants when its only July.
    Next, You sound like a typical Packer fan when it comes to people not agreeing with you. People are either idiots or tools because they don’t think the Packers are going to go 14-2 every year. I bet you were the star of your debate team in school.
    Lack of a quality QB? How would you know? He hasn’t played a down in the NFL yet! Yet when Rodgers hadn’t had any playing time, you “just knew” he was all pro material. Thank you for once again proving how stupidly arrogant and hypocritical 99% of your fanbase is.
    3/5 of that crappy line was injured last year. There was no continuity at a very important part of the team.
    As for the crappy secondary 3/4 of the opening day starters were on injured reserve also the 1st reserve was injured.
    Crappy wasn’t the problem, lack of quality depth was. That’s on a coach that is no longer there.

    Also, another place where you are wrong. it is a fallacy the Vikes d-line is old:
    Evans-27 Griffen-23 Robison-28
    Allen-29 Ballard-22 K. Williams-30
    Johnson-25 Kennedy-32 Reed-23
    Fat Pat IS 38, but who knows if he is even on the team?
    By the way, free agency is for patching some holes, contrary to what some people think.
    So,that crappy o-line and secondary will be upgraded. What are you worried about? Your team is going 14-2, remember? That places them with a 1st round bye. May as well not play the games.
    I don’t think Favre blows, I’m willing to make a small wager you do though.

  64. paulharghis says: Jul 13, 2011 6:09 PM

    Ruvell:
    That’s great that your roster is pretty much set.
    That doesn’t mean the rest of the NFL is going to sit on their hands and do nothing.
    88 million huh? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and figure you are exaggerating. Yep, horrible signing. Hutch wasn’t though, neither was Leber, or Winfield, or Pat Williams. It’s nice that you only tell half the story to fit your argument, another typical M.O. of a Packer fan.

    You do understand that you can be a child and have a superiority complex at the same time, don’t you? Geez, I hope you aren’t that ignorant.

    I suppose it’s possible. You did predict 14 wins for a team in early July.
    The funniest part of your posts is that you actually believe the drivel you type.

  65. favreblows says: Jul 13, 2011 8:45 PM

    PaulHargis is a f’n idiot. Nice logic pal. Putting the blame for your pathetic season on Chilly. They sucked……admit it……deal with it…..get over it.

    And it is hilarious that you think the O-line’s problem was injuries. Hutchinson appears to be over the hill and besides Sullivan, the rest either have no talent or have never showed any consistency. But a genius like you thinks FA will solve the problem. Good one. I think Favre and AP would disagree with you. The former got his a$$ kicked last year because of the line….and the latter had about .5 holes per game to run through.

    Oh…..and good point about Vegas odds smart guy. They really don’t mean jack. They are merely inducements to get people to bet a certain way. Yeah…….right. You must have been dropped on your head as a young child. For you to think Vegas odds have limited relevance sure appears to be indicia of some sort of traumatic brain injury, or otherwise a significant level of chemical impairment.

    Thanks for the laugh though. It is refreshing to know that you represent a typical Viking fan base. Idiot.

  66. paulharghis says: Jul 13, 2011 10:42 PM

    YouBlow:

    I notice you didn’t deny that fact. I’m not suprised at all.

    The blame is on Chilly. He had final say on a roster that was sorely lacking in depth. He also lost the freaking locker room. All you morons ripped him the whole time he was the coach, now you’re his big defender?! You just choose whichever side fits your argument at the time, don’t you? I’m not suprised at all.

    Your 2nd paragraph is a jumble of incoherent thoughts. Hutch had a shoulder problem the whole damn year, but yeah, he’s over the hill.(eye roll)

    Sullivan had nagging injuries the whole year.
    Yes, continuity plays a really big deal in the cohesiveness of the line. Yes, picking up a player or 2 will solidify that line.

    I’m not sure what exactly what point you are trying to make. On one hand you castigate the talent, then you say that FA won’t help, then you go back to saying how bad they were. Sybil, is that you?

    Thanks for proving my point about Vegas odds.
    You proved you are one of the idiots that thinks that means something. Go look up what the object of a betting line is, go look up what the oddsmakers make their money on. I don’t expect you to understand it though. The lines aren’t put out to make money, nooooooo, they are there for turds like you to think that “the Packers are 7 points better than the lions”. Uff.

    Poor guy, you suffer from cranial rectosis.

    You have to be the dumbest Packer fan on this site, believe me, that is really saying something.

    Idiot that you are, you are probably proud of that fact.

    I can’t even thank you for a laugh, I actually pity your ignorance.

  67. shadowgm1 says: Jul 14, 2011 2:07 AM

    @ minnesconsin (Jul 12, 2011 9:20 AM ) –

    Your powers of reasoning have uncovered my true identity. Let’s agree to keep it on the down low for now…waiting for the labor deal to get done is just plain boring, so I need to find alternate means to get my football fix. Though I suppose you aren’t on here as well to flex your muscle as a “savant” as well.

