10 Reasons Ryan Grant Has Played His Last Game with Packers

[woodbuck27]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/609390-nfl-trade-rumors-10-reasons-ryan-grant-has-played-his-last-game-with-packers

10 Reasons Ryan Grant Has Played His Last Game with Packers

By Eric Ball (Featured Columnist) on February 15, 2011.

The NFL's can be a cruel game.

Just ask Packers running back Ryan Grant. The 28-year-old Grant was supposed to play a prominent role in the upstart Packers offense. Grant ended up on the I.R after a little over one quarter of action in the 2010 NFL season with a severe ankle injury. He ran well in his eight 2010 carries, collecting 45 yards for a 5.6 average. He was forced to watch his team roll through the NFL in route to a Super Bowl championship.

Now, his future with the Packers is very cloudy. Combine the Packers history of dealing with running backs with his expensive contract and we have only a few reasons why Grant's days in Green Bay may be numbered.

Here are 10 reasons Grant may have played his last game with the Green Bay Packers.

Please Click LINK above.

GO PACKERS !

[VegasPackFan]

A couple of those slides have B.S. comments on them.... Just sayin...

[Lurker64]

The only way I can see Grant not being with the team next year is if Ted Thompson thinks that Mark Ingram, Mikel LeShoure, or Ryan Matthews are the best player available at #32.

We're going to keep three running backs, we have only two guys who are actually worth a damn running the ball under contract. It's not rocket surgery to conclude that we're probably not going to cast one of them to the wind. It's not like this is a position we're deep at.

That being said, you offer enough for a guy on Ted's roster, he'll probably pull the trigger... but without a CBA in place (and you can't trade players for picks on draft day without a CBA) it's silly to project trades.

[Jimx29]

If Mr. Ball thinks that our current running back situation is OK, he needs to have his head examined

[mmmdk]

I think we'll lose BJ, not Grant. Yet we need a BJ type of back / third down receiving back for our offense. Starks/Grant/BJ looks good to me but BJ might get a better contract elsewhere.

[Patler]

I think Starks can be the third down back. By reputation from college he is supposed to be an excellent receiver. He looked to be getting the idea on pass protection after just a few games for the Packers. An off-season of workouts (hopefully) amd training ca,p (again, hopefully) should help him immensely. I really don't expect the Packers to put in a big effort to hold on to Jackson, who I expect will look for a better opportunity somewhere else.

[Patler]

The credibility of this analysis is suspect when he uses Hornung, Taylor and Green as evidence of the Packers not treating aging running backs well.

Hornung was lost in the expansion draft. Hornung was physically a wreak by then, and in fact never played another game because of the condition of his back. Teams could protect only a small number of players. It was known the Packers couldn't protect Hornung, but it was doubted the Saints would take him because of the likelihood he might not ever play again. Tom Fears, a former Packer Assistant, was the Saints head coach and took Hornung to draw fans. It ended up being a wasted pick for the Saints. The Packers also lost two other very good players in that expansion. The Saints first took Bill Curry from the Packers, then traded him to the Colts for Gary Cuozo to be their starting QB. Curry went on to a multiple Pro Bowl career with the Colts. The Packers also lost Phil Vandersea, who Lombardi liked so much that he traded a draft pick to reacquire him a year later.

Taylor was lost when his contract expired. There were stories of a fractured relationship by then between Taylor and Lombardi, but Taylor was also able to return home by signing a lucrative contract with the Saints. Taylor is from Baton Rouge and played at LSU. Some say it was what Taylor wanted and Lombardi let happen for him. Taylor only played one more year, and not all that well.

Green? The Packers tried to keep him, but the Texans gave him an outrageous contract. $23 million 4 year contract with $7 million guaranteed for a beat up running back who played very little after that. As it was, if I recall correctly, the Packers offered a two year contract that with incentives could have made him as much per year, but with a smaller guarantee.

I don't think any of those three situations over the last 44 years indicates that the Packers jettison useful running backs just for the heck of it.

[RashanGary]

Grant will be a Packer next year. I'd go ahead and place a large bet on it.

[RashanGary]

Starks and Grant have similar styles. I could see Starks eat into his carries a little.

[Scott Campbell]

Why do people even bother with the Belcher Report?

[SkinBasket]

Why do people even bother with the Belcher Report?

What else are they going to talk about? How hard Atari Bigby hits people?

[Pugger]

The credibility of this analysis is suspect when he uses Hornung, Taylor and Green as evidence of the Packers not treating aging running backs well.

Hornung was lost in the expansion draft. Hornung was physically a wreak by then, and in fact never played another game because of the condition of his back. Teams could protect only a small number of players. It was known the Packers couldn't protect Hornung, but it was doubted the Saints would take him because of the likelihood he might not ever play again. Tom Fears, a former Packer Assistant, was the Saints head coach and took Hornung to draw fans. It ended up being a wasted pick for the Saints. The Packers also lost two other very good players in that expansion. The Saints first took Bill Curry from the Packers, then traded him to the Colts for Gary Cuozo to be their starting QB. Curry went on to a multiple Pro Bowl career with the Colts. The Packers also lost Phil Vandersea, who Lombardi liked so much that he traded a draft pick to reacquire him a year later.

Taylor was lost when his contract expired. There were stories of a fractured relationship by then between Taylor and Lombardi, but Taylor was also able to return home by signing a lucrative contract with the Saints. Taylor is from Baton Rouge and played at LSU. Some say it was what Taylor wanted and Lombardi let happen for him. Taylor only played one more year, and not all that well.

Green? The Packers tried to keep him, but the Texans gave him an outrageous contract. $23 million 4 year contract with $7 million guaranteed for a beat up running back who played very little after that. As it was, if I recall correctly, the Packers offered a two year contract that with incentives could have made him as much per year, but with a smaller guarantee.

I don't think any of those three situations over the last 44 years indicates that the Packers jettison useful running backs just for the heck of it.

Wasn't Lombardi beside himself when the Saints drafted Hornung? And didn't we resign Green in 2008? I don't think Grant is going anywhere. Folks forget how productive he was back in 2009.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=RUSHING&conference=null&season=2009&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-n=1

[Cheesehead Craig]

Dammit Patler quit using facts to disprove articles on how horrible the Packers treat players.

[Scott Campbell]

What else are they going to talk about? How hard Atari Bigby hits people?

I get better NFL news watching The View with Harlan.

[red]

i agree with patler. grant and starks would make a great 1-2 punch next year with starks taking over 3rd down duties from b-jack. keep some tread on the young guys tires, and try not to wear out the old guy.

although if the price is right (any chance of a first or second round pick?), then i could see TT trading him