Randall Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 What impressed me the most was the way he built on the fumbles early in the playoff game against Seattle, then decided to absolutely dominate that football game. They would not have contended last year without this kid, give him a bone. Of course we can never be certain so soon, but this kid really looks like the real deal. I would feel confident I would get a solid return if I gave this kid a little cash. I'd give him an incentive laden contract but think they want to a little more of him. If he improves give him a good contract by week 6, but then I said that about Javon Walker too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I can't really think of a spin that cast the Packers in a good light in this situation. That's one HELL of a lowball. I have no idea what TT is thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I can't really think of a spin that could cast the Packers in a good light in this situation. That's one HELL of a lowball. I have no idea what TT is thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROYALWITCHEESE Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I'd give him an incentive laden contract but think they want to a little more of him. If he improves give him a good contract by week 6, but then I said that about Javon Walker too. That's what he has asked for, an incentive laden contract. But a 6 year deal for a 25 year old, with 1.75 mil guaranteed? They basically spat in his face with that offer. That's on the level of receiving an offer of Nate Burleson for AD straight-up in a dynasty league. Makes you want to break off all negotiations... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 It is amazing that people think Grant has no leverage here. Take alook at the rushing stats before and after Grant last year. It is about a 50 yard per game difference. Anyone that thinks the Packers go to the Championship game with 50 yds less per game is plain nuts. Reality: the Packers need Grant. They don't HAVE to pay him, but they should and will. I expect to hear reports today out of Packer camp about how impressive B.Jackson looks ...blah blah blah. They will dance for a few days and then a deal will get done. Right on que: http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/sports//298261 "I thought Brandon had a heck of a day," coach Mike McCarthy said. "I thought he was special. You're seeing what a good offseason program has done for him." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Right on que: http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/sports//298261 "I thought Brandon had a heck of a day," coach Mike McCarthy said. "I thought he was special. You're seeing what a good offseason program has done for him." Good call !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egret Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Right on que: http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/sports//298261 "I thought Brandon had a heck of a day," coach Mike McCarthy said. "I thought he was special. You're seeing what a good offseason program has done for him." Classic training camp quote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LayLow Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 I think he has at least shown that he can play as a #1 RB... it's not like he is a totally unknown rookie RB. He has shown very measureable NFL talent, even if only for half of a season. Take someone like Matt Forte for instance. He will become the Bears starting RB and even though he may be a total bust, he has a 4 year deal and the educated guess is that he is getting around $3 Million guaranteed. He hasn't played a snap in the NFL. Would Ryan Grant be worth at least as much as an unproven 2nd round rookie pick? I see your point. GB might be worried that Grant's success was because of the high powered offense that included Brett Farvre. This situation could get messy though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 I can't really think of a spin that could cast the Packers in a good light in this situation. That's one HELL of a lowball. I have no idea what TT is thinking. Possibly that he has to keep cap room open in case they wind up taking Favre back? I don't know what is on his mind or the full extent of the contract details but on the surface, it looks like a really bad offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Possibly that he has to keep cap room open in case they wind up taking Favre back? I don't know what is on his mind or the full extent of the contract details but on the surface, it looks like a really bad offer. No...they'd still be $20M under the cap with Favre's contract on the books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 $1.75 mil guaranteed is technically more than what Graham got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 I see your point. GB might be worried that Grant's success was because of the high powered offense that included Brett Farvre. This situation could get messy though. Brett Favre was the QB when they were putting up dick for rushing numbers in the early part of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Brett Favre was the QB when they were putting up dick for rushing numbers in the early part of the season. That's true but Rodgers stays within the 4 - 5WR offense better than the gunslinger in my opinion. In that system he can get rid of the ball quicker than blitzers can get to him. It will take time. He isn't the big play guy Brett is, but with 4 WR's, 1-2 TE's 1-2 RB's who do you cover? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LayLow Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Brett Favre was the QB when they were putting up dick for rushing numbers in the early part of the season. I thought that was because they had abandoned the run early on. No need to get upset, im not looking to chance on Grant this season, I waiver grabbed him last season, that