    @ mhartman7 (Jul 12, 2011 9:47 AM) –

    Alex Green hails from a run and shoot spread hybrid offense. Green Bay runs a spread. Connect the dots… Ryan Grant requires a five foot wide hole for his one-dimensional high speed downhill runs, Green can move through traffic and has vision to cutback, Grant’s vision is highly suspect when he runs over or into blockers, if he even bothers to allow them to set up a block. The guy gained 1200 yards in that system. As a rookie with system experience (and above average blitz pickup techniques), he is already the “lofty” caliber some Packer fans claim Grant is. It’s not blind faith, just common sense.
    http://ajc.stats.com/nfldraft/players.asp?id=181298

    @ mhartman7 (Jul 12, 2011 9:50 AM)

    Mike McCarthy’s offense hasn’t been “West Coast” since Favre left. It was a wrinkle he added to his play sets in order to get more mileage out of Favre before Rodgers fell into our lap the following spring. It’s a spread shotgun offense with some “West Coast” variables – in particular the handling of the TE’s routes at times. Putting my statement in bold does not make it a fact, facts do.
    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/288301-wheres-the-west-coast-finding-flaws-in-the-packers-offensive-strategy

    @ mhartman7 (Jul 12, 2011 9:55 AM ) –

    Don’t really care that it was a ranking that was released in the preseason. The NFL schedules opponents for the upcoming season, making easier ones for awful teams, which Green Bay was in 2008. They faced a combination of opponents whose 2008 performance had them near the bottom of the barrel. Like it or not, a easier schedule schedule helped to pad Grant’s statistics.

    http://www.suite101.com/content/green-bay-packers-2009-schedule-analysis-a138287

  68. mhartman7 says: Jul 14, 2011 1:50 PM

    @shadow,
    I never claimed McCarthy’s offense was West Coast. Just that its not totally a spread.

    Grant does not require some 5 foot hole…you want to talk about facts, use them. The guy has more talent than you are giving him…
    Green has yet to step on the field…he will have to learn to block before he will get to.
    He will be firmly behind Grant and Starks for any 1st or 2nd down carries likely all year long.
    And claiming he has above average blitz pickup technique is great…try it in the NFL when its Julius Peppers, or Jared Allen or Suh coming at him…its a different story. He is not ahead of Grant in any phase of the NFL game at this point.

    The point that it was a preseason ranking is that what was the ranking at the end of the year. Basing a strength of schedule in hindsight by only looking at previous year’s records is foolish. It does not show the true strength of schedule…and as I said, it was highly skewed for GB, CHI, and MN because of Detroit’s 0-16. In addition, you were using it as a reason to bash Grant’s numbers in comparison to Peterson who played an easier schedule by your measure. Also, it was a ranking based on record, not run defense. All in all, it was a rather irrelevant point to make.

  69. favreblows says: Jul 14, 2011 5:48 PM

    @ PaulHargis–

    You are really stupid. Any jacka$$ understands that Vegas lines are set to make money. But YOU actually think that they have no relevance to the quality of a particular team.

    Let me take this really slow so you can follow. Maybe that’s not possible, but even slow-witted droolers like yourself usually can get mundane logic. See Paul—-the teams Vegas considers to be really good, like the Packers, Jets, Patriots and Steelers, all have decent odds to win the 2012 SB—-7 or 8 to 1. The really crappy teams like the Vikings have much worse odds to win the SB—in fact the odds are 60 to 1. Now if the oddsmakers were idiots (like you) they would have the Vikings odds at 2 to 1……and perhaps the Packers odds at 200 to 1. That way they would likely get creamed and be out on their a$$. See dummy……you really don’t get much, do you.

    Sorry that it hurts that the Packers are a very talented, well-coached team with a great QB, and the Vikings are a crappy team, full of holes with a rookie coach and rookie QB. That’s just the way it goes sometimes.

    I bet James Harrison has a higher IQ than you do.

  70. paulharghis says: Jul 14, 2011 10:48 PM

    YouBlow:

    How can you be so obtuse? I’ ll wait while you look up the meaning to that word.

    The line is put out to induce betting on BOTH sides!! I’ll take it slow so even a window licker like you gets it. The goal is to get a lot people that think the Packers won’t win it all, as well as those that will. Seriously, you need to research the betting lines and what the odds really mean.

    I know you have tent pants because the ” Packers have some of the best odds”. Go ahead and look back and see how “right” the oddsmakers were over the years.

    That you don’t realize how foolish you are making yourself look is funny as hell.

    It doesn’t “hurt” me at all that the Packers have talent. It’s July, who are you to presume what any teams final roster is going to look like?

    I’m so sick of imbecile Packer fans such as yourself.
    I bet Corky from Life goes on has a higher IQ than you do.

    I’m done with you. You are being willfully ignorant and it’s not worth my time.

  71. cleonslamminsalmon says: Jul 15, 2011 2:42 PM

    This website is hilarious. Bunch of grown men calling each other names while trying to sound smart.

