Ryan Grant thinks he’ll be the starter

[CaptainD]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/11/ryan-grant-thinks-hell-be-the-starter-in-green-bay/


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.

I believe he is correct. We only saw James Starks at the end of the year and lord knows Bjax is not a full time answer. I think Grant is the main man in 2011...2012 is a different story.

[Brandon494]

Why wouldnt he be the starter? He's the clear favorite IMO.

[bobblehead]

He might not be the starter for many reasons. He may not be the same RG we have seen. If he has lost even the slightest bit, we could save the money, resign BJack and lean on starks. Also, I recall when sterling sharpe held out back when...the instant he wasn't of use to the team they cut him. Grant leveraged the Favre situation for his nice contract, and I highly doubt TT has amnesia.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Starter or not, he will give the running game a big boost. Half the carries to him and the other half to Starks is what I see happening.

[Tarlam!]

He might not be the starter for many reasons. He may not be the same RG we have seen. If he has lost even the slightest bit, we could save the money, resign BJack and lean on starks. Also, I recall when sterling sharpe held out back when...the instant he wasn't of use to the team they cut him. Grant leveraged the Favre situation for his nice contract, and I highly doubt TT has amnesia.

The Grant holdout never got ugly. RG was publicly very respectful. He also earned the money they paid him, IMO. I'm with B494 on this. RG is #1.

[Joemailman]

Grant will be #1 on the depth chart on the first day of training camp, for what it's worth. He'll get a battle from Starks though, and may not win that battle.

[vince]

Grant goes in as the leader of the group, but he'll have to compete hard to maintain that spot. I can't wait to see Alex Green too. I've defended Grant in the past, and he'll definitely get his carries, but the other guys will get touches too and I think if any of them get a hot hand, McCarthy will ride them.

I think Green will eventually prove to be the best guy to protect leads and kill clock late in games, assuming he's secure with the ball. Starks can be a punishing runner too, but Green runs the hardest and I think will be the best finisher.

[Patler]

He might not be the starter for many reasons. He may not be the same RG we have seen. If he has lost even the slightest bit, we could save the money, resign BJack and lean on starks. Also, I recall when sterling sharpe held out back when...the instant he wasn't of use to the team they cut him. Grant leveraged the Favre situation for his nice contract, and I highly doubt TT has amnesia.

Big difference between the Sharpe situation and Grant's. Sharpe was under contract and decided to go out on a hold out. Grant was not under contract, simply refused to sign the one year tender offer, and opted to negotiate for a long term contract instead. What Grant did is no different than what Franks did or Pickett did when they were tagged. They didn't sign the tender offer and negotiated a long term deal instead. That was Grant's stated plan long before the Favre situation developed into what it did. Grant's plan of action was put in place before Favre "unretired". If the team felt pressure to do something because of the Favre situation, that was hardly Grant's fault.

[vince]

Sharpe had a neck issue and was forced to retire wasn't he? If a guy's career ends due to potential paralysis, how is "cutting" him somehow related back to his contract negotiation?

[Fritz]

I thought that cutting Sharpe surprised everyone. What I'd heard, the neck was healing and the idea was to bring him back slowly - until Wolf cut his ass.

[MadtownPacker]

Grant might start as the starter but only cuz there isn't gonna be a preseason. He won't keep the spot all season, if there is one.

[vince]

Sterling Sharpe Biography - Chronology, Career Statistics, Awards And Accomplishments
http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4387/Sharpe-Sterling.html#ixzz1Rqat3XHj

But Sharpe's improvisation could not save his game after he suffered a debilitating injury to the top two vertebrae in his neck. The injury occurred when his neck snapped back while blocking a player in a game. Although he received a clean bill of health immediately following the incident, the injury worsened when he was tackled in the next game he played, resulting in numbness and tingling in his limbs. The team physician, Patrick McKenzie declared that Sharpe would require surgery to fuse the dangerously loose vertebrae. It was the final blow to Sharpe's career, and it forced his retirement from the game.
Up until that point, Sharpe's 3-year production was unprecedented in history. I find it very hard to believe the Packers would have cut Sharpe had he not suffered a career-ending injury. I find it equally hard to believe that emotional baggage going back to a contract negotiation will have anything whatever to do with Thompson's decision-making with Grant. Besides, Ted Thompson doesn't have emotions.

[RashanGary]

Grant is the guy on day 1.

Both Starks and Green have a lot of potential. I don't know if I've said this here or not, but I've listened to every Ted Thompson interview in the 5 or 6 years he's been here, whatever it's been. There have been two times Ted Thompson said a players tape was special. The first, Clay Matthews. The second, Alex Green.

I think it's scout talk 101, if a guys tape is special, that means his game is special. I love Green's highlight film. He breaks tackles, he's as fast as they come at that size, he has crazy moves for a guy his size. He can catch the ball. He can do it all. To quote Ted Thompson, "he was the man at Hawaii." Whenever I make predictions on players, probably 85% of it is listening to TT. As little as he says, I think I can get a feel for what he's thinking a lot of the time. I think Ted believes this guy is special, therefor I think he's special.

Oh, the other time he almost said a guys tape was special was Josh Sitton. He didn't say his tape was special, but he said, "he blocks his guy every time." That's kind of a compliment when a guys job on every play is to block a guy.

If you really listen, 95% of what Thompson says is BS, but 5%, he gives hints when he's confident. It's hard to pick up on, but it's there.

Watch. Alex Green is a star.

[Kiwon]

Starks looked pretty good. I'd say it is a jump ball at this point. Each guy should have an equal chance to win the job in training camp (whenever that will be).

[Tarlam!]

There have been two times Ted Thompson said a players tape was special. The first, Clay Matthews. The second, Alex Green.


You crack me up, JH. TT was also all gushy about Brohm, IIRC, but I know for a fact he said the same type of stuff about Harrell and how the fans that booed at the pick would be eating crow. Shit. You even went from Nick Collins to Justin Harrell!

In reality, filtering that 5% you're talking about is akin to divining for water! What kinda dowsing stick you using? :)

[RashanGary]

Watch and learn, Tarlam :)

[gbgary]

he's going to need to bring it. starter or not we're going to be much better in that department. hope he's the ryan grant of old.

[bobblehead]

The Grant holdout never got ugly. RG was publicly very respectful. He also earned the money they paid him, IMO. I'm with B494 on this. RG is #1.

Neither did the Sharpe holdout. He simply declared that he wasn't playing without a new contract the day before the season. RG, with 3 years to go before FA, leveraged that fans being upset with TT to score a contract. TWill the very next year was in a similar situation and took $1 million I believe. I don't think the RG situation was as amicable as you think from TT's perspective.

[bobblehead]

Big difference between the Sharpe situation and Grant's. Sharpe was under contract and decided to go out on a hold out. Grant was not under contract, simply refused to sign the one year tender offer, and opted to negotiate for a long term contract instead. What Grant did is no different than what Franks did or Pickett did when they were tagged. They didn't sign the tender offer and negotiated a long term deal instead. That was Grant's stated plan long before the Favre situation developed into what it did. Grant's plan of action was put in place before Favre "unretired". If the team felt pressure to do something because of the Favre situation, that was hardly Grant's fault.

