Grant will do offseason workouts but won't sign minimum tend

[packers11]

http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080319/PKR01/80319162/1989

[Joemailman]

I wonder if they'll be talking before the draft. If not, it sets up an interesting situation if Jonathan Stewart is available. That said, there is little incentive for either side not to get a contract worked out.

[Guiness]

I am surprised this has become an issue at all. Grant has almost zippo negotiating power...the article says he can withhold services, but at his age that would be disastrous. He can't afford to miss a payday, no matter how small.

Much as he and his agent must hate it, he has to trust the Pack to reward him fairly...and 9 good games, then making demands is not a good way to convince them to do so.

[MadtownPacker]

Who cares if he shows up or not. He didnt bother to show up last January 20th. He needs to prove he can do what he did without a HOF QB helping him out.

[Partial]

Who cares if he shows up or not. He didnt bother to show up last January 20th. He needs to prove he can do what he did without a HOF QB helping him out.


:lol:

[twoseven]

He needs to prove he can do what he did without a HOF QB helping him out.
Bingo. Upping him beforehand is foolish. All the more reason to grab Stewart if he actually falls to 30.

[packrulz]

I think Grant has proven himself, why not lock him up to a long term deal now? He averaged 5.1 yds per carry.

[BlueBrewer]

In the words of Teddy KGB, pey dat man his munnee.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

As has been discussed previously, IMO Grant deserves a contract. Lock him up now for a long term deal while he's still cheap. 1100 yards in 11 games is all I need to see. For those who think it was all because of Favre that the running game opened up, you are wrong. He played great behind a bad run blocking o-line and made a lot of runs that not many can make in this league. Please lock him up! Who else are we going to spend are money on?

[LL2]

Is he without a contract right now?

TT should at least reward him with a 2 yr / 2-4 million dollar deal. Then if he continues to perform as well as he does then give him a really good longterm deal. I wouldn't play for the minimum either, but I also wouldn't make a stink about it.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

370,000 for a guy who would have easily been the leading rusher last year had he started from week one is a slap in a face IMO. Especially when we are just sitting on 30+ mil in cap space. If you don't want to lock him up long term just yet, fine, but he should at least be making 2mil a year for a year or two until he fully proves himself.

[sepporepi]

I am advocating this for a long time. Give him a 2-year contract with 1-2mil Signing Bonus and about the same in yearly salery now. After the 2 years he will be a RFA.

So in two years we can tender him high and take the picks or retain him relatively cheap for one more year or we can sign him long-term for a big, but still reasonable deal then.

In my opinion that is fair. He gets some security now and can prove his value. If some team thinks he is worth a monster deal in 2 years, they can get him for a 1+3 and he gets his money. If not he can decide whether he wants a discount long-term deal or take the one year gamble and wait a nother year for UFA (or the frachise tag :P , which imho would also not a bad deal for him)

[sepporepi]

but I also wouldn't make a stink about it.

I don't think he qualfies for making a stink so far. He showed up for the team activities, his agent just stated he won't sign the minimum deal, which most of us seem fully to understand.

[ND72]

I think Grant has proven himself, why not lock him up to a long term deal now? He averaged 5.1 yds per carry.

I remember a lot of people saying the same thing about Samkon Gado...

[StPaulPackFan]

I think Grant has proven himself, why not lock him up to a long term deal now? He averaged 5.1 yds per carry.

I remember a lot of people saying the same thing about Samkon Gado...

It appeared that the Packers figured out quickly that Gado was not going to be successful after installing the ZBS. The difference is that Grant has already proven to be adept in the ZBS. Plus we have tons of cap space.

[mission]

gado never looked good... ever.

you can do plenty of searches and see me talkin shit from day one ...

stats are great but grant is a football player.. straight up

and for all the lamers, he's "packer people"...

[Fritz]

Grant just seems to me to be...impudent. He's light years from free agency, played for nine games, and - by the way - showed that he had some trouble hanging onto the football at times.

I'm not against giving him a better deal than the minimum. But unless TT and MM think he's definitely the man, I wouldn't give him anything too big.

[run pMc]

Grant's vision and instincts in the ZBS are considerably better than Gado's were. If the 5.1 ypc is accurate, that would also be a much higher rushing avg. Last yer's OL was better than the one Gado had, but not by a lot...Will Whitticker, anyone?

