Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Ryan Grant listed as OUT in NFL Injury report...BUT (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Largent
- Start date
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
I think this is a mistake by NFL.com. I don't believe the packers list is out yet and several of these guys are almost certainly not out. http://www.packers.com/team/injury_list/
Mungo Burrows
Footballguy
That sure looks like an error in the way they posted it on the website with every injured player listed as "out". Neither team practiced wednesday because they have the MNF game and someone probably entered it wrong. I don't know - any folks with knowledge of GB status?
NFL.com has been known to botch up their posted injury reports in prior years as well.
NFL.com has been known to botch up their posted injury reports in prior years as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kitrick Taylor
Footballguy
That is not an accurate injury report. Having all 11 injured players for the Packers listed as "OUT definitely will not play"
has got to be a mistake.
has got to be a mistake.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
At least one of the guys listed as "out" practiced on Tuesday (Bigby). Clifton did walkthroughs. There was no practice yesterday. McCarthy had a press conference on Tuesday and discussed Grant, Hawk and others on this list and did not indicate that any of them are out.definitely a typo of some sort
CentralPA
Footballguy
Although I am still continplating bench Grant for Forte, which I don't think I will do, Grant is going to probably have bad night whether he plays or not.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Agreed.1st thing I did was try and grab Brandon Jackson, glad I peeked in here.
GoBirds
Footballguy
Anyone like Jackson this year? Hasn't Grant had a history of being fragile?
Michael Fox Fan
Footballguy
EBF
Footballguy
switz
Footballguy
Can no one read???? Look at the column heading!
switz
Footballguy
No, it's not. It clearly distinguishes Practice Status from Game Status.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
So you think the statement, "Out (Definitely Will Not Play)" just refers to the practice status? That's rediculous. Its clearly a mistake.
switz
Footballguy
It's listed under Practice Status. It's not a mistake.Thing is, that the message "Out (Definitely Will Not Play" is probably the only status message available for a player listed as Out... so when they set a player as Out for Practice that's the message the system outputs. It's not a mistake, they don't list it under Game Status. People just need to read the whole thing.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
I think the key point here folks is that the Packers wouldn't have 11 players OUT for Week 1 and, even if they did, they wouldn't declare them all as OUT on Thursday. Let's not read into the Ryan Grant situation other than to understand he didn't practice.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Are you now suggesting the Packers publish an injury list every day for practice? That is rediculous. Its clearly a mistake.
While reading into it i think most would agree that a guy who didn't practice in the preseason and hasn't practiced before their week #1 game isn't a good play this week.
Jason Wood
Zoo York
A fair point but again, this thread is going in all sorts of directions that it needn't.
No, there is clearly a "did not participate in practice" and "OUT (definitely will not play)". Either these two options are entirely redundant, or it's an error.
You have Grant and BJ is available on the WW and you haven't picked him up yet??? Ouch.giddy up and grab him quickly before someone else snatches him.So Basically......do I need to run to the WW and get Brandon Jackson or not!
switz
Footballguy
Regardless of whether it is redundant or not, it's all listed under PRACTICE STATUS.Everything under GAME STATUS is BLANK. Hence, the Game Status is not decided yet, and the Out refers only to practice. You have to take it in the context of where it is posted, under practice status.
Donnybrook
Footballguy
Ron_Mexico
I Love Doggies
2nd leading rusher since he took over the job half waythough last season, and he's "fairly unproven" ?
gruecd
Footballguy
Double entendre: A figure of speech similar to the pun, in which a spoken phrase can be understood in either of two ways.....
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
CentralPA
Footballguy
Couldn't disagree more, Brandon Jackson is nothing special, Grant will have the better year.
If i had to bet who would have a better year of course i would take Grant, but relative to the cost of the investment BJ is a FAR better buy.Couldn't disagree more, Brandon Jackson is nothing special, Grant will have the better year.Grant = Over-ratedBJ = Under-rated
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
If i had to bet who would have a better year of course i would take Grant, but relative to the cost of the investment BJ is a FAR better buy.Couldn't disagree more, Brandon Jackson is nothing special, Grant will have the better year.Grant = Over-ratedBJ = Under-rated
Again...If RB #14 performs at RB #22 levels, he can help you win all season long.If RB #53 performs at RB #41 levels, he doesnt help you win all season long...That performance needs to be better then a simple cost/investment-return ratio.
