Ryan Grant thinks he’ll be the starter

[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.