Really? A guy with 8 good games under his belt was in the same situation at Franks and Pickett? I get your point, but I doubt TT saw it that way. Those 2 earned FA and a right to negotiate. Grant had 3 years left. We had the debate then, and its not worth rehashing, but he was in NO way in the same situation as franks and pickett (or even cory williams).

[bobblehead]

Sharpe had a neck issue and was forced to retire wasn't he? If a guy's career ends due to potential paralysis, how is "cutting" him somehow related back to his contract negotiation?

At that time the salary caps and situations were different. Teams were in the habit of carrying a guy in that situation through surgery's and rehab. We carried Jeremy Thompson for longer than we did Sharpe. He was diagnosed and cut like the next day. I remember comments by Holmgren and Wolf at the time alluding the Sharpes loyalty to the team and vice versa....veiled of course, but the meaning was clear.

[bobblehead]

Sterling Sharpe Biography - Chronology, Career Statistics, Awards And Accomplishments
http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4387/Sharpe-Sterling.html#ixzz1Rqat3XHj

Up until that point, Sharpe's 3-year production was unprecedented in history. I find it very hard to believe the Packers would have cut Sharpe had he not suffered a career-ending injury. I find it equally hard to believe that emotional baggage going back to a contract negotiation will have anything whatever to do with Thompson's decision-making with Grant. Besides, Ted Thompson doesn't have emotions.

I agree that the emotions won't play much into it. I'm just saying that I don't think he gets any pass to be the #1 guy. He treated it like a business and he will be treated equally. Given his age and salary and injury history I don't think TT is going to cut him any slack. I'm not saying its an emotional decision, just a decision to treat a player as he treated the team. TWill handled it differently and was in turn given more guaranteed money. I think TT remembers what Grant did and will be less likely to let him join the team to split carries and make $5 million. Had Grant handled the situation differently back when, TT may feel differently now. I could be wrong, we will never know for sure what TT is thinking, but I think Grant won't make the roster and that leads more towards me being right on this....if he starts the season as the man, then I am more likely wrong. Only time will tell.

[Patler]

Really? A guy with 8 good games under his belt was in the same situation at Franks and Pickett? I get your point, but I doubt TT saw it that way. Those 2 earned FA and a right to negotiate. Grant had 3 years left. We had the debate then, and its not worth rehashing, but he was in NO way in the same situation as franks and pickett (or even cory williams).

Contractually, it was the exact same situation. He was not under contract and was offered a one year contract at a league-determined value. He had the right to accept it or negotiate something longer. He chose to negotiate.

Drafted rookies get to negotiate multi-year contracts that include guaranteed bonuses. You seem to suggest that since Grant wasn't drafted, for four years he is obligated to accept only a series of one year contracts with no guarantees, if that is what the team offers.

[Brandon494]

I find it rather funny that as unreliable as the Packers running game was last season that some think it's actually a chance we cut Grant, who by the way is our ONLY proven RB we have. I like Starks but he had a couple of good games, nothing even close to the year when Grant broke out in the 2nd half. I like Green's potential as well but he's a rookie so we have no clue what to expect from him. It's funny how quick some forget how valuable Grant is just because he's not flashy.

[Patler]

Neither did the Sharpe holdout. He simply declared that he wasn't playing without a new contract the day before the season. RG, with 3 years to go before FA, leveraged that fans being upset with TT to score a contract. TWill the very next year was in a similar situation and took $1 million I believe. I don't think the RG situation was as amicable as you think from TT's perspective.

The Packers learned from the Grant situation. They offered Williams much more than the required tender right from the start. They gave him a $375,000 signing bonus on top of it. Had they offered something similar to Grant the year before, and had they done it early in the process, something with a reasonable signing bonus, he might have accepted long before the Favre situation arose. Instead, the Packers held to the minimum tender offer, the Favre situation developed, and suddenly the Packers were at a disadvantage.



Edit: I just realized that not only did they give him a signing bonus, they gave him a salary more than required by the tender. In all, he was paid almost twice what the bare tender required, and they did it early enough that he was signed in early May


Green Bay Packers cornerback Tramon Williams has signed a one-year deal worth a good bit more than the $460,000 Williams was due as an exclusive rights free agent. Williams will receive a salary of $525,000 and a signing bonus of $375,000 for a one-year compensation total of $900,000.

[mraynrand]

Grant runs hard. He doesn't look flashy because he makes his reads and cuts with little wiggle and then slams it up in there. I like watching Starks run too - he's fluid and always carries the ball high and tight - three points of pressure. not a lot of wasted moves there. training camp will be fun competition - if it happens.

[Patler]

I find it rather funny that as unreliable as the Packers running game was last season that some think it's actually a chance we cut Grant, who by the way is our ONLY proven RB we have. I like Starks but he had a couple of good games, nothing even close to the year when Grant broke out in the 2nd half. I like Green's potential as well but he's a rookie so we have no clue what to expect from him. It's funny how quick some forget how valuable Grant is just because he's not flashy.

With Grant, I don't think it is even a matter of forgetting how valuable he is. I think many never appreciated what he was doing while he was doing it. I, too, like the potential of Starks and Green, but Grant proved himself over three seasons (or two and a half, if you want to discount his first half-season). Unless the Packers find themselves in a desperate salary cap situation, I see no reason for them to let Grant go (if he is healthy).

[Tarlam!]

but I think Grant won't make the roster

That's a ballsy call! I heard it here first!! Boy, Bobble, I'll be hoping you're right; That would mean Starks and the rookie Green that JH is gushing about beat him out, plus they keep Kuhn(I'm a big fan) re-sign B-Jack for 3rd downage (which is what he's really good at) on a cap friendly basis. Sounds like a plan! :)

[sharpe1027]

At that time the salary caps and situations were different. Teams were in the habit of carrying a guy in that situation through surgery's and rehab. We carried Jeremy Thompson for longer than we did Sharpe. He was diagnosed and cut like the next day. I remember comments by Holmgren and Wolf at the time alluding the Sharpes loyalty to the team and vice versa....veiled of course, but the meaning was clear.

Sharpe was released only after he had surgery, not just after the diagnosis. He was released because he was going to be out an entire year, if he ever came back, he also had a big salary number and he was pushing for more money even though he was injured. I think he was able to collect on a huge insurance policy (~$3 Mil) for a career ending injury as well. Not a very good comparison to Grant at all, IMO.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I thought Grant was in his 30's, but I see he is just 28. Probably he hangs on to the job, but it would be great to see Starks beat him out. Grant is a one cut back, Starks is "Mr. Excitement" in comparison, he can actually change direction to avoid initial contact. Both guys have hands of stone, unfortunately.

Hopefully Green can fill BJ's 3rd down slot without too much dropoff in his rookie year.

[Patler]

I thought Grant was in his 30's, but I see he is just 28. Probably he hangs on to the job, but it would be great to see Starks beat him out. Grant is a one cut back, Starks is "Mr. Excitement" in comparison, he can actually change direction to avoid initial contact. Both guys have hands of stone, unfortunately.

I don't think that is true for Starks. He is Buffalo's 7th leading receiver all time, and played only 3 seasons. He had 127 receptions. I think he is considered to be a very good receiver out of the backfield.

[Fritz]

Certainly Grant is going to go in at the #1 spot and will be given every chance to win the job as starter. Starks would have to be magnificent, not just marginally better, to get the starting job. Happiness in a locker room does matter, and no vet wants to see a guy get hurt, come back, perform at a level similar to his previous level, and watch the guy get beaten out by someone with "potential."