[twoseven]

For those who think it was all because of Favre that the running game opened up, you are wrong.
..and you would prove this how, exactly?

[Zool]

Ask Wynn and Jackson if the passing game opened the running game.

[Partial]

Ask Wynn and Jackson if the passing game opened the running game.

Maybe they were just that bad?

[twoseven]

Ask Wynn and Jackson if the passing game opened the running game.
ask these guys about playing with HOF QBs..1000 yard rushers in GB history..

1949 T.Canadeo 208 1,052 5.1 4
1960 J.Taylor 230 1,101 4.8 11
1961 J.Taylor 243 1,307 5.4 15
1962 J.Taylor 272 1,474 5.4 19
1963 J.Taylor 248 1,018 4.1 9
1964 J.Taylor 235 1,169 5.0 12
1971 J.Brockington 216 1,105 5.1 4
1972 J.Brockington 274 1,027 3.7 8
1973 J.Brockington 265 1,144 4.3 3
1978 T.Middleton 284 1,116 3.9 11
1995 E.Bennett 316 1,067 3.4 3
1997 D.Levens 329 1,435 4.4 7
1999 D.Levens 279 1,034 3.7 9
2000 A.Green 263 1,175 4.5 10
2001 A.Green 304 1,387 4.6 9
2002 A.Green 286 1,240 4.3 7
2003 A.Green 355 1,883 5.3 15
2004 A.Green 259 1,163 4.5 7
2006 A.Green 266 1,059 4.0 5

[Zool]

Ask Wynn and Jackson if the passing game opened the running game.

Maybe they were just that bad?

That was my point. Grant is not. Sign the kid.

[Partial]

They will.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

For those who think it was all because of Favre that the running game opened up, you are wrong.
..and you would prove this how, exactly?

Let’s see, the first seven weeks we were ranked 32 in the league in rushing, and then after Grant took over we were one of the top running teams in the league. You honestly believe that was due solely because of Favre? Sure, I'm not that naive that I won’t admit a strong passing game helps the run game, but at the same time am not that naive to believe Favre was the sole reason for our good running game either. If you were actually watching the games you would have seen that Grant made a lot of great runs off his vision and great cut backs. Also, his yards after contact are very high and he was running behind a bad run blocking line. Your comment suggests that you think the running games success was due only because Favre and the passing game. How would you prove that?

[Fritz]

Ask Wynn and Jackson if the passing game opened the running game.
ask these guys about playing with HOF QBs..1000 yard rushers in GB history..

1949 T.Canadeo 208 1,052 5.1 4
1960 J.Taylor 230 1,101 4.8 11
1961 J.Taylor 243 1,307 5.4 15
1962 J.Taylor 272 1,474 5.4 19
1963 J.Taylor 248 1,018 4.1 9
1964 J.Taylor 235 1,169 5.0 12
1971 J.Brockington 216 1,105 5.1 4
1972 J.Brockington 274 1,027 3.7 8
1973 J.Brockington 265 1,144 4.3 3
1978 T.Middleton 284 1,116 3.9 11
1995 E.Bennett 316 1,067 3.4 3
1997 D.Levens 329 1,435 4.4 7
1999 D.Levens 279 1,034 3.7 9
2000 A.Green 263 1,175 4.5 10
2001 A.Green 304 1,387 4.6 9
2002 A.Green 286 1,240 4.3 7
2003 A.Green 355 1,883 5.3 15
2004 A.Green 259 1,163 4.5 7
2006 A.Green 266 1,059 4.0 5

Sorry to be all lame on my Packer history, but who was the HOF quarterback sharing the backfield with John Brockington in the early 70's and Terdell Middleton in '78?

[DonHutson]

Both sides have a legitimate point. From the Packers point of view he's only done it for half a season and he can't go anywhere else anyway, so he has no leverage. From Grant's point of view, based on that half season he has a very bright future and he doesn't want to jeopardize future earnings by blowing out a knee making $300 grand this year.

Surely there's a happy medium where he gets some level of raise and some hefty performance bonuses.

[packrulz]

Grant came in and ran the ball when nobody else could, and TT had just traded for him because our other RB's couldn't stay healthy, he hardly knew the playbook, and still ran for almost 1,000 yds behind a mix and match OL in 9 games. He's a natural for the ZBS and wasn't hurt all year. I'd like to see him sign a 4 year deal, he's young, and he's the Packers best RB.

