Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Ryan Grant not a lock o make team?!?!?


keggerz
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/128290998.html

 

Green Bay - If Green Bay Packers general manager Ted Thompson decides to keep just three halfbacks, he's going to have a tough call to make.

 

Does he stick with what he knows he has or with what he hopes he has?

 

That is the difference between Ryan Grant and Dimitri Nance, two backs as different as night is from day, but possibly competitors for one roster position.

 

It might seem like heresy to even consider the Packers letting Grant go, but the truth is about two weeks before the season opener the only certainties at the position for the 53-man roster are James Starks, Alex Green and John Kuhn.

 

Grant is healthy again after spending 19 games on injured reserve with a damaged ankle, and the coaches have been doing what they can to see him in live action. He started against the Arizona Cardinals on Friday night and played in the first three series, finishing with 23 yards on five carries.

 

This preseason, Grant has just eight carries, which is hardly enough to cast judgment. Then again, Starks has only two carries and Green six.

 

"We're trying to get Ryan and James - and, now Alex is back - we're trying to get those guys a certain number of carries each game," coach Mike McCarthy said. "I definitely would like to start off getting Ryan going this week."

 

It's impossible to read McCarthy's mind, but the decision to see more of Grant means either he isn't sure whether Grant still has it or he's sure of it and just wants to get him back to form after a year layoff. Grant has missed some running opportunities this summer, including a poor decision on a draw play against the Cardinals, but he's also the kind of player who gets better with carries.

 

The coaches might be seeing things others don't in the way Grant has run.

 

"We're looking at specific things in a certain play and sometimes they don't pan out," Grant said of the preseason. "There may be penetration, but we're still about maintaining our course.

 

"How the play plays out may not have anything to do with the particulars of your fundamentals."

 

Nance, nonetheless, might have complicated things Friday with a solid performance, carrying four times for 28 yards (7.0 average). Most of his yards came on the game-winning drive when he was playing with third-stringers.

 

Nance, 5 feet 10 inches and 212 pounds to Grant's 6-1 and 222, has the potential to be an effective third-down back and replace the departed Brandon Jackson. In practice, he has been a physical blocker and in games has kept the quarterback clean.

 

"His understanding of the offense and scheme is very good," running backs coach Jerry Fontenot said. "He's a guy whenever we're reviewing pass game check-downs with the running backs he's always on point. He knows where he needs to be."

 

That is a big requirement in McCarthy's offense.

 

Green, the team's third-round pick, blew an assignment Friday and let quarterback Matt Flynn get hit in the back. That might limit his chances as a third-down back, but he'll make the roster because of his explosive running style, which he showed on a 25-yard screen play.

 

Starks stands to be the No. 1 back after his outstanding postseason last year and his natural running instincts. He's coming off an ankle injury but probably will play against Indianapolis on Friday.

 

He's such a natural at his position, he needs less work in preseason games than anyone else. As long as he's practicing, he's ready for games.

 

"I'm always ready," Starks said. "The start of the game, I'm ready. Throw me in there, I'm ready."

 

The coaches already know what Kuhn can do and they would not cut him after signing the fullback to a three-year, $7.5 million contract. Fullback Quinn Johnson has a lot of ground to make up after reporting to camp overweight and might not make it.

 

That leaves Grant and Nance.

 

The obvious pick would be Grant, the two-time 1,200-yard rusher. But there are other issues to consider such as Grant's $5.65 million salary cap number. If he is on the roster the first day of the season, he is guaranteed his $3.5 million base salary, which would lift his 2011 compensation thus far to around $4.75 million.

 

Do the Packers want to pay that or the $525,000 it would cost to keep Nance?

 

Grant always has been the type of runner who wears a team down and gets harder to tackle as the game goes on, so the eight carries he has this preseason don't present a fair assessment of where he stands.

 

By the time Friday is over there will be more information from which to judge Grant and the others. At this point, Grant thinks he's rounding into shape.

 

"I feel like we're in a rhythm, that I'm good with what I'm seeing," he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

He's making it.

 

Nance may only make $550,000 or so, but he is no Ryan Grant.

 

I'd be shocked if they traded him (I cannot see them just cutting him).

 

I guess you never know, however.

 

:wacko:

 

Nance doesn't have to outplay Grant. If Starks is outplaying Grant and Green is playing well, and since Grant likely will not play special teams, GB can save $3M by cutting him and keep Nance, who will play special teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wacko:

 

Nance doesn't have to outplay Grant. If Starks is outplaying Grant and Green is playing well, and since Grant likely will not play special teams, GB can save $3M by cutting him and keep Nance, who will play special teams.

That's what I'm saying. Starks could be a steal in drafts right now to those who aren't in the know yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wacko:

 

Nance doesn't have to outplay Grant. If Starks is outplaying Grant and Green is playing well, and since Grant likely will not play special teams, GB can save $3M by cutting him and keep Nance, who will play special teams.

And Saine looked better than Nance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant NOT making Green Bay is probably the best option for those who drafted him - instead of a 1/1A situation with Starks, Grant would most likely catch on somewhere that is dying for a good RB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant NOT making Green Bay is probably the best option for those who drafted him - instead of a 1/1A situation with Starks, Grant would most likely catch on somewhere that is dying for a good RB.

I'm already considering trading for Grant and getting him cheap once this news settles in. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Digging in the dirt.

 

I have no idea if Silverstein has a good pulse on the Pack or not. First he says there is no way to read McCarthy and then he says that Starks should be #1 based on his post season. well that sounds like his thinking and not the Pack's. I think you are following a red herring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Digging in the dirt.

 

I have no idea if Silverstein has a good pulse on the Pack or not. First he says there is no way to read McCarthy and then he says that Starks should be #1 based on his post season. well that sounds like his thinking and not the Pack's. I think you are following a red herring.

 

 

One thing I don't get about the Starks love is everyone talks about how productive and tough he is - um, his career #s INCLUDING postseason are 110-416-1. It doesn't mean he CAN'T be a good RB, but basing it on what he's done, uh, not so much.

 

 

I'd think the most likely situation is similar to Edgar Bennett/Dorsey Levens in '96 - dependable vet splits time with more explosive youngster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're even being nice to him here...he was a 3.5 ypc back in the regular season and 3.8 ypc back in the postseason. I think Grant's average. I think Starks is below average.

 

One thing I don't get about the Starks love is everyone talks about how productive and tough he is - um, his career #s INCLUDING postseason are 110-416-1. It doesn't mean he CAN'T be a good RB, but basing it on what he's done, uh, not so much.

 

 

I'd think the most likely situation is similar to Edgar Bennett/Dorsey Levens in '96 - dependable vet splits time with more explosive youngster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information