[RashanGary]

That's a ballsy call! I heard it here first!! Boy, Bobble, I'll be hoping you're right; That would mean Starks and the rookie Green that JH is gushing about beat him out, plus they keep Kuhn(I'm a big fan) re-sign B-Jack for 3rd downage (which is what he's really good at) on a cap friendly basis. Sounds like a plan! :)

Grant is not being cut. Green is a rookie. While he will be a star, missing mini-camps and OTA's is giong to make it hard for him to catch up to Starks and Grant.

Grant starts. Starks plays 3rd down. Green works his way in slowly.

Next year, Grant is gone. Starks is anointed starter, but Green steals his job before the season starts.

That's my call.

Don't put words in my mouth chumly.

[Tarlam!]

Don't put words in my mouth chumly.

You are bullish on Green is the only thing I related to you. And you are. My post was about a Grant-free RB corps, and my entry point was a snippet from Bobble.

I didn't put anything in your mouth.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't think that is true for Starks. He is Buffalo's 7th leading receiver all time, and played only 3 seasons. He had 127 receptions. I think he is considered to be a very good receiver out of the backfield.

Agreed. He looks to me to be a pretty good receiver and a solid blocker. Grant will probably get 15 carries/game... playing mostly 1st and 2nd downs. I see Starks getting 10 carries/game and some catches playing mostly on 3rd down, but occasionally on 1st and 2nd downs to spell Grant. I think Grant is somewhat underappreciated, but if Starks stays healthy, I see it being an RB by committee. I think Starks will play a bit more than Jackson did when Grant was healthy. Of course, Grant has to show he is fully healthy and Starks has to prove he can stay healthy.

[Pugger]

Sharpe had a neck issue and was forced to retire wasn't he? If a guy's career ends due to potential paralysis, how is "cutting" him somehow related back to his contract negotiation?

If memory serves I don't think his neck issue became apparent until some time after his hold out...

[Pugger]

Sterling Sharpe Biography - Chronology, Career Statistics, Awards And Accomplishments
http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4387/Sharpe-Sterling.html#ixzz1Rqat3XHj

Up until that point, Sharpe's 3-year production was unprecedented in history. I find it very hard to believe the Packers would have cut Sharpe had he not suffered a career-ending injury. I find it equally hard to believe that emotional baggage going back to a contract negotiation will have anything whatever to do with Thompson's decision-making with Grant. Besides, Ted Thompson doesn't have emotions.

Plus the fact that a player of his caliber didn't get any offers from any OTHER team either. He was "cut" because of his neck issue.

[Pugger]

I find it rather funny that as unreliable as the Packers running game was last season that some think it's actually a chance we cut Grant, who by the way is our ONLY proven RB we have. I like Starks but he had a couple of good games, nothing even close to the year when Grant broke out in the 2nd half. I like Green's potential as well but he's a rookie so we have no clue what to expect from him. It's funny how quick some forget how valuable Grant is just because he's not flashy.

This. ^^^^^

It is a wonder he rushed for over 1200 yards on a team that is pass first. Grant isn't AP but after the 2009 season he was ranked #7 in rushing overall.

[Joemailman]

I think the fact that Starks wasn't used much in the passing game had more to do with his relative unfamiliarity with the offense than with his receiving ability. "Just stay in and block, kid!" His ability to make tacklers miss could make him very valuable in the short passing game.

[get louder at lambeau]

I think Grant won't make the roster

The 2011 roster? Really?

[Patler]

If memory serves I don't think his neck issue became apparent until some time after his hold out...

Sharpes "holdout" came before the first game. His neck injury occurred toward the end of the season.

As I remember it (which could be wrong) Sharpe announced his retirement shortly after consulting with specialists, saying nothing was worth the risk of potential paralysis. I don't recall any equivocation on his part, no comments about trying to come back or to catch on with another team. My impression at the time was that it was pretty serious, and he may have dodged a bullet when he was injured.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Winning a roster spot on the Packers is tough enough. Ryan Grant has to win the #1 spot or he has to renegotiate his contract.

As the experienced veteran I expect him to win it. He will have to work at it.

If he isn't clearly #1, then they would talk about a pay cut. I think he will be #1.

[Fritz]

You are bullish on Green is the only thing I related to you. And you are. My post was about a Grant-free RB corps, and my entry point was a snippet from Bobble.

I didn't put anything in your mouth.

Tar, you sound like Bill Clinton.

[retailguy]

Tar, you sound like Bill Clinton.

ouch.

[Zool]

Tar, you sound like Bill Clinton.

Tar did not...have...sexual...relations...with JH.

There may have been a cigar involved.

[MJZiggy]

Tar did not...have...sexual...relations...with JH.

There may have been a cigar involved.

Cigars give you cancer too. Ew.

[Lurker64]

Winning a roster spot on the Packers is tough enough. Ryan Grant has to win the #1 spot or he has to renegotiate his contract.

As the experienced veteran I expect him to win it. He will have to work at it.

If he isn't clearly #1, then they would talk about a pay cut. I think he will be #1.

I think, that just due to the constraints of the offseason, roster limits for the 2011-2012 season will be higher... just because teams didn't have offseasons to develop their draft picks. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if, for the 2011-2012 season only, the roster limit were something like 60 instead of 53. In that situation, I can see us keeping 4 RBs, 5TEs, etc.

[vince]

I think, that just due to the constraints of the offseason, roster limits for the 2011-2012 season will be higher... just because teams didn't have offseasons to develop their draft picks. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if, for the 2011-2012 season only, the roster limit were something like 60 instead of 53. In that situation, I can see us keeping 4 RBs, 5TEs, etc.
That would surprise me. This is about money more than anything else and adding 7 guys to every team would cost owners about $100 million. If you keep the salary cap where it otherwise would be, it would cost the top 53 on the teams that much and put teams in cap trouble.

[bobblehead]

Contractually, it was the exact same situation. He was not under contract and was offered a one year contract at a league-determined value. He had the right to accept it or negotiate something longer. He chose to negotiate.

Drafted rookies get to negotiate multi-year contracts that include guaranteed bonuses. You seem to suggest that since Grant wasn't drafted, for four years he is obligated to accept only a series of one year contracts with no guarantees, if that is what the team offers.

I suggested no such thing. He had every right to not play. All players have that right. Most guys in his situation take a slightly better one year deal and play on. He had the team by the short curlys in a PR war with the player not to be named. He leveraged that for a much better contract than TWill was able to procure a year later. Do I blame him? Not really. Do I think it will factor into the teams decision to give him his $5 million this year? You betcha!

[bobblehead]

The Packers learned from the Grant situation. They offered Williams much more than the required tender right from the start. They gave him a $375,000 signing bonus on top of it. Had they offered something similar to Grant the year before, and had they done it early in the process, something with a reasonable signing bonus, he might have accepted long before the Favre situation arose. Instead, the Packers held to the minimum tender offer, the Favre situation developed, and suddenly the Packers were at a disadvantage.



Edit: I just realized that not only did they give him a signing bonus, they gave him a salary more than required by the tender. In all, he was paid almost twice what the bare tender required, and they did it early enough that he was signed in early May

You are wrong. The first move TT made was to tender him for the minimum amount. TWill didn't sign it and later signed for more. Furthermore you dont' have any more idea than I do what they offered Grant between when they tendered him for the minimum and when they ultimately signed him. They were NEGOTIATING the entire time.

