Ryan Grant thinks he’ll be the starter

[CaptainD]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.