Last edited by a moderator:
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
typically vague comments from coach McCarthy in his post-practice press conf today:
http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2008/09/04/1/
Tau837
Footballguy
If i had to bet who would have a better year of course i would take Grant, but relative to the cost of the investment BJ is a FAR better buy.Couldn't disagree more, Brandon Jackson is nothing special, Grant will have the better year.Grant = Over-ratedBJ = Under-rated
Again...If RB #14 performs at RB #22 levels, he can help you win all season long.If RB #53 performs at RB #41 levels, he doesnt help you win all season long...That performance needs to be better then a simple cost/investment-return ratio.
The way some people post around here reminds me of how my wife "saves us money" by spending money to buy things because they are on sale.
Tau837
Footballguy
No.Ryan Grant costs a 2nd round pick, a VERY valuable pick, and he could easily under-perform (due to multiple risks that have been posted this offseason) and end up a lot less then RB #22.BJ costs a pick at the end of the draft that if you miss on basically costs you nothing, and if Ryan Grant's risks allow BJ to end up the starter he will DRASTICALLY outperform his draft slot and could help you win your league.BJ's upside is a lot better then RB #41 and Grants is a lot lower then #22, plus BJ is a free lottery ticket whereas you have to spend a lot on Grant.If i had to bet who would have a better year of course i would take Grant, but relative to the cost of the investment BJ is a FAR better buy.Couldn't disagree more, Brandon Jackson is nothing special, Grant will have the better year.Grant = Over-ratedBJ = Under-rated
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
You have one of those too?Damn the luck JWB.If i had to bet who would have a better year of course i would take Grant, but relative to the cost of the investment BJ is a FAR better buy.Couldn't disagree more, Brandon Jackson is nothing special, Grant will have the better year.
If RB #14 performs at RB #22 levels, he can help you win all season long.
If RB #53 performs at RB #41 levels, he doesnt help you win all season long...
That performance needs to be better then a simple cost/investment-return ratio.
Tau837
Footballguy
Your point above that BJ is a far better buy requires Grant to fail and Jackson to excel. If Grant doesn't fail, Jackson won't be able to reach his upside you speak of. So both things are required for your statement to be correct. That's more than just a free lottery ticket. It's essentially a prediction that Grant will fail.moderated said:No.Ryan Grant costs a 2nd round pick, a VERY valuable pick, and he could easily under-perform (due to multiple risks that have been posted this offseason) and end up a lot less then RB #22.BJ costs a pick at the end of the draft that if you miss on basically costs you nothing, and if Ryan Grant's risks allow BJ to end up the starter he will DRASTICALLY outperform his draft slot and could help you win your league.BJ's upside is a lot better then RB #41 and Grants is a lot lower then #22, plus BJ is a free lottery ticket whereas you have to spend a lot on Grant.BigSteelThrill said:moderated said:If i had to bet who would have a better year of course i would take Grant, but relative to the cost of the investment BJ is a FAR better buy.CentralPA said:Couldn't disagree more, Brandon Jackson is nothing special, Grant will have the better year.moderated said:EBF said:
EBF
Footballguy
Aren't you the guy who said Roethlisberger would never be a good FF QB?You ought to save yourself the trouble of thinking and trust my judgment.Just Win Baby said:
BJ costs basically NOTHING. Grant costs a TON. My point doesn't require BJ to excel since he's a penny stock investment, if it totally bombs it doesn't matter, and due to Grants injury, holdout, only a half season of work at the age of 25, etc BJ is a good free roll in case Grant does bust.I can't really go wrong with Jackson, whereas those with Grant have "zero...point...zero" room for error.Enjoy Grant this year and i'll enjoy BJ, and if i get tired of BJ then i cut him and lost nothing, if you get tired of Grant...we'll then GL.Your point above that BJ is a far better buy requires Grant to fail and Jackson to excel. If Grant doesn't fail, Jackson won't be able to reach his upside