[bobblehead]

Sharpe was released only after he had surgery, not just after the diagnosis. He was released because he was going to be out an entire year, if he ever came back, he also had a big salary number and he was pushing for more money even though he was injured. I think he was able to collect on a huge insurance policy (~$3 Mil) for a career ending injury as well. Not a very good comparison to Grant at all, IMO.

I didn't mean to compare the situations, only the teams way of handling them. I could be wrong, but I think the packers were required to keep Sharpe on IR through his surgery and until the end of that season. You can't simply cut a guy who gets hurt midseason and tell him to find his own surgeon.

[bobblehead]

Sharpes "holdout" came before the first game. His neck injury occurred toward the end of the season.

As I remember it (which could be wrong) Sharpe announced his retirement shortly after consulting with specialists, saying nothing was worth the risk of potential paralysis. I don't recall any equivocation on his part, no comments about trying to come back or to catch on with another team. My impression at the time was that it was pretty serious, and he may have dodged a bullet when he was injured.

I won't swear to remember it verbatim, but my recollection was that sharpe waited until he was cut. He would have gladly spent the year on IR and collected his salary. I also believe (but can't know) that wolf would have kept him on IR for a year waiting to see if he came back if not for the holdout on the eve of the season opener. I remember reading articles in the madison newspaper at the time that alluded to it playing out that way. Maybe my vision of the whole scenario was skewed by those couple articles, but its the way I remember it happening.

[Jimx29]

Starks = Samkon Gado



I hope i'm wrong

[bobblehead]

Winning a roster spot on the Packers is tough enough. Ryan Grant has to win the #1 spot or he has to renegotiate his contract.

As the experienced veteran I expect him to win it. He will have to work at it.

If he isn't clearly #1, then they would talk about a pay cut. I think he will be #1.

This is sort of my point. If he isn't the starter what do you say to the guys who beat him out if you pay them minimum and grant $5 mill+ ?? I think if there is a camp the team will value Starks and Green quite a bit. Maybe resign BJAck because of the restricted time frame. Where does that leave Grant? In todays game, and the way TT treats RB's I just don't see Grant on the roster....unless he takes a big paycut and I don't think he will.

[RashanGary]

At first glance I would have said, "there is no way in hell Grant is getting cut" but then bobblehead made a reasonable argument.


Problem is. . . Starks is thin and runs high. Green is a rookie, without OTA's or minicamps. Jackson is the worst RB in the NFL, he's NOT coming back. I guarantee that. . . .

Grant gets one more year to groom Green. Then it's the Green/Starks show.

[Patler]

This is sort of my point. If he isn't the starter what do you say to the guys who beat him out if you pay them minimum and grant $5 mill+ ?? I think if there is a camp the team will value Starks and Green quite a bit. Maybe resign BJAck because of the restricted time frame. Where does that leave Grant? In todays game, and the way TT treats RB's I just don't see Grant on the roster....unless he takes a big paycut and I don't think he will.

What do you say to them? The same thing said to the players ahead of KGB a couple years ago when he was being paid more then than Grant will be paid now. That's just the way it goes. It happens all over the league. When the other player is in a position to negotiate, he will get his chance.

[get louder at lambeau]

Starks = Samkon Gado



I hope i'm wrong

Don't worry. You are.

[SkinBasket]

Grant is just fine. I don't think Starks is so full of himself that he has a problem with the starter returning to starter status. Of course, it's just Ol' Stumble Feet telling him he's the starter, but if it makes the manbaby feel better, then what's the harm?

[vince]

IMO, the only way Grant doesn't play this year for the Packers is if he gets injured. I think McCarthy will be excited to have 3 legitimate big, fast weapons at RB with different skills to intermix and feature at different times during games and as the season progresses. The fact that Grant almost never fumbles is itself a valuable skill. Obviously, you have to be able to run effectively, but with two young guys with a lot to prove yet backing him up, (I'm with you JH - Jackson is gone.) Ryan Grant is still an important part of this team.

Grant is a team leader and I think he will remain an asset to the team on and off the field even with a reduced role, which he'll have compared to what he's become used to here. As Patler said, Grant's pay is not that outrageous. The fact that he makes more than the other RBs with whom he shares time will be of no consequence.

[Guiness]

Tar did not...have...sexual...relations...with JH.

There may have been a cigar involved.

Zing! To quote Eddie Murphy:

"That was a good one, too ! My mouth was open."

However, I'm not sure just why JH felt the need to jump in with a mention of his mouth. Maybe he felt left out?

[Patler]

You are wrong. The first move TT made was to tender him for the minimum amount. TWill didn't sign it and later signed for more. Furthermore you dont' have any more idea than I do what they offered Grant between when they tendered him for the minimum and when they ultimately signed him. They were NEGOTIATING the entire time.

Not as I recall it. Grant's agent was complaining that the Packers wouldn't even respond to him. It was a take the tender or leave it approach by the Packers, and it backfired on them when Grant didn't sign by late July, TC started and Favre showed up.

The next year they had Williams signed by early May because they began negotiated an upscale deal almost immediately. The year before they screwed around with Grant for three more months.

[bobblehead]

Not as I recall it. Grant's agent was complaining that the Packers wouldn't even respond to him. It was a take the tender or leave it approach by the Packers, and it backfired on them when Grant didn't sign by late July, TC started and Favre showed up.

The next year they had Williams signed by early May because they began negotiated an upscale deal almost immediately. The year before they screwed around with Grant for three more months.

I think that quoting his agent is.....well, you know. With williams they did begin to offer a little bit more early on....and he signed it. I have trouble believing that with camp closing in the pack hadn't offered anything more than minimum to Grant. I specifically recall TT talking about Grant's being a special situation given his age and such. I doubt that he failed to make a single fair offer on a one year deal prior to settling on a 4 year deal. You may believe that, but I doubt it.

[Patler]

I have trouble believing that with camp closing in the pack hadn't offered anything more than minimum to Grant. I specifically recall TT talking about Grant's being a special situation given his age and such. I doubt that he failed to make a single fair offer on a one year deal prior to settling on a 4 year deal. You may believe that, but I doubt it.

I don't think they did absolutely nothing with Grant until camp started, but I also don't think they really got serious with Grant until shortly before camp. I also think that as a result of the Grant situation the previous year, they realized it was better to deal seriously with Williams much earlier in the off season.

[Pugger]

Sharpes "holdout" came before the first game. His neck injury occurred toward the end of the season.

As I remember it (which could be wrong) Sharpe announced his retirement shortly after consulting with specialists, saying nothing was worth the risk of potential paralysis. I don't recall any equivocation on his part, no comments about trying to come back or to catch on with another team. My impression at the time was that it was pretty serious, and he may have dodged a bullet when he was injured.

This is what I remember too.

[Smidgeon]

At first glance I would have said, "there is no way in hell Grant is getting cut" but then bobblehead made a reasonable argument.


Problem is. . . Starks is thin and runs high. Green is a rookie, without OTA's or minicamps. Jackson is the worst RB in the NFL, he's NOT coming back. I guarantee that. . . .

Grant gets one more year to groom Green. Then it's the Green/Starks show.

AP runs too high too. It's a different style, not a bad one. But Starks can also split out wide like Grant can't. I think Starks only looks thin because he's tall for a RB.

