Ryan Grant thinks he’ll be the starter

[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 million

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.

[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...-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.

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.