Analysis: Packers Running Backs
by Brandon on May 27, 2010 8:00 AM CDT
in Green Bay Packers Analysis
Email
PrintThere are currently five RBs listed on the Green Bay Packers roster, but I'm only going to write about the top 3 RBs who should make the 53-man roster. Rankings from Pro Football Focus:
| Player | Rank | Overall | Pass | Run | Blocking |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grant | 30 | 1.3 | -3.8 | 5.1 | 0 |
| Jackson | 18 | 3.6 | 2.3 | -3.2 | 4.5 |
Yes they've ranked RB Brandon Jackson significantly higher than RB Ryan Grant. While Grant is one spot ahead of the Raiders RB Michael Bush, Jackson is just one spot behind RB Adrian Peterson. Instead of somehow using that as proof that Jackson should start ahead of Grant, it's more interesting to combine the two backs.
While Grant is a solid runner (and poor at everything else), Jackson did everything else well (except run). Jackson's blocking doesn't surprise me because he was great as QB Aaron Rodgers's protector last season. This agrees with Football Outsiders who ranked Grant as the No. 10 overall rushing back and Jackson as the No. 4 overall receiving back.
While neither can take the place of the other, they should remain the top 2 backs in 2010 and remain perfect compliments to each other.
Who's No. 3? 6th round pick RB James Starks. From my post-draft analysis:
Now they've added a Ryan Grant clone (Grant is 6'1", 222 lbs. and Starks is 6'2", 218 lbs) with speed. He's strictly Ryan Grant insurance, but that's not a bad thing either.
It's possible he's a dud and finds himself spending his first NFL season on the practice squad, but right now I expect he'll win a roster sport. I'm looking forward to seeing him play in the preseason.
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great analysis
It’s nice to see some stats that match up to what my gut has been telling me for some time. I’ve been thinking that Jackson is a great third down back through most of last season, but that using him like this is a bit of a disappointment from how high we drafted him.
If Jackson can continue to improve in that area, and maybe help us run the screen a bit better, it can only improve our passing game.
I’m also hoping that Starks can be a slight combination of both Grant and Jackson, since I guess he has nice hands and can catch out of the backfield.
Exactly what I've been saying!
…but you have numbers to support it. Grant while putting up nice numbers IS NOT a top 10 back. He’s average. He’s Michael Bush. That is not a good thing…we should be continuing to try to find better backs until we have someone that can run the ball well (with breakaway speed) and block well. If they can catch too, that is a bonus.
I am NOT really that high on Jackson but I guess its probably because I am looking at him as more of a RB vs a scatback or something which is probably how i should look at him. It would be nice to have a third down back who was at least a threat to do SOMETHING if we were to hand it off.
Grant
He is a serviceable back. He happened to be the RB-of-the-day in 2007 at about the time that defensive coordinators started playing nickel and dime as a base defense against the Packers (who were killing people with their 5WR sets). Grant benefited greatly by having the opportunity to play against 6 and 7 DBs, and so naturally his stats were very good. After that year, he (wisely) played hardball with Thompson for a new contract. Thompson had already painted himself into a corner with his mishandling of the Favre Fiasco and could not afford even more negative publicity by refusing to pay Grant, and so he offered him a contract that was much better than Grant probably deserved. The result is that we have him and we are overpaying for what he is, which is a middle-of-the-pack-or lower running back.
Brandon Jennings is not a feature back. Thompson drafted him, in the second round, with the hope that he would be, but he isn’t.
I agree with everything you said there. He, Thompson, had his hands a little tied…good timing for Grant. I think some of his rookie year success (vs. what Jackson was doing) was due to improved line play as well. But he was right place right time…and as a result we have our avg back at top dollar while other teams have guys like Turner doing better and even getting paid less! I hope Grant continues to do well this year though.
not bad for serviceable
I mean last year Grant had similar numbers to AP, basically having less TD’s, but also less fumbles. That’s not too bad really.
by PackApologist on Jun 1, 2010 10:36 PM CDT up reply actions
I'd like to see Jackson get a fair chance at running the ball
He doesn’t get a lot of opportunities, so it’s difficult to say whether he’s good at running or not. Judging him as being inadequate is unfair if it is being based off of only a couple opportunities. Ryan Grant surprisingly had 1200 yards rushing last year, but how did that happen? where did it come from? Mop up duty in the 4th Quarter? I seem to recall not being able to rely on him on 3rd and short. On the other hand, it’s not his fault the OL wasn’t that good. He’s way too inconsistent though, but he’s healthy. That’s the one knock I have on Jackson, he’s frequently getting hurt. Point is though, give Jackson a fair chance to prove himself, then we’ll determine whether he’s good at running or not. He was drafted in the 2nd Round, so he does have talent.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Good article
I also think that B.Jack could be more if given the opportunity. I know a Nebraska fan who firmly believed that Jackson was going be just like Ahman Green. But he’s never really gotten the opportunity be the primary runner (aside from the first couple weeks of his rookie season when everybody else was hurt coming out of camp). He’s mostly just been asked to pass-protect and catch a swing pass now and then.