And Jackson may be bad for running, but he's very effective as a receiver out of the backfield.

If Jackson was as bad as you believe, he wouldn't have been starting between Grant and Starks. He would have been cut and either Nance or someone else brought in.

[ThunderDan]

AP runs too high too. It's a different style, not a bad one. But Starks can also split out wide like Grant can't. I think Starks only looks thin because he's tall for a RB.

And Jackson may be bad for running, but he's very effective as a receiver out of the backfield.

If Jackson was as bad as you believe, he wouldn't have been starting between Grant and Starks. He would have been cut and either Nance or someone else brought in.

Bjack really leaves you scratching your head. He is terrible as a runner out of the backfield on 1st and 2nd downs. Yet he excels as a a receiver and after the catch guy and on 3rd down draws/delays/traps. It seems like those skill sets would be interchangable (except the catching of the ball part which he is good at and Grant isn't).

Some of Bjack's runs after catches are pure beauty and on 1st and 10 he will run up his guards back for no gain.

[get louder at lambeau]

Bjack really leaves you scratching your head. He is terrible as a runner out of the backfield on 1st and 2nd downs. Yet he excels as a a receiver and after the catch guy and on 3rd down draws/delays/traps. It seems like those skill sets would be interchangable (except the catching of the ball part which he is good at and Grant isn't).

Some of Bjack's runs after catches are pure beauty and on 1st and 10 he will run up his guards back for no gain.

He's Reggie Bush.

[sharpe1027]

I didn't mean to compare the situations, only the teams way of handling them. I could be wrong, but I think the packers were required to keep Sharpe on IR through his surgery and until the end of that season. You can't simply cut a guy who gets hurt midseason and tell him to find his own surgeon.

I don't understand how you can talk about the "teams way of handling" the two situations without comparing the two situations. Otherwise you might as well argue that Rodgers will be cut.

Sharpe demanded that he either get more money for not playing in 1995 or that he be released to sign with another team. Until and unless Grant puts in a similar ultimatum, the way the team handled the Sharpe situation doesn't seem very relevant to how they would handle Grant's situation.

[3irty1]

I think the situation won't change a ton but rather just get much better. I'd guess Grant will get the most carries but won't be shouldering the load to the point he was in the past. Starks can contribute on third down but also has enough third down skills and functionality in the ZBS to steal some snaps. I don't think Starks or Green will beat out Grant in a fair fight... Grant is vastly more proven and takes much better care of the ball.

[bobblehead]

I don't understand how you can talk about the "teams way of handling" the two situations without comparing the two situations. Otherwise you might as well argue that Rodgers will be cut.

Sharpe demanded that he either get more money for not playing in 1995 or that he be released to sign with another team. Until and unless Grant puts in a similar ultimatum, the way the team handled the Sharpe situation doesn't seem very relevant to how they would handle Grant's situation.

Wrong. Sharpe never demanded to be released to sign with another team. He threatened to sit out....exactly like Grant did. Both leveraged a situation. Sharpe leveraged the season opener. Grant leveraged the PR situation with the player not to be named.

[sharpe1027]

Wrong. Sharpe never demanded to be released to sign with another team. He threatened to sit out....exactly like Grant did. Both leveraged a situation. Sharpe leveraged the season opener. Grant leveraged the PR situation with the player not to be named.

It doesn't make any sense that he would threaten to sit out when he was going to be out for at least a year with his injury anyway.

http://articles.sfgate.com/1995-03-01/sports/17798103_1_packers-decision-sharpe-s-agent-william-opener-last-fall

Sharpe's agent, William (Tank) Black, demanded the Packers either raise their $200,000 offer for 1995 or release him so he could sign with a team willing to pay more.

[Patler]

Wrong. Sharpe never demanded to be released to sign with another team. He threatened to sit out....exactly like Grant did. Both leveraged a situation. Sharpe leveraged the season opener. Grant leveraged the PR situation with the player not to be named.

Sharpe was under contract when he made his threat.
Grant was not under contract and simply did not sign the offer on the table until it was more to his liking.
To me, these are direct opposites.

[mission]

If Jackson was as bad as you believe, he wouldn't have been starting between Grant and Starks. He would have been cut and either Nance or someone else brought in.

Jackson is not very good at all. He was "starting" because Nance sucks even more and hardly had a grasp on the playbook.

Plus didn't Nance have a little nagging injury or something? Ankle?

BJ made a couple plays out of the backfield but that's going to happen by default in an offense with so many options. Wait until you see Starks and Green catching passes out of the backfield.

[Joemailman]

Brandon Jackson is a fine 3rd down back. His receiving ability and blitz pickups are top notch. He lacks the decisiveness to be a good feature back. I wouldn't mind TT bringing him back, especially since the lost offseason may set Green back a while. In addition, Starks has had considerable health issues the last 2 years.

[Guiness]

Brandon Jackson is a fine 3rd down back. His receiving ability and blitz pickups are top notch. He lacks the decisiveness to be a good feature back. I wouldn't mind TT bringing him back, especially since the lost offseason may set Green back a while. In addition, Starks has had considerable health issues the last 2 years.

BJack was good at his role, and is a valuable piece of the team as an effective 3rd down back. Tony Fischer wasn't a world beater, but I don't remember complaints about him. I think we can have BJack's experience back for a reasonable price; no one is likely to pick him up and pay him starter money. Unless we have someone else experienced at blitz pick-up (Kuhn?) I shudder to think of the hits it might mean to Rodgers.

Once you get by the fact that he didn't pan out as a feature back pounding the ball on early downs, you realize he is effective catching the ball and making tacklers miss in space. That same juke that causes momentum loss, and TFL's when he does it behind the OL serves him very well when he's trying to make the first guy miss on a swing pass.

[Tarlam!]

Jackson has been a good, blue collar Packer. Whatever happens, I wish him well.

[bobblehead]

Sharpe was under contract when he made his threat.
Grant was not under contract and simply did not sign the offer on the table until it was more to his liking.
To me, these are direct opposites.

Any player has a right to quit playing any time he wishes. Thats just the way it is. You say "under contract" like quitting isn't an option. Grant wasn't signed, but he was exclusive to the packers for the tender they offered. His only option was identical to sharpe's....not to play.

[wootah]

I don't see BJack being part of this team in the upcoming season. He has made it clear he wants to be 'the guy' and must understand that with the playing time Starks got in the play offs and Grant being back, that's not going to happen here. The drafting of Green IMO was the last nail in the coffin.

[Patler]

Any player has a right to quit playing any time he wishes. Thats just the way it is. You say "under contract" like quitting isn't an option. Grant wasn't signed, but he was exclusive to the packers for the tender they offered. His only option was identical to sharpe's....not to play.

One was in a period of contract negotiation, the other was not. Neither intended to quit. Both wanted to play. One had a signed contract defining the terms under which he had agreed to play. The other had not agreed to terms. I am surprised that you see no difference in the two situations.

A drafted rookie has no option but to sign with the team that drafts him, or not play that year. Should he have to accept whatever the team offers? Grant's situation was more like that of a drafted unsigned player than it was like Sharpe's situation.

[Pugger]

I don't see BJack being part of this team in the upcoming season. He has made it clear he wants to be 'the guy' and must understand that with the playing time Starks got in the play offs and Grant being back, that's not going to happen here. The drafting of Green IMO was the last nail in the coffin.