[Freak Out]

What exactly is "well above the NFL minimum for a second-year pro"?
Grant not signing the first slip of paper coming his way is smart. Unless he and his agent get really unreasonable I see TT working out a nice package for the guy.

[b bulldog]

9 games and he wants a contract to be a life long Packer??? He does deserve more than the low tender he was offered but he needs to do more than what he did in 9 games in my humble opinion.

[Joemailman]

Marshawn Lynch signed a 5 year, $19 mil contract last year. Considering Grant's production last year, is he worth less than someone who hadn't played a game in the NFL when he signed that contract?

[Freak Out]

Nice signature Joe.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Grant may be good, or he may not.

The ZBS tends to create backs that do well, but aren't really that good.

How do we know that Grant isn't our Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, Droughns or Tatum bell. Thousand yard backs, but far from T. Davis or Portis.

[MJZiggy]

Who cares if they gain 1,000 yards a season?

[RashanGary]

9 games and he wants a contract to be a life long Packer??? He does deserve more than the low tender he was offered but he needs to do more than what he did in 9 games in my humble opinion.

I agree. Give him at least half a season more. If he comes out and tears it up for 8 more games then start talking extention and make it all the way through age 30 or 31 and make sure it's not a monster. I'd say something like 5 years, 20 mil with 5 million in the first year would be very fair for a guy who should only earn 3 million over the next three years while we own his rights anyway. Grant is just in a really shitty situation. I'd think he should be happy to have a 20 million dollar career with the way all of the cards stacked against him from the start. I acctually think the Packers would be doing him a big favor with all of the leverage they have (and it's more leverage than a team should have for a guy his age. It just worked out really badly for him with the injury and practice squad thing). It's more of a courtesy thing to a good player who's earning it and had an unusually bad situation than Grant doing the team a favor.

[twoseven]

For those who think it was all because of Favre that the running game opened up, you are wrong.
..and you would prove this how, exactly?

Let’s see, the first seven weeks we were ranked 32 in the league in rushing, and then after Grant took over we were one of the top running teams in the league. You honestly believe that was due solely because of Favre? Sure, I'm not that naive that I won’t admit a strong passing game helps the run game, but at the same time am not that naive to believe Favre was the sole reason for our good running game either. If you were actually watching the games you would have seen that Grant made a lot of great runs off his vision and great cut backs. Also, his yards after contact are very high and he was running behind a bad run blocking line. Your comment suggests that you think the running games success was due only because Favre and the passing game. How would you prove that?
My point is simple, nobody has seen any running backs in GB without Favre for 17 years. How about we all wait and see what difference it will make. Your presumptions that you know what will happen are premature.

[GrnBay007]

My point is simple, nobody has seen any running backs in GB without Favre for 17 years. How about we all wait and see what difference it will make.
We are entering a whole new world!!

[twoseven]

Sorry to be all lame on my Packer history, but who was the HOF quarterback sharing the backfield with John Brockington in the early 70's and Terdell Middleton in '78?
Only those in BOLD were years of HOF QBs Starr and Favre, the rest were not. Starr got in one year with Brockington.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nice signature Joe.

I want Joe to name names. Even Joe McCarthy had a list. Who are the enemies of change?

Unless we know WHO is blocking WHAT specific changes, it's just demagoguery.

I suspect he's just refering to Aaron Rodger's promotion.

[GBRulz]

There is something wrong when our leading rusher gets paid half of what Brandon Jackson does. Pay the man already.

[Fritz]

Sorry to be all lame on my Packer history, but who was the HOF quarterback sharing the backfield with John Brockington in the early 70's and Terdell Middleton in '78?
Only those in BOLD were years of HOF QBs Starr and Favre, the rest were not. Starr got in one year with Brockington.

Oh - gotcha. Thanks.

That brings up the question - how did Terdell Middleton do it, then?

[LL2]

There is something wrong when our leading rusher gets paid half of what Brandon Jackson does. Pay the man already.

Good point!

Partial...Marshawn Lynch had the benefit of being a first round draft pick. Fortunately for the Bills he's a pretty good RB, but many RD1 picks get a big chunk of money but flop big time. TT has a way of getting maximum performance for as little pay as possible.