  72. paulharghis says: Jul 15, 2011 6:13 PM

    He started it!! :-)

  73. favreblows says: Jul 16, 2011 8:08 AM

    @ Hargis

    You’re just sick of making a fool of yourself. Tough to accept I guess that the Queens will likely be crappy and the Packers appear to be set for a number of years. Why don’t you go somewhere by yourself and have a good cry? And while you are at it…..put a lot of money on the Panthers to win the SB next year! Since according to your brilliant logic, the odds have no relevance to the quality of a team…..you could make a ton of money genius.

    Are you sure your real name isn’t Onterrio Smith?

  74. paulharghis says: Jul 16, 2011 10:06 AM

    It took you nearly 2 days to come up with that response?

    You have no clue how this season is going to play out-NONE. Oh wait, you do…. the Pack =14-2 and Minnesota lucky to be 4-12, right?

    Regardless of whether they finish 4-12 or not…have a good cry? WTF?

    Is that what you do when the Packers lose? A sports team means that much in your life that you’d cry if they were bad? I pity you even more now.
    By the way, I said the odds are there to induce betting on BOTH sides. The pointspread does not mean that the oddsmakers think that team A is 7 points better than team B. they are trying to make money on BOTH sides of the line! You obviously haven’t googled it yet.
    You obviously also haven’t googled how often they are right about preseason “favorites ” either.

    As I have stated-willfully ignorant. I see that a lot having to live in this backwoods state.

    Are you sure your real name isn’t Mossy Cade?

  75. favreblows says: Jul 16, 2011 2:49 PM

    Idiot, aka Hargis–

    The Vikings signed Cade after the Packers cut him and he was convicted of rape and served 15 months in jail.

    Go google the word, dumba$$……or better yet….look in the mirror.

  76. paulharghis says: Jul 17, 2011 8:42 PM

    Youblow:

    Who cares if they signed Cade? He was cut almost immediately.

    That wasn’t the point of using him. The guy had sex with his aunt. How dumb is that?

    Do you get the reference now?

    That this was your whole focus of what I posted speaks volumes.

  77. favreblows says: Jul 19, 2011 1:49 AM

    Paul, Paul, Paul—

    You are really so stupid. The reason they cut him is because people did care. Reasonable Viking fans…..you clearly are not one of them……were outraged that they would hire a convicted rapist who assaulted his aunt. See Paul, the Packers fired him after he did this. The Vikings hired him after he did it, was convicted, and served 15 months in prison. For you to reference such a horrible moment in your own teams history in a weak attempt at a personal attack is telling as to your grasp of logic and your inability to admit when you f&*^ up. In other words, you are a dumba$$ who appears to never admit fault…..even when you make a complete fool of yourself.

    In better news for you…..it appears the lockout is over. Now your favorite squad will be able to go out and sign a bunch of free agents, making their team 2x as good as it is now…….and putting them on the path to a playoff spot!

    God, you’re an idiot.

  78. paulharghis says: Jul 19, 2011 6:38 PM

    I actually like that you are focusing on the Cade issue. That shows me you FINALLY did your research and figured out how idiotic you were being.

    I’d admit that I F’d up, if I ever did? i haven’t here though.

    Just like any other Packer fan, you are made a fool on one point, so you need to shift gears to another asinine point to try and “win”.

    You need to just walk away. You have shown your ignorance one too many times. If I were you, I’d be ashamed.

  79. favreblows says: Jul 20, 2011 1:02 AM

    If you were me, you wouldn’t be you anymore…..and you would be much better off.

    No research necessary Pauly. I remember the Mossy Cade fiasco clear as a bell…..sounds like you may not have even been around back then. One of the worst moments in Viking history.

    You’re the idiot who seems to cling to the notion that the Vikings are going to be really good next year and the Packers likely will not. Hey moron…..there is a chance that the Vikings make the playoffs, but the odds are long. And the Packers have 3x the talent and will likely be back in the playoffs. It’s simple Paul—-one team has lots of talent and one of the best QBs in football. The other has far less talent, no depth, and a rookie QB. You would “get it” if you weren’t so stupid.

  80. paulharghis says: Jul 20, 2011 6:14 PM

    Youblow:

    If I were you, I’d have done away with myself years ago.

    The research I am referring to does not concern Cade. I was referring to your idiotic take on the betting lines. The argument you abandoned in favor of this ridiculous Cade one.

    Nowhere did I say the Vikings were ” going to be really good this year and the Packers will not”.

    I only said that you can’t predict in July what will be real in February. Go ahead and try and find anything to the contrary.

    Dummy, the rosters are far from set. You’d “get it” if you understood there were other ways to stock a team, besides the draft.

    3x the talent huh? We shall see.

    You’d think your fanbase would just enjoy the title, but nope, you have to talk dynasty when that hasn’t happened since 93 and due to parity, is likely to rarely ever happen again.

    You are a willfully ignorant, hypocrtical homer.

  81. favreblows says: Jul 21, 2011 9:02 AM

    Well Paul–

    They yanked my response. Once again, I pointed out how wrong you are and how lacking in basic logic you are. I guess PFT doesn’t like it when Viking fans get too beat down by Packer fans with far superior logical skills. I guess they stopped the fight. Favre wins by TKO.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!