1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

bring back Grant?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by ivo610, May 11, 2012.

  1. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,590
    Ratings:
    +4,273
  2. bozz_2006

    bozz_2006 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    4,576
    Ratings:
    +652
    I doubt it'll happen. I think he's getting pretty well used up. Better to cut ties one year too soon than one year too late. Especially with running backs.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    Whether or not bringing him back makes sense depends upon the signing bonus he would require IMO. Even if he signed for $1M or $1.5M if there isn't a signing bonus or if the bonus is (relatively) small, Grant would be a no risk insurance policy at RB. I'd rather see Starks get and stay healthy and I agree with the author in that linked article, I REALLY think Green fits the O perfectly if he can learn to pass block. But why not bring Grant back at no/low risk?
     
  4. slaughter25

    slaughter25 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    727
    Ratings:
    +211
    If he can be brought back on the cheap like that I suppose it makes sense, we never know how Green is going to come back from his injury, Saine hasnt really impressed me that much in his limited action and Starks has yet to stay healthy and produce like he did in his short run through the playoffs. Having Grant around cannot hurt if it is so cheap and if no one offers him more than that I expect him to be a packer next year.
     
  5. Vltrophy

    Vltrophy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    3,944
    Ratings:
    +400
    Grant was good but not great. We've also got Cobb & Saine.Saine didn't do too bad last year & though we mostly used Cobb on special teams & a few times during the game I see Cobb as our next RB after Starks
     
  6. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    Vltorphy, do you mean "Green"? Cobb is a WR and returner.
     
  7. Bensalama21

    Bensalama21 Ben

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,575
    Ratings:
    +609
    He probably is. But Cobb DID play RB along with QB and WR in college so he wouldn't be a bad option to put him in the RB position a couple times a game. (Last year we used him a RB a couple times)
     
  8. weeds

    weeds Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,380
    Ratings:
    +1,231
    For what it's worth... the GB Press Gazette reported that Grant's #25 and nameplate are still on his locker...the only non-re-signee ( yeah, I know...I'm making up words again) where that is the case.
     
  9. FrankRizzo

    FrankRizzo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,889
    Ratings:
    +1,679
    That's interesting.

    A lot depends on health, obviously.

    But if all healthy, they rank like this, on the depth chart, IMO.

    1. Starks

    2. Green
      Saine
    3. Grant
     
  10. FrankRizzo

    FrankRizzo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,889
    Ratings:
    +1,679
    That's interesting.

    A lot depends on health, obviously.

    But if all healthy, they rank like this, on the depth chart, IMO.

    1. Starks
    2. Alex Green
    3. Saine
    4. Grant
    (PS, Edit, A lot of times I keep getting errors only on this site, that say something about a script being long, freezing up..... anyone else get this)
     
  11. weeds

    weeds Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,380
    Ratings:
    +1,231
    It is interesting. Probably doesn't mean anything...maybe the maintenance guys just missed it ... I don't know and it's really kind of a non-point because I don't see Ryan back personally.

    Still, it is also hard for me to forget his 1200 yards a few years back in an offense that is unabashedly a pass first offense. Oddly, McCarthy does seem to keep banging away at the rush attempts - they're just not productive. This self-argument always brings me back to my dislike of (what influence remains) of the zone blocking scheme. Most will say that it's not utilized in Green Bay to the extent that it was in the past. Perhaps ... and I won't argue that point online ... but in my No-NFL-Experience and solely personal opinion ... THIS is still a ZBS, watered down but... still a flippin' "finesse" blocking scheme.
     
  12. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    If Grant is on the final roster he won’t be the fourth RB, that wouldn’t make any sense IMO at the vet minimum. I do think it makes sense to bring him to camp at little or no signing bonus. Starks and Green both have injury concerns and I’ll bet the staff would be much, much more comfortable giving Grant the bulk of carries over Saine or a rookie. (And Cobb isn’t a RB IMO.)

    Regarding the ZBS I didn’t like it from the beginning because I think the cut blocks it calls for are dirty tactics. Any system you can’t practice against your own teammates isn’t fit to be inflicted on the league IMO. I believed that as it was practiced in Denver and the Packers adoption of it didn’t change my mind. I think there were two problems with it from almost the beginning in Green Bay. First, the only coach who was schooled in it (Jagodzinski) left after one year. Too bad it wasn’t scrapped then. The second problem with it was IMO the Packers never went “full in” on the cut blocks. Not that I blame the players but for it to work DL have to fear getting cut blocked and without that fear the Packers ended up with a milquetoast version of it.