[twoseven]

Sorry to be all lame on my Packer history, but who was the HOF quarterback sharing the backfield with John Brockington in the early 70's and Terdell Middleton in '78?
Only those in BOLD were years of HOF QBs Starr and Favre, the rest were not. Starr got in one year with Brockington.

Oh - gotcha. Thanks.

That brings up the question - how did Terdell Middleton do it, then?
That's my point entirely, NOT an easy thing to do, and if our history says anything, damn near impossible without a great QB at the helm. The Pack have been at it for 85 years now and the number of times ANYONE has surpassed 1000 yards (which is only a 65 yd avg these days) no matter who is minimal, 19 total in 80+. Forget the times an RB did so w/o a HOF QB in front of them. What, 4 times in 85 years?

The vast majority came on Starr's and Favre's teams, not a coincidence IMO. Some don't think a great QB can help a RB to 1000 or more with a strong passing game and an ability to keep the defense honest, I do. That's the long and short of my post of our history of 1000 yders.

IMO, if AR cannot be effective passing against opposing defenses Grant may be in for a long year. I don't think I am alone in this assesment..

[Bretsky]

Sorry to be all lame on my Packer history, but who was the HOF quarterback sharing the backfield with John Brockington in the early 70's and Terdell Middleton in '78?
Only those in BOLD were years of HOF QBs Starr and Favre, the rest were not. Starr got in one year with Brockington.

Oh - gotcha. Thanks.

That brings up the question - how did Terdell Middleton do it, then?
That's my point entirely, NOT an easy thing to do, and if our history says anything, damn near impossible without a great QB at the helm. The Pack have been at it for 85 years now and the number of times ANYONE has surpassed 1000 yards (which is only a 65 yd avg these days) no matter who is minimal, 19 total in 80+. Forget the times an RB did so w/o a HOF QB in front of them. What, 4 times in 85 years?

The vast majority came on Starr's and Favre's teams, not a coincidence IMO. Some don't think a great QB can help a RB to 1000 or more with a strong passing game and an ability to keep the defense honest, I do. That's the long and short of my post of our history of 1000 yders.

IMO, if AR cannot be effective passing against opposing defenses Grant may be in for a long year. I don't think I am alone in this assesment..

When taking this into account from a long term standpoint, you also have to remember that we're on a 16 game schedule now and many of those earlier years were 14 games (and I think for a while even 12......although that might be incorrect). With the current 16 game schedule, I'd bet a much greater percentage have 1,000 yard backs if they stay healthy......probably the key

I'd agree with your view though; if AROD is not competent.........seeing we don't have an inside power rush blocking attack........Grant will have a long year.

[MJZiggy]

Perhaps considering the difference B brings up, you should compare from a ypg standpoint instead of 1000 yard seasons?

[Iron Mike]

and for all the lamers, he's "packer people"...

Bwahahahaha!!!!

http://www.mike-stephenson.org/buses/usacoaches/DSCN1885.jpg

[twoseven]

Perhaps considering the difference B brings up, you should compare from a ypg standpoint instead of 1000 yard seasons?
In 2007 there were only 17 RBs in the entire league that rushed for 1000 yards or more. There were only FIVE that posted 1300 or more, that's only an 85 ypg avg. When looking at YPG strictly, only eight got to this 85+ mark. So what should be the line for a good season? Good luck getting everyone to agree on one method.

85 yards per game is a good avg in my mind, that's a 1360 season..and if I suggest that 1300 or 1400 yards should be the new standard for a good season, anything less is pedestrian from a RB, how many are going to complain that I am being too harsh? Plenty of people still throw out the 1000 yard mark as some sort of milestone. I don't, 65 ypg is not a strong rushing game in my opinion. However, when's the last time you heard a WR or RB mentioned by way of ypg? 1000 yd RBs and WRs is still stuck in people's psyche as a special mark. When only 17 players out of hundreds running the ball every year can even get to 1000 is it even fair to ask for more these days? Increased numbers in the passing game, backfields sporting a one-two punch, and specialized defenses and schemes have made it harder to run.