And Grant’s rankings & numbers confirm what we all knew, that, as you said, he
is a solid runner (and poor at everything else)
I’ll just point out though that there’s lots and lots of RBs who are poor runners and poor at everything else.
I admit that I like Ryan Grant. I hope the coaching staff just encourages him to do what he does best and forget about all the nudniks who freak out that he’s not a great receiving back. As long as Grant catches the ball every now and then and B.Jack runs the ball every now and then, our offense will continue to be disguised and effective.
RB's
Jackson is NOTHING like Ahman Green… He doesn’t run w/ the same kinda authority that Ahman was so noted for, nor does he have anywhere near the speed, power and tackle breaking ability! I saw Jackson play in college and how you could EVER think he was going to be like Green is beyond me! Just NOTHING alike… Jackson tho is a good 3rd down back, and I do like him in that role.
Grant is a good RB, but not anywhere near great. THe ZBS allows good RB to look alot better than they are… One cut and head upfield is EASY for almost any RB. We have to hope Starks is the RB to take Grants starting role. He has the size, speed (good, not great), is a good reciever and should be at least a decent blocker. Grant is due to make about 7M next year if he gains 1250 yds again this season. And if he gains 1600 in the next 2 years the Packers are on the hook for 4M at the end of the ‘11 season. That is WAY to steep for a RB, and I don’t see the Packers paying him the 7M salary of ’11 so this coming season is likely his last in GB!!! Unless he does a renegotiation that keeps his salary in the 5 or 6M range, and even that is a little rich for my blood!!!
It’s nonsense to say that it’s easy to run in the NFL. I don’t care what system a guy’s in.
The ZBS may have given RBs a big advantage when Denver first came up with it, when TD ran for 2K yards and then it seemed like they stuck a new guy in there every season and he did well. But that was a long time ago. Now everybody has adapted to and figured out how to stop the ZBS. Nowadays the advantage of running the ZBS versus the conventional power scheme or whatever doesn’t really amount to much. …especially since pretty much every team in the league does some zone blocking in their own offense.
Think of it like the west coast offense. When Bill Walsh first came up with it, the 49ers crushed everybody with it, because nobody had ever seen that kind of precision attack premised on quick-strike, high completion percentage stuff where the receiver gets yards after the catch. For about, I don’t know, 5-10 years they had clear advantage. Every 49er looked like a world-beater, everybody went to the HoF, etc. But nowadays every team in the league runs the WCO at least to some degree. So nobody really has a huge advantage from it anymore. The same thing happened with the ZBS.
To say “oh, Grant’s job is so easy because he’s in the zbs, blah, blah, blah” …again, just asinine.
by Curly Lambeau on May 27, 2010 7:27 PM CDT up reply actions
The thing is they still say all they need is a one cut and go RB… And that is all Grant has the ability to do! He can’t make multiple moves at once, or even on the same run for that matter! All they ask Grant or the RB in general to do is make one cut upfield and finish strong. SO that IS all they want and expect of the RB. Grant does that well, but he doesn’t have ANY special talents! Say what you want, but thats ALL the Packers ask of Grant!!! And that is all he has delivered. He doesn’t make multiple moves, he doesn’t break multiple tackles, he doesn’t make “special” runs except when the OL gives him a HUGE gap to run thru.
Try to deny it all you want, but thats what Grant is asked, and thats what he delivers… Nothing more, nothing less… If you want to pay 11M in 2011 for a RB who does the minimum you can do it, but I sure as hellaint doin it.. And I highly doubt Thompson will either!!!
Not my fault you cant see the assinine in your own statement!!!
Well, yeah, the “one cut and go” idea is how the ZBS works. That’s what they’re shooting for. My point is that it’s much harder for an offense (and a RB) to achieve anything close to that ideal nowadays as opposed to when the scheme was first invented.
The “one cut and go” RB is to the ZBS what a “north and south runner” is to the old power scheme. That’s where that quote fits in. The oposite of “one cut and go” is a guy who dances and freelances. When the coaching staff says “one cut and go,” what they mean is “quit tap-dancing and just hit the hole.” It doesn’t mean “this is an easy thing to do”. It means " stop thinking and run."
by Curly Lambeau on May 28, 2010 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions
Easy
But for RB it really is pretty easy… See the lane/hole and hit it. That isn’t too hard for RB who have been playing RB for their careers
Well . . . .