you speak of. So both things are required for your statement to be correct. That's more than just a free lottery ticket. It's essentially a prediction that Grant will fail.moderated said:No.Ryan Grant costs a 2nd round pick, a VERY valuable pick, and he could easily under-perform (due to multiple risks that have been posted this offseason) and end up a lot less then RB #22.BJ costs a pick at the end of the draft that if you miss on basically costs you nothing, and if Ryan Grant's risks allow BJ to end up the starter he will DRASTICALLY outperform his draft slot and could help you win your league.BJ's upside is a lot better then RB #41 and Grants is a lot lower then #22, plus BJ is a free lottery ticket whereas you have to spend a lot on Grant.BigSteelThrill said:moderated said:If i had to bet who would have a better year of course i would take Grant, but relative to the cost of the investment BJ is a FAR better buy.CentralPA said:Couldn't disagree more, Brandon Jackson is nothing special, Grant will have the better year.moderated said:EBF said:Grant = Over-ratedBJ = Under-rated
Tau837
Footballguy
Yes, I was down on Roethlisberger and you deserve credit for your view on him. So? Please explain what that has to do with Brandon Jackson. TIA.ETA: Didn't realize I was "the guy" - as in the only guy - who was down on Roethlisberger early.Aren't you the guy who said Roethlisberger would never be a good FF QB?You ought to save yourself the trouble of thinking and trust my judgment.Just Win Baby said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
Are you saying something revolutionary here? Isn't it a given that a guy you take with your last pick costs nothing if he doesn't contribute and you ultimately cut him? Isn't it a given that if a guy you take in the first couple rounds busts it hurts your team severely? So should I say that Sproles is a better value than Tomlinson using your logic?I mean, who is your second round pick? Do you have "zero...point...zero" room for error" with that pick?BJ costs basically NOTHING. Grant costs a TON. My point doesn't require BJ to excel since he's a penny stock investment, if it totally bombs it doesn't matter, and due to Grants injury, holdout, only a half season of work at the age of 25, etc BJ is a good free roll in case Grant does bust.I can't really go wrong with Jackson, whereas those with Grant have "zero...point...zero" room for error.Enjoy Grant this year and i'll enjoy BJ, and if i get tired of BJ then i cut him and lost nothing, if you get tired of Grant...we'll then GL.Your point above that BJ is a far better buy requires Grant to fail and Jackson to excel. If Grant doesn't fail, Jackson won't be able to reach his upside you speak of. So both things are required for your statement to be correct. That's more than just a free lottery ticket. It's essentially a prediction that Grant will fail.moderated said:No.Ryan Grant costs a 2nd round pick, a VERY valuable pick, and he could easily under-perform (due to multiple risks that have been posted this offseason) and end up a lot less then RB #22.BJ costs a pick at the end of the draft that if you miss on basically costs you nothing, and if Ryan Grant's risks allow BJ to end up the starter he will DRASTICALLY outperform his draft slot and could help you win your league.BJ's upside is a lot better then RB #41 and Grants is a lot lower then #22, plus BJ is a free lottery ticket whereas you have to spend a lot on Grant.BigSteelThrill said:moderated said:If i had to bet who would have a better year of course i would take Grant, but relative to the cost of the investment BJ is a FAR better buy.CentralPA said:Couldn't disagree more, Brandon Jackson is nothing special, Grant will have the better year.moderated said:EBF said:
EBF
Footballguy
Just ribbing you a bit. No harm intended.Regarding Jackson, he's a former second round pick who showed flashes last year and has drawn consistent praise this offseason for his overall improvement. Given that the Green Bay offense has shown the ability to turn a journeyman into a very good FF back and that the said journeyman is banged up and still relatively unproven, I think it's easy to understand why Jackson is a compelling pick as a bench RB. If Grant gets hurt or struggles then Jackson will be next in line to carry the ball for the Packers. He's a cheap backup who could develop into a key contributor for your FF team.
