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

[Iron Mike]

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

Bwahahahaha!!!!

[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.