Ryan Grant

Since Grant seems to believe he's the second coming of Paul Hornung, GB has to be considering some changes at RB this season. Is there sufficient depth on the squad now to be able to go without Grant?

I don't think Grant has shown to any great extent of being full of himself. Though the Packers, probably go without Grant, but he showed a lot of heart last season, and don't see them letting him go before the season starts.

Well lets see.. Kevin Jones and Shaun Alexander are available so if the brass feel there is an issue.. I think they would be bringing a couple of these guys in for nothing else but look sees..

Jackson should be able to step up some.. Wynn is a wildcard, other than that.. we have nothing but question marks. Herron is comming off injury and Mo has never taken the bull by the horns yet..

But with us loading up on WR, and adding very little to the stable of RB's, I think TT and company are comfortable that Grant will come to play.

BTW.. I don't think Grant thinks he is the second comming of Hornung.. I think he is complaining about a system in which he is caught. But he needs to direct some of those verbal bullets to the Players Union for selling the souls of the non-high draft pick younger players out. The bulk of the money goes to 1st and 2nd round picks, without any real type of structure and lots of money is blown on busts. So the owners off set some of that loss by supressing the contracts of the other young bucks.

If the union in my opinion would change the big money paid out to kids comming out that have never played a down in the NFL a little, say into a locked structure.. the Owners would probably give a couple years back for these type kids that actually perform in the NFL.

GB doesn't need to consider any changes, Grant has zero leverage and will be our workhorse.

Grant will be the starting RB in Week 1. Nothing to worry about. He either plays or sits out for 2 years. The latter would be bad, very bad, for Ryan Grant.

Jackson is a solid #2.

I'm not worried about our RB situation.

I wouldn't mine Kevin Jones at all but Grant isn't going to hold out. He'll be playing in week 1. If he's not then he's getting horrible advice.

Did Grant say or do something I haven't heard about?

From what I know all that he has done is not yet sign his tender.

yeah, what the last 4 people said.

I don't get the OP. If anything Grant has been annointed by the fans. I don't recall hearing anything from him.

I think alot of people are taking his situation way out of context, he has absolutely no leverage with the front office and will definatly be in GB this year as our starting RB (barring injury). I just hope for Rodgers sake he can put up the same kind of numbers for a full season. if so, i cant see TT having any problem showing him the money when its time, we certainly have it.

I'm guessing mid to late season, Grant gets a fat paycheck from TT.

Yeah thats somewhere along the lines as i see it too. If he proves he can play at a high level and stay healthy then lockin him up early might be the best in the long run. I got a feeling his production is going to have more to do with the OL's play and his own, but we'll see...

If GB continues to refuse to give him anything other that the absolute minimum now, what makes you think that Grant would be willing to talk contract halfway through the season if he continues to perform at a high level.

Yes, we all know that GB has all the leverage and can continue to offer him the "exclusive rights" contract. But it sounds to me like a pretty raw deal for someone who had a major impact on getting Green Bay to the NFC Championship game. I am surprised that nothing, not even a 1 year contract, has been offered.

Just because Green Bay can be buttholes about his contract, doesn't mean that they should.

That's how the ball rolls in Green Bay.

Perform, get rewarded.

Complain, leave.

No offense but running backs are precious in this league and barely run past 30 years old, so when you have a guy like Grant that hasn't played a whole season you can't just go and sign him to a deal.

He'll be on a team that is young and on the rise, a team that believed in him and went out and got him, and a team that is located in an area that Grant likes.

The Pack are a young team that still has its best days ahead of them, and saying that about a 14-4 team is very encouraging.

Grant has said he wants to be a Packer for a long time. The Packers want Grant to be a part of their core for a long time.

Why talk about a short term arrangement when both sides want something long-term?

It's really not smart to offer Grant a one-year deal when he has shown (through his statements) that he does not want a one year deal.

I think it is unfair to make such an assertion with regards to this situation.

The Packers and Grant's agent have both said that the two sides have been talking. They are negotiating, it isn't as if the Packers have said "play for this or else..."

It's the same with Marion Barber's agent and the Cowboys, both sides are talking but there is still no new contract for Barber. Are the Cowboys being buttholes? No, they are simply being business men.

Ditto for the Packers. They are simply trying to find a contract that both sides agree on, a contract that rewards Grant for the success he had and he should have in the future, while not jeopardizing the long term cap flexibility of the Packers, especially in light of the potential 2010 uncapped year.

Simply put NodakPaul, you are reading far more into the current situation with Grant than what should be read. It is not as if Grant has asked for a release or said he will not return to the Packers. If Grant felt the Packers had disrespected him, or were being unfair and buttholes, then he would've asked out.

dont think there is one thing i can disagree with there, very well put AADP.

I understand.

But don't worry, Grant will be a Packer in '08 and barring injury, he will rush for 1200+ yards and 10+ TDs.

There is no concern. I'm sure we're talking. We don't know what's going behind those doors, but I am confident there's nothing to be concerned about. It's just a little bit of talk that got blown into epic proportions because there's little to talk about in the offseason.

Because we hold his exclusive rights for the following year as well?

You think Grant is going to refuse to negotiate so he can play for a small salary for the next two years, or refuse to play, or what?

Explain some way that there is any actual downside to making him show the goods for more than eight games, given we hold his rights for two more full seasons. He wasn't drafted, he has only one season in the league, he has zero leverage.

You talk like Green Bay has decided to lowball him for as long as they can. That isn't obvious at all, it is extremely early in the game. Two more seasons, not one.

THere is no downside... to Green Bay. The down side to Grant is huge. What if he gets injured in the next year? Why should he waste his time with a team who won't pay him to his potential just because of a claus in the CBA that says they don't have to.

Green Bay has decided to lowball him. With the exclusive rights tender, they get to pay him the absolute minimum for a rookie contract, despite everything that he has done for Green Bay last year. If I were Grant, I would be counting the days until I got to go somewhere that doesn't tyr to **** me...

i for one, totally appreciate your concern Paul. everything is going to be fine though, and Grant won't miss one day of TC. so theres really nothing to worry about.

Grant's agent would be doing a horrible job if Grant signed for the league minimum this season. the Packers on the other hand, would be doing a horrible job if they broke the bank for a stellar performance during half a season.

it's called negotiating, it happens a lot in professional sports.

Agreed. But the Packers have Grant over a barrel on this one. They have offered him exclusive rights tender, which means he can take a one year contract for the league minimum... or sit out the year. He does not have the years of service to qualify as a free agent.

It's true that the Packers would hold all the cards if a dispute arises. That is a big 'if'. If the Packers wanted to put Grant over a barrel, they could... What makes you think they would? Tangible examples, please.

I must have missed that part...

...I also didn't read the rest of your post after that nugget of dumb.