But poor Jackson showed the entire league that he couldn't be 'the guy' last season after Grant's injury so I can't see another team clammoring for his services as an every down back. He might very well be playing someplace else this season but he won't be 'the guy' for that team either.

[MJZiggy]

I don't know, Pugger. Jackson comes from a SB winning team (that is SO nice to say) and people tend to overvalue those players. He could well wind up sucking someplace as a lead back...

[sharpe1027]

Any player has a right to quit playing any time he wishes. Thats just the way it is. You say "under contract" like quitting isn't an option. Grant wasn't signed, but he was exclusive to the packers for the tender they offered. His only option was identical to sharpe's....not to play.

Sharpe wanted more money for a year in which he was not going to play at all. He demanded to be released if he didn't get the money. He was questionable as to whether or not he would ever play again. He had several years left on his contract.

Grant did not sign his offer because he was asking for a long term contract (rather than demanding to be released).

Hardly the same situation.

[bobblehead]

One was in a period of contract negotiation, the other was not. Neither intended to quit. Both wanted to play. One had a signed contract defining the terms under which he had agreed to play. The other had not agreed to terms. I am surprised that you see no difference in the two situations.

A drafted rookie has no option but to sign with the team that drafts him, or not play that year. Should he have to accept whatever the team offers? Grant's situation was more like that of a drafted unsigned player than it was like Sharpe's situation.

I see it this way Patler. Under the CBA an undrafted player gets the minimum and then has step ladder salary until he reaches RFA or FA. A 6th rounder actually SIGNS a deal just a tad better for 4 years. A first rounder gets a much better one. All are "under contract" in effect. Each can hold out. I don't see what Grant or TWill did as any different than a player who signed a deal coming out (Javon Walker?). I will grant you that guys who are on a second contract are slightly different as they reached FA status and had the option of negotiating leaguewide for the best contract they could get.

[bobblehead]

Sharpe wanted more money for a year in which he was not going to play at all. He demanded to be released if he didn't get the money. He was questionable as to whether or not he would ever play again. He had several years left on his contract.

Grant did not sign his offer because he was asking for a long term contract (rather than demanding to be released).

Hardly the same situation.

I am pretty sure we are having 2 different conversations regarding Sharpe.

[sharpe1027]

I am pretty sure we are having 2 different conversations regarding Sharpe.

Regardless, Grant's situation just don't line up very well to Sterling's.
Your original argument was that Grant could be cut because "sterling sharpe held out back when...the instant he wasn't of use to the team they cut him."

First, there are completely different people in charge of this decision; making your assumption weak even Grant was in the exact same situation.

Second, Sharpe expressly requested that he be released because the Packers would not pay him more money for a year that he was not going to play at all. The Packers did what he asked.

I just do not think that the release Sharpe tells us much of anything about what will happen with Grant.

[Patler]

I see it this way Patler. Under the CBA an undrafted player gets the minimum and then has step ladder salary until he reaches RFA or FA. A 6th rounder actually SIGNS a deal just a tad better for 4 years. A first rounder gets a much better one. All are "under contract" in effect. Each can hold out. I don't see what Grant or TWill did as any different than a player who signed a deal coming out (Javon Walker?). I will grant you that guys who are on a second contract are slightly different as they reached FA status and had the option of negotiating leaguewide for the best contract they could get.

But there is significance to a contract ending, and Grant was on a one year contract. Some undrafted FAs sign two year contracts, and often get a small bonus, or a slightly better second year salary for doing it. I think the Packers did that with McDonald last year. The team gets the advantage of certainty for his second year, and the player gets a little money up front. The team's risk is wasting a small bonus if the player doesn't pan out, and the player's risk is being very valuable and having to play for peanuts his second year.

By signing a one year contract, the player takes on the risk of injury, the risk that he will perform poorly and have no value, while having gotten nothing up front. The team takes on the risk of the player doing very well and not being willing to sign a minimum wage contract the second year.

To my way of thinking, when a contract is expired, all terms are open for negotiation, and it just comes down to who has the advantage. It worked out very well for Grant that year. I am convinced the Packers made a mistake by not negotiating seriously with Grant in April/May. Had they gotten it done before Favre "unretired" they might have done it cheaper than they did, or maybe even a shorter contract. They were much more aggressive with Williams the following year. Waiting with Grant got them into a PR nightmare with two stars from the previous season.

[Patler]

Sharpe wanted more money for a year in which he was not going to play at all. He demanded to be released if he didn't get the money. He was questionable as to whether or not he would ever play again. He had several years left on his contract.

I think you have your timing mixed up. Sharpe held out and demanded more money before he got hurt. He did it before the first game of the year. He didn't get hurt until the end of that same season. He was perfectly healthy at the time of his holdout, just wanted to redo his contract.

[sharpe1027]

I think you have your timing mixed up. Sharpe held out and demanded more money before he got hurt. He did it before the first game of the year. He didn't get hurt until the end of that same season. He was perfectly healthy at the time of his holdout, just wanted to redo his contract.

He did both per the article I cited above.

[Patler]

He did both per the article I cited above.

I don't read the article that way. They are referring to the earlier holdout, and the agreement reached because of it. It had an effect on the timing of his release because of the bonus being due in March, but I don't think there were any new demands made by Sharpe, if that's what you meant.

[sharpe1027]

I don't read the article that way. They are referring to the earlier holdout, and the agreement reached because of it. It had an effect on the timing of his release because of the bonus being due in March, but I don't think there were any new demands made by Sharpe, if that's what you meant.

I could be wrong by it says "$200,000 offer for 1995". The 1995 season was after both his holdout and his injury.

*edit*

Also, I have no recollection of him ever asking to be released during the 1994 holdout.

This one clarifies:

http://articles.philly.com/1995-03-01/sports/25698892_1_release-sharpe-bone-graft-surgery

"Sterling Sharpe, the star receiver recovering from neck surgery, was released yesterday by the Green Bay Packers.

The move occurred a day after Sharpe's agent demanded the Packers release the All-Pro or increase their salary offer for 1995.

The Packers offered Sharpe $200,000 while he sits out next season. His contract calls for $3.2 million as part of a six-year deal he signed last season."

[Patler]

I could be wrong by it says "$200,000 offer for 1995". The 1995 season was after both his holdout and his injury.

*edit*

Also, I have no recollection of him ever asking to be released during the 1994 holdout.

This one clarifies:

http://articles.philly.com/1995-03-01/sports/25698892_1_release-sharpe-bone-graft-surgery

"Sterling Sharpe, the star receiver recovering from neck surgery, was released yesterday by the Green Bay Packers.

The move occurred a day after Sharpe's agent demanded the Packers release the All-Pro or increase their salary offer for 1995.

The Packers offered Sharpe $200,000 while he sits out next season. His contract calls for $3.2 million as part of a six-year deal he signed last season."

Boy, I didn't remember that at all!

Sharpe's "big" hold out was before his last season, when he walked out on the team just before the first game. I guess they didn't like the token salary offered by the Packers to hold a spot for him after he was hurt. I think everyone must have known his return was unlikely.

Hard to believe it was that long ago already.

[bobblehead]

Regardless, Grant's situation just don't line up very well to Sterling's.
Your original argument was that Grant could be cut because "sterling sharpe held out back when...the instant he wasn't of use to the team they cut him."