As a former offensive lineman, I used to grumble that my RBs lacked vision — after all, I made a hole, all they had to do was see it and hit it. As I have mellowed in my older age (there’s a straight line for Trevor), I have come to accept that there’s more to running the ball than seeing a hole and hitting it. There is generally more than one hole, and so the RB has to have the vision to see his options and then choose the correct one. Sometimes, there is a terrific hole but to get through it the RB has to beat a LB with a juke or a spin move. Lots of guys can run fast but make poor running backs. My problem with Grant is that he doesn’t always make the right decision; how many times have you watched him and thought that he should have cut the other way or hit the other hole? His secondary moves are not good, which is sort of surprising because at Notre Dame, where he played, RBs traditionally were taught terrific spin moves.
Vision
I agree it seems Grant sometimes seems to lack vision, but that might also have to do w/ his elusiveness. He isn’t able to make sharp cuts or see and hit cutback lanes. Like I said, he generally gets only what its blocked for, but never gets anything extra… Whether thats due to speed, elusiveness or vision… He gets the 3-5 yds that is well blocked, but doesn’t have the skills necessary to get any extra yards.
My problem with Grant is that he doesn’t always make the right decision; how many times have you watched him and thought that he should have cut the other way or hit the other hole?
I can’t even tell you the number of times that I’ve screamed at him while watching a game because of this haha! I swear, any time he should cut it up he tries to take the sidelines and simply just runs out of bounds, and vice versa. It’s almost painful to watch him run into the backs of our OL.
Yeah, as far as secondary moves go, Grant has none.
by packallday555 on Jun 1, 2010 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t have a problem with Grants one cut and go moves…I just don’t think he has anything after he hits the hole. He doesn’t have break away speed. He’s not going to make guys miss in the open field. He just runs…and usually get tackled pretty quickly. I just don’t find him to be a very exciting runner and I think we can do much better.
I also agree that there is no way TT will pay him that money…that is crazy money for an average RB. I can list many others that I would rather have over him and they are all going to be at a cheaper price than that!
Grant doesn’t have breakaway speed?? What are you talking about? Of course he does. That’s his main asset, actually.
Look, you guys don’t like Ryan Grant. Fine. But it’s like you’re thinking of complaints that are commonly made about running backs and then just applying them to him, whether they fit or not.
Okay, I’m done arguing about this.
by Curly Lambeau on May 28, 2010 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions
speed
He has good speed, but not gamebreaking speed. He is fast enough, but not fast enough to make something happen on his own… Its like everything about him… Decent to good, but not great at anything! And I do actually like him but certainly not enough for 7M a year, much less the 11M he’ll get in ’11 if he has 1250 yds this season and the 1600 he needs to reach that bonus.
He IS an example of a scheme RB, if ever there was one… And thats fine, but its doesn’t make him a top RB!
Alright, I said I wasn’t going to argue about this anymore, but what the hell…
You said,
He is fast enough, but not fast enough to make something happen on his own
I’ll grant you that he’s no Chris Johnson, who’s about the only RB in the league who can make something happen just with his speed. Grant has “once I get behind the defense, nobody’s going to catch me” speed, whereas Chris Johnson’s got “you may have a good angle on me, but, once every couple games or so, it’s not going to matter because I’m just going to turn on the jets, make the corner, and be gone anyway” speed. I concede the point. Furthermore, yes, there’s a big difference there. Grant has an extra gear, whereas CJ has an extra-extra gear.
HOWEVER… If you think $7 million per year is a high price, then just wait until CJ gets to his 2nd contract. He will absolutely get QB money. We’re talking $15 million per year, easy. And, btw, it’s no coincidence that CJ is holding out right now. …which… as well he should! I would too if I were him. And if he gets less than $15 million per year, he oughta’ fire his agent. He’s worth that kind of money. So…
A) There are only so many CJs to go around. Not every team can have one, and your expectations are unrealistic if that’s all you’ll be happy with. And…
B) Once a team gets a CJ, the whole team will be about him. The salary cap will dictate it. A-Rodg is the guy making the obsene money on our team, and there’s no room for another guy like that. You can only build around one guy.
So, the fact is that Ryan Grant is perfect for our team. I’ll even so far as to say this: if we could get a guy like CJ, of course we’d have to take him. But I’m not sure it wouldn’t wreck what we’ve got. So, we’ve got a good thing going with Ryan Grant. Leave it alone and quit bitching.
There. Now I’m done. If you don’t hear that, you’ll never hear anything.
by Curly Lambeau on May 28, 2010 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions
An exerpt from his Wiki
Grant applied for the 2005 NFL Draft after his senior year and was invited to the 2005 NFL Scouting Combine, a week-long showcase for NFL hopefuls. Scouts did not credit Grant with exceptional speed, but he was clocked at 4.43 seconds in the 40-yard dash at the Combine.20
Pre-draft measureables
Wt 40y 20ss 3-cone Vert BP Wonderlic
222 lb 4.54s 4.14s 7.10s 33.5" 17 26*
So look we aren’t calling him slow, we just aren’t calling him fast. I just don’t see him outrunning people on the field. He’s about average when it comes to speed…average when it comes to a lot of things. He’s not bad, we can just do a lot better…especially if we are paying top dollar for a running back.