    But I don’t think it comprises much of the run blocking scheme nowadays. IMO the reason the Packers aren’t a good run blocking team is because they aspire to be, usually have been since Wolf’s arrival, and need to be a great pass blocking team. It’s extremely difficult to put together a good/great pass blocking OL that is also a good/great run blocking line, particularly at the tackle spots. Bulaga is getting there but it’ll be much tougher to accomplish that at LT. As good as Clifton was pass-blocking IMO he was never even average as a run blocker. And the Packers don’t need to be a good/great run blocking team. They just need enough of a running threat to keep defense’s honest. Do that, fix the defense and Rodgers and his weapons will do the rest. It’s not your Dad’s (or Grand Dad’s) NFL anymore: Excel passing the ball and at defending the pass is the name of the game now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Aaron rodgers is god

    Aaron rodgers is god Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    786
    Ratings:
    +154
    Grant wouldn't be 4th on this list he would be number 2. You haven't seen green hardly play. How can you assume he is the 2nd best back.
     
  14. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,590
    Ratings:
    +4,273
    Grant played very well at the end of the season. He could battle with Starks to start but it would be almost counter productive to do that for our long term look
     
  15. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    I get that message on almost every thread. As for RB,
    1. Starks
    2. Saine
    3. Grant
    4. Green
     
  16. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    If it comes down to keeping three I'd favor Starks , Saine and Green over Grant.
     
  17. dansz15

    dansz15 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    600
    Ratings:
    +35
    I sincerely hope not, I can't trust his durability and is too hot and cold.

    I want to see what Starks can do in a full time role and I am a big fan of Alex Green. If he can come back from that achilles injury I think he could have some serious upside. Also curious what Saine can do. The few carries he got he did do OK.

    Let the Lions have our leftovers, Grant won't make it through the season being punished by GB, CHI, and MN. Just add to their RB problems.
     
  18. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    I think Thompson, McCarthy and everyone else at 1265 wants to see that too; I sure would. But he's got to be healthy and consistent for that to happen. I'd love to see him start the entire season and have the bulk of carries and watch Green excel as the third down back.
     
  19. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,523
    Ratings:
    +1,992
    RB depth is important even if we are a pass-first offense. Starks, Green, Saine, and Grant are all injury risks. However, Grant is the only bonafide starter in the group. Starks had a nice run in the Super Bowl run but every part of our team was red hot. Last year he didn't really carry the load and of course we lost Green and Saine. Personally I like having a veteran RB on the 53-man roster who doesn't have a ton of miles on his legs for his age.
     
  20. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    Grant's and Stark's regular season numbers were remarkably similar in 2011: Grant had 134 carries for a 4.2 ypc average while Starks had 133 carries for 4.3 ypc. Grant scored two TDs, Starks one. Grant caught 19 passes, Starks 29 and each lost a fumble. If both are healthy I prefer the younger, cheaper Starks.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  21. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    17,837
    Ratings:
    +3,483
    No one mentioned the pass blocking ability of these Rb..

    Keep that in mind
     
  22. tynimiller

    tynimiller Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1,073
    Ratings:
    +331
    Am I the only one that would like to see us possibly take a look at Hightower? If we're pulling in a FA, I'm a fan of having Hightower possibly in the mix.

    *Nevermind...read he's agreed to terms now.
     
  23. Kevin McCauley

    Kevin McCauley Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 15, 2012
    Messages:
    4
    Ratings:
    +2
    Worth noting: The Packers' roster moves yesterday took them to 90 players under contract, which is the maximum. If the team wants to bring back Grant, they will have to cut someone.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  24. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,523
    Ratings:
    +1,992
    Yeah but they can cut any no name to do that.

    Good point longtimefan about blocking ability. In short, I don't think any of them have the skills that a Brandon Jackson had of a few years ago. None of them really distinguish themselves in that area, but if one were to do so, that would be a key decision point
     
  25. dansz15

    dansz15 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    600
    Ratings:
    +35
    Personally, I don't think Starks will ever complete a full season. I would still like to see what he's got. He was a 6th round pick that was key in getting to a SB, I would say he has paid his weight in gold already.


    I think Saine has the build to be a potential #1, all depends on whether or not he has the football IQ and ability which I have no idea. All I can say is my brother goes to OSU and said Saine was nuts during his time in the Horseshoe. Optimism at its best right here.

    I wouldn't mind spending a #1 pick on a RB next season. Probably would be a bust anyway:mad:
     

Share This Page