First, there are completely different people in charge of this decision; making your assumption weak even Grant was in the exact same situation.

Second, Sharpe expressly requested that he be released because the Packers would not pay him more money for a year that he was not going to play at all. The Packers did what he asked.

I just do not think that the release Sharpe tells us much of anything about what will happen with Grant.

Your points are valid. I may be reaching a bit in the comparison. I don't recall sharpe asking for more money when he was going to miss the season, just the holdout before the prior season's start. In any event, your points regarding Grant are valid, and with no minimum camp and all, if GRant looks the same in TC, he may stick by default.

[bobblehead]

But there is significance to a contract ending, and Grant was on a one year contract. Some undrafted FAs sign two year contracts, and often get a small bonus, or a slightly better second year salary for doing it. I think the Packers did that with McDonald last year. The team gets the advantage of certainty for his second year, and the player gets a little money up front. The team's risk is wasting a small bonus if the player doesn't pan out, and the player's risk is being very valuable and having to play for peanuts his second year.

By signing a one year contract, the player takes on the risk of injury, the risk that he will perform poorly and have no value, while having gotten nothing up front. The team takes on the risk of the player doing very well and not being willing to sign a minimum wage contract the second year.

To my way of thinking, when a contract is expired, all terms are open for negotiation, and it just comes down to who has the advantage. It worked out very well for Grant that year. I am convinced the Packers made a mistake by not negotiating seriously with Grant in April/May. Had they gotten it done before Favre "unretired" they might have done it cheaper than they did, or maybe even a shorter contract. They were much more aggressive with Williams the following year. Waiting with Grant got them into a PR nightmare with two stars from the previous season.

I don't agree that they handled Williams any different from Grant. I will always think that Grant leveraged a situation and TT won't forget it. Neither of us can know for sure how it went down, but if Grant does manage to get waived and is healthy, but a step off, I'll be even more inclined to think I am right.

[bobblehead]

I could be wrong by it says "$200,000 offer for 1995". The 1995 season was after both his holdout and his injury.

*edit*

Also, I have no recollection of him ever asking to be released during the 1994 holdout.

This one clarifies:

http://articles.philly.com/1995-03-01/sports/25698892_1_release-sharpe-bone-graft-surgery

"Sterling Sharpe, the star receiver recovering from neck surgery, was released yesterday by the Green Bay Packers.

The move occurred a day after Sharpe's agent demanded the Packers release the All-Pro or increase their salary offer for 1995.

The Packers offered Sharpe $200,000 while he sits out next season. His contract calls for $3.2 million as part of a six-year deal he signed last season."

THats a bit different. He was under contract and the team, rather than pay him the 3.2 million offered him less (or they would cut him). He refused and it sounds like he was looking for more than 200k. He was totally within his rights to demand up to the 3.2 or be released.

[Patler]

I don't agree that they handled Williams any different from Grant. I will always think that Grant leveraged a situation and TT won't forget it. Neither of us can know for sure how it went down, but if Grant does manage to get waived and is healthy, but a step off, I'll be even more inclined to think I am right.

How did Grant leverage the Favre situation in April? or May? or June? Favre was retired. That is when they should have made substative headway in negotiations with Grant. Instead, they waited until TC started, then made a crappy offer. I found this article:


July 28, 2008

Running back Ryan Grant did not report to training camp Sunday and based on how angry his agent was Sunday with the Green Bay Packers' first offer, it could be a long time before he's back in uniform.

"It's insulting," agent Alan Herman said of the offer he received from negotiator Russ Ball at 5:15 p.m. Saturday "Ryan Grant gave them a running game last year. They know what he can do."

Herman said the most insulting part of the offer was the $1.75 million signing bonus the Packers offered on a six-year contract extension. Herman noted the $3 million linebacker Brady Poppinga received on his four-year extension that was signed last week.
According to Herman - who said he generally doesn't discuss specifics during negotiations but was so upset over the Packers' offer he felt it was necessary - Grant's earnings in 2008 would be just over $2 millionIt was the Packers "first offer" and had a $1.75 million bonus for a six year contract. It apparently included minimum salary for the first year, if the first year payout was just $2 million. That wasn't much of an offer for a six year contract.

The next year they made a solid 1 year offer to Williams in April or early May. He was signed by the first week of May. They seemingly did nothing with Grant until late July.


Edit: It was actually the end of May when Tramon Williams signed in 2009.

[Patler]

THats a bit different. He was under contract and the team, rather than pay him the 3.2 million offered him less (or they would cut him). He refused and it sounds like he was looking for more than 200k. He was totally within his rights to demand up to the 3.2 or be released.

We don't know for sure that he was within his rights to demand $3.2, he may have been contractually obligated to something else. It was common to have injury clauses that paid a player a minimal amount if he was out for a full season. Now those clauses are found mostly only in first year contracts, if at all. If the Packers "offered" what the contract provided, he had already agreed to it. But, if the Packers were trying to do something less than the contract, I have no problem with him asking for the release instead.

I do think his holdout before the '94 season was a load of crap, especially since he waited until the end of TC then announced his holdout. He was as full of crap as Walker was, except Walker at least made the threats in the summer before camp.

[Iron Mike]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/11/ryan-grant-thinks-hell-be-the-starter-in-green-bay/



I believe he is correct. We only saw James Starks at the end of the year and lord knows Bjax is not a full time answer. I think Grant is the main man in 2011...2012 is a different story.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b150/BabyTorres/Funny%20Stuff/fantasia.gif

I've been waiting to whip that one out on Patler, but he hasn't had any long diatribes lately...

[bobblehead]

How did Grant leverage the Favre situation in April? or May? or June? Favre was retired. That is when they should have made substative headway in negotiations with Grant. Instead, they waited until TC started, then made a crappy offer. I found this article:

It was the Packers "first offer" and had a $1.75 million bonus for a six year contract. It apparently included minimum salary for the first year, if the first year payout was just $2 million. That wasn't much of an offer for a six year contract.

The next year they made a solid 1 year offer to Williams in April or early May. He was signed by the first week of May. They seemingly did nothing with Grant until late July.


Edit: It was actually the end of May when Tramon Williams signed in 2009.

I thought the 1.75 million bonus and a 6 year deal was a fair first offer. Just me. We are also taking the agents word for things. The agent that decided to play this out in the media instead of behind closed doors. Remember prior to that offer Grant had played about 8 regular season games, fumbled his first two carries in his first playoff game and disappeared in the NFCC game.

His agent was insistent on a multi year deal instead of signing the 1 year tender like Williams did. Williams IIRC signed for under 1 million total compensation for 2009 and then signed the minimum 1st and 3rd round tender in 2010. He followed the rules and maybe got a few extra dollars for 2009, but not 1.75 million or 2 million compensation. I am betting Grant had a similar chance to sign the deal TWill did in '09, but we will never know because he was negotiating for a long term deal.

PS...minimum salary is over 400k so I don't know how 1.75 + 400 = 2.0.

[bobblehead]

We don't know for sure that he was within his rights to demand $3.2, he may have been contractually obligated to something else. It was common to have injury clauses that paid a player a minimal amount if he was out for a full season. Now those clauses are found mostly only in first year contracts, if at all. If the Packers "offered" what the contract provided, he had already agreed to it. But, if the Packers were trying to do something less than the contract, I have no problem with him asking for the release instead.