4.43 is very good speed
That is NFL RB-caliber speed. I don’t have a problem with his footspeed, but footspeed alone doesn’t make a great RB. Assuming that your RB has acceptable footspeed, as Grant does, then vision, power, and secondary moves are more important. This is where Grant falls below average for feature backs.
:-)
not my words (in the quotation part at the top)
It says in the article though that he was credited with 4.43 but then in his final numbers right below that it shows a 4.54 which I think is probably more accurate.
speed
Yeah Grant has good straight line speed, but he doesn’t have game speed… That shows in his running. When he is in the open field he can only outrun guys when he gets the outside angle, but playing speed includes vision and elusiveness and making cuts… THose are the areas where he is lacking.
I just hope that Thompson finds someone who has similar speed but also has better vision and elusiveness. I think Starks might, he seems to have the ability to change directions better and see the cutback better. Course that is just from a couple youtube vids… hardly a full game video or season for that matter.
Yeah, I mean watching Starks on youtube, he looked good. But obviously, that can only tell you so much. He was playing against college guys, and has since had an injury. It seems like he is a quicker, more elusive back which is what I’ve been hoping we’d get since Ahman Green left.
Hopefully he can be a good 3rd down back for us. If he happens to turn into more and replace Grant, that would be great.
by packallday555 on Jun 1, 2010 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions
deep end
I’m not going over the deep end here… I think Grant is good and a good fit for the zbs. What I’m saying is he is good, not great and the zbs allows him to gain yards that he probably wouldn’t make in another scheme! His numbers are similar to Ahman Green’s, but it would be preposterous to compare the 2… Green was a Pro Bolwer like 5 times. Grant isn’t even making the Pro Bowl! Put Grant in Greens shoes and he probably doesn’t make 1000 yds. He just doesn’t have that kinda ability…
Im not bitching, just calling Grant what he is… A good RB, who doesn’t rank as a 7M per year player! Much less the 11M he might make!
I
by Strohman on May 28, 2010 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Might make is the only issue.
There’s every chance he might NOT make all the money, freeing up valuable cap space for the next CB (whenever Al Harris decides to call it a career)
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on May 30, 2010 12:40 AM CDT up reply actions
Too bad we didn't get Michael Turner
I think he makes about the same as Grant, maybe less.
by Charlie Kelly on May 29, 2010 9:06 AM CDT up reply actions
What type of back do we need?
Let me change the discussion a bit because we all know what we have in Grant.
Considering the offense we run what kind of back do we need? Think of this as a “what type of guy” question. So do we need a Leon Washington type guy? Or maybe a Brandon Jacobs? More of a middle ground Michael Turner? Curly is right in saying that not all backs can be CJ. Hell I’m not even going to touch on AP cause I think that Grant is essentially a poor man’s AP really.
Or, if we need essentially the type of powerful one cut back power runner like we have in Grant, what area in his game does he need to improve to truly make our offense dominate? Pass blocking? Pass catching?
I would say for this that we would need an all around back like Turner, or that Grant would need to do more catching. The whole, only running thing does get to me, and makes our offense more predictable. A bit more vareity would be good.
by PackApologist on May 29, 2010 7:46 AM CDT up reply actions
needs to improve
OK, first let me say Grant is good, just NOT 7M good, and definitely not 11M good!!! He is a zbs scheme RB, so do we “need” a different type of RB? No, I would say we don’t… What we need is a cheaper version of Grant! Or Grant at a reasonable salary… What I think Grant could improve in his game is Tackle breaking, elusiveness, Pass blocking and recieving… Just about every aspect of his game is decent, but there is ALOT of room for improvement in those areas specifically… I can easily see Starks being the RB to take over. From seeing his youtube vid, I would say he is more elusive, better reciever, and it wouldn’t be hard to become a better blocker. We just don’t know what we have in him, yet… Does Starks run w/ some authority and break tackles more like Green or is he another Grant in that regard.?
We could also definitely use a Leon Washington/Sproles type back to compliment Grant! Someone to take 5-10 carries, catch some passes, return kicks and has a speed and quickness element in his game that Grant lacks.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Chad Ochocinco gets robbed, mourns loss of Starbucks gold card
- Robert Griffin III will be first NFL player with Roman numerals on his jersey
- Alex Smith joins the burgeoning ‘stats are for losers’ movement
- Roger Goodell wants Wi-Fi in every stadium
- Plaxico Burress wants to workout for the Dolphins; Dolphins don’t want Plaxico Burress