Tau837
Footballguy
No worries on the ribbing.Please elaborate on the "flashes" Jackson showed last year.People who are high on Jackson like to point to his performance in week 17 last year: 20/113/2 rushing and 2/22/0 receiving. Just thought I'd point out the following:1. It was against Detroit, which had the #23 rushing defense in the league.2. Detroit had nothing to play for, as they were already out of the playoffs. And the game was at Green Bay.3. Grant had 6/57/1 rushing (9.5 ypc) before leaving the game with several minutes remaining in the first quarter... so that might take some of the luster off Jackson's 5.7 ypc in that game.Others have stated that he did well in the second half of last season... but that is a misconception based upon only that same game (week 17). In the second half of the regular season last year, prior to week 17 Jackson had only 12/39/0 rushing (3.25 ypc). How about this comparison:Weeks 1-16 rushing:Grant - 182/899/7 (4.94 ypc)Wynn - 50/203/4 (4.06 ypc)Morency - 24/93/0 (3.88 ypc)Jackson - 55/154/1 (2.80 ypc)Week 17 rushing:Grant - 6/57/1 (9.50 ypc)Jackson - 20/113/2 (5.65 ypc)Morency - 5/15/0 (3.00 ypc)First playoff game rushing:Grant - 27/201/3 (7.44 ypc)Jackson - 8/34/0 (4.25 ypc)As far as I can tell, Jackson had what might be considered two good games last season, and both times (week 17 and the first playoff game), Grant performed even better.Now... there was some positive press on Jackson in preseason. Let me ask, because I don't know... how much of the positive press was while Grant wasn't signed vs. after? I have to say I haven't heard much talk about Jackson over the past month or so.I mean, he does have a great BMI... but I'm looking for a bit more at this point.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
I'm not saying the guy is a future Hall of Famer, but I think it's always worth paying attention when you have a high pick backup behind a suspect starter. Grant was lights out last year. No doubt about that, but he's still largely an unknown quantity. It's not difficult to envision a scenario in which he struggles. That could open the door for Jackson, who I feel is one of the more intriguing backup RBs in the NFL at this point.When you get beyond the useful RBs who are locks to play and contribute, you look at the backups in shaky situations who excel if the starter gets hurt or falters. I think Jackson fits that description. If you don't then don't pick him.No worries on the ribbing.Please elaborate on the "flashes" Jackson showed last year.
People who are high on Jackson like to point to his performance in week 17 last year: 20/113/2 rushing and 2/22/0 receiving. Just thought I'd point out the following:
1. It was against Detroit, which had the #23 rushing defense in the league.
2. Detroit had nothing to play for, as they were already out of the playoffs. And the game was at Green Bay.
3. Grant had 6/57/1 rushing (9.5 ypc) before leaving the game with several minutes remaining in the first quarter... so that might take some of the luster off Jackson's 5.7 ypc in that game.
Others have stated that he did well in the second half of last season... but that is a misconception based upon only that same game (week 17). In the second half of the regular season last year, prior to week 17 Jackson had only 12/39/0 rushing (3.25 ypc). How about this comparison:
Weeks 1-16 rushing:
Grant - 182/899/7 (4.94 ypc)
Wynn - 50/203/4 (4.06 ypc)
Morency - 24/93/0 (3.88 ypc)
Jackson - 55/154/1 (2.80 ypc)
Week 17 rushing:
Grant - 6/57/1 (9.50 ypc)
Jackson - 20/113/2 (5.65 ypc)
Morency - 5/15/0 (3.00 ypc)
First playoff game rushing:
Grant - 27/201/3 (7.44 ypc)
Jackson - 8/34/0 (4.25 ypc)
As far as I can tell, Jackson had what might be considered two good games last season, and both times (week 17 and the first playoff game), Grant performed even better.
Now... there was some positive press on Jackson in preseason. Let me ask, because I don't know... how much of the positive press was while Grant wasn't signed vs. after? I have to say I haven't heard much talk about Jackson over the past month or so.
I mean, he does have a great BMI... but I'm looking for a bit more at this point.
Similar threads
- Locked