I do think his holdout before the '94 season was a load of crap, especially since he waited until the end of TC then announced his holdout. He was as full of crap as Walker was, except Walker at least made the threats in the summer before camp.

We are in complete agreement here. If I lead you to believe otherwise its a misunderstanding.

[sharpe1027]

THats a bit different. He was under contract and the team, rather than pay him the 3.2 million offered him less (or they would cut him). He refused and it sounds like he was looking for more than 200k. He was totally within his rights to demand up to the 3.2 or be released.

I'm not sure I agree that he was within his rights to demand 3.2 million for not playing. As Patler pointed out, his contract may have said otherwise.

Coming back full circle, I think it is unlikely that Grant gets cut unless they really need his salary number to sign someone else (doesn't look like is the case) or he is worse than all the other RBs. Otherwise, the team is still a better team with him even if he is not the true starter. I guess we will have to see.

[bobblehead]

I'm not sure I agree that he was within his rights to demand 3.2 million for not playing. As Patler pointed out, his contract may have said otherwise.

Coming back full circle, I think it is unlikely that Grant gets cut unless they really need his salary number to sign someone else (doesn't look like is the case) or he is worse than all the other RBs. Otherwise, the team is still a better team with him even if he is not the true starter. I guess we will have to see.

Demand 3.2 million OR be released. That was his contract situation so if he chose release rather than a reduced amount I thought he had every right. the team could pay or release him, that were their options (unless both sides came to a different agreement.)

[Patler]

PS...minimum salary is over 400k so I don't know how 1.75 + 400 = 2.0.


In 2008 for a player with one accredited season (like Grant) the minimum salary was $370,000, and what the agent said, per the quote I provided was "Grant's earnings in 2008 would be just over $2 million. " I think his statement is accurate.

But why did the Packers wait until the end of July to make an offer? Dumb move on their part, which they learned from and dealt more fairly with Williams the next year.

[packerbacker1234]

Not sure how this is really even that worthy of a conversation. Is there anyone here that honestly thought, heading into this season, that Grant wouldn't be the guy? Jackson had his time to prove himself and, really, he failed. Starks had a nice post season, but he's still unproven and you don't know if he can handle a full load over the course of a season. He may best be served in a reserve role taking about a third of the carries at this point.

Grant, meanwhile, is a proven player. He's not flashy, but he always got the job done. consistent 1000+ yard rusher. Reliable and dependable in everything but the Screen game. He is likely, as of right now, the best RB on the roster assuming he didn't lose a step from the injury.

I know no one has really been sold on Grant being the guy, but his numbers don't lie. He's consistently been performing as a top 10 RB in the league ever since he got his shot. There is no denying that, and he doesn't have a lot of wear and tear on him despite the age. Outside of the screen game, he is perfect for this high octane passing offense. He does just enough to keep teams honest. He does have the ability to break long gains, and he is solid in getting the tough yards.

It also helps he is clear and away the best pass blocking RB on the roster. Protecting Rodgers is priority one, and having a RB who is reliable in picking up blitzes is huge. Jackson was never good at it, and starks whiffed a few times in the play offs. I am way more confortable having grant try to get that backside blitz than any other RB on the roster.

[Patler]

It also helps he is clear and away the best pass blocking RB on the roster. Protecting Rodgers is priority one, and having a RB who is reliable in picking up blitzes is huge. Jackson was never good at it, and starks whiffed a few times in the play offs. I am way more confortable having grant try to get that backside blitz than any other RB on the roster.

I think you have Grant and Jackson mixed up on their abilities to pickup blitzers. I would take Jackson over Grant any day on that one. There is a reason that Jackson became the third down back even when Grant was healthy.

[RashanGary]

I think you have Grant and Jackson mixed up on their abilities to pickup blitzers. I would take Jackson over Grant any day on that one. There is a reason that Jackson became the third down back even when Grant was healthy.

I think it's because Jackson is good at blitz pickup and catching the ball (moreso catching.) Also a big factor is giving Grant a rest. He's already a workhorse on 1st and 2nd down. Even the Vikings take AP out on 3rd down. Do you think that white guy, whatever his name is, is better than AP at anything? I doubt it.

[Patler]

I think it's because Jackson is good at blitz pickup and catching the ball (moreso catching.) Also a big factor is giving Grant a rest. He's already a workhorse on 1st and 2nd down. Even the Vikings take AP out on 3rd down. Do you think that white guy, whatever his name is, is better than AP at anything? I doubt it.

Peterson is an atrocious blocker, or was when he cam into the league at least. Not unlike Jackson was when he first showed up. Didn't have a clue about blocking. Unlike Jackson, who had good hands, Peterson also was pretty miserable as a receiver, when he was a rookie, but he has gotten better at it.

Grant is not that good of a blocker either, and his hands a quite bad, in my opinion.

[RashanGary]

Either way, just about every team has a 3rd down back. RB's don't usually play every down. Fisher came in for Ahman Green and Green could do it all.

[Patler]

Either way, just about every team has a 3rd down back. RB's don't usually play every down. Fisher came in for Ahman Green and Green could do it all.

What does that have to do with the relative competancies of Grant and Jackson?. Some teams rotate backs by series, rather than 1 & 2 vs 3rd down. Depends on their abilities. Grant is not a very good receiver. He struggles catching the ball. Jackson catches easily and well. Grant has never been that good of a blocker. Jackson wasn't either, but became very good at it to the point that he often played in passing situations even on early downs. He is simply better all-around in the passing game than Grant is.

Green was as good or better than Fisher, and DID play on 3rd downs until Fisher came along. Since Fisher was decent at it, they used him because Green had to take frequent breaks anyway due to his asthma.

[MJZiggy]

Not sure how this is really even that worthy of a conversation. Is there anyone here that honestly thought, heading into this season, that Grant wouldn't be the guy? Jackson had his time to prove himself and, really, he failed. Starks had a nice post season, but he's still unproven and you don't know if he can handle a full load over the course of a season. He may best be served in a reserve role taking about a third of the carries at this point.

It's a really, really LONG offseason this year. That's how. If they don't get this resolved the guys are going to break into conversations about foot fungus and jock itch. Get the damn agreement signed, people! (this is what happens when you leave men in charge of things.)

[smuggler]

Unless Grant gets hurt, it's hard to see him losing out to Starks. Speed is very important in the NFL, and Grant is faster than Starks. With that said, this is a great dilemma to face, as a fan!

[Lurker64]

I think Grant starts, Starks is the third down back (he's got great hands), and Green is the change of pace/bruiser. If we have other running backs than those guys, I'm not sure where exactly they fit in.

[Tarlam!]

If we have other running backs than those guys, I'm not sure where exactly they fit in.

Kuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bobblehead]

I think Grant starts, Starks is the third down back (he's got great hands), and Green is the change of pace/bruiser. If we have other running backs than those guys, I'm not sure where exactly they fit in.

I think Green and Starks mix up the roles and someone we aren't even aware of is the 3rd guy...jmo.

[sharpe1027]

I think Grant starts, Starks is the third down back (he's got great hands), and Green is the change of pace/bruiser. If we have other running backs than those guys, I'm not sure where exactly they fit in.

That might not happen until Starks improves his pass blocking. I think he can get there, but with less practice time for him to work on it with the lockout, it may not be right away. It should be interesting to see how it shakes out since they can't keep everyone.