It wouldn't matter what I posted. seems to go both ways, people are going to swing stats in favor of their own argument. 1000 is just dandy great when your RB cannot reach 1400, it appears tough to get to, but it's still just 65 ypg. I've argued with plenty of people that went straight to the 1000 mark to suggest a RB was good. I see others going to TDs and yards per carry per game. There are too many ways to support ot trash an argument when stats are involved.

Who cares anyway? It doesn't change the fact that our 80+ year GB history has shown a lot more running success behind a HOF QB than not, and again IMO I don't think it's a coincidence.

If you analyze the 85 ypg efforts in GB instead of 1000 the list of good running seasons in GB just gets sliced up even further. The NINE seasons Brett had a 1000 RB gets reduced to THREE when upping the mark to 1300, and it appears that outside of the Starr and Lombardi era the Packers just did not have much of a running game, save for Brockington who I did not get to see play. It only adds to the point I am making that Grant's chances of putting up a 65/1000-85/1300 season at tailback after Favre's retirement are poor unless AR produces in the same way Brett did. Even if AR plays out of his mind the odds of just 65/1000 are tough, check the NFL stats for 2007.

This would be my main argument for seeing him perform well without Favre, something NO RB has done in 17 years, before proclaiming him as one of the league's next stars or throwing a major contract upgrade at him or locking him in to a longterm deal as plenty here seem is the best move. For all of the praise Favre has deservedly gotten at this site for what he's done in GB, the questionable lack of credit he has gotten for what he does for a running game with his defensive reads and heroic passing efforts is mindboggling to me. Just my opinion.

[b bulldog]

Agree but brett also benefitted by playing with Ahman Green. I know in the past four or five years, many DC's wanted to stop the run and make Brett beat them, as the Giants stated before the NFC Championship game.

[twoseven]

Agree but brett also benefitted by playing with Ahman Green. I know in the past four or five years, many DC's wanted to stop the run and make Brett beat them, as the Giants stated before the NFC Championship game.
Sure he could run, he proved that over SIX seasons in GB, not nine games. To take it one further, what did Grant do in SEA and HOU without Brett?

[LL2]

To take it one further, what did Grant do in SEA and HOU without Brett?

You mean Ahman Green. Grant never played for those teams.

[LL2]

85 yards per game is a good avg in my mind, that's a 1360 season..and if I suggest that 1300 or 1400 yards should be the new standard for a good season, anything less is pedestrian from a RB, how many are going to complain that I am being too harsh? Plenty of people still throw out the 1000 yard mark as some sort of milestone. I don't, 65 ypg is not a strong rushing game in my opinion. However, when's the last time you heard a WR or RB mentioned by way of ypg? 1000 yd RBs and WRs is still stuck in people's psyche as a special mark. When only 17 players out of hundreds running the ball every year can even get to 1000 is it even fair to ask for more these days? Increased numbers in the passing game, backfields sporting a one-two punch, and specialized defenses and schemes have made it harder to run.


I will agree that a 85 yards per game average should be expected of a really good RB. 1,000 yds in a season should be expected of your starting RB, and if a RB wants to be among the elite backs in the NFL 1,400 should be expected.

[twoseven]

To take it one further, what did Grant do in SEA and HOU without Brett?

You mean Ahman Green. Grant never played for those teams.That's a fargin trick question.

[sharpe1027]

Sign him to a contract now while the Packers have most of the leverage and a ton of cap room. Make it future friendly and/or incentive-based to protect the team. Everyone is happy and we don't have to watch B. Jackson run into the backs of the OL after Wynn comes out with a hangnail.

Why would you risk losing a guy who at the very least is far and away the best RB on the team? Maybe he was partially a product of having Favre at the helm. So what? Grant = the best they have and nobody is even a close second.

Why is there even an argument as to whether they should try and make him play for less than our kicker? I don't get it. :?

[Lurker64]

There's virtually no chance of the Packers losing Grant. He's an Exclusive Rights Free Agent, which means that as long as the Packers are willing to tender a contract to Grant, he can't negotiate with any other team. If he sits out a year or so, he's still an ERFA and so he has no reason to do so. The worst case scenario is if Grant misses camp and part of the season due to a hold-out.

But realistically the only thing at stake is how much Grant is going to get paid and when. I believe that the Packers front office anticipated that with Grant's performance last year, he would balk at the minimum salary tender. So I assume they've thought about what to do and "Let Grant hold out forever unless he'll work for peanuts" wasn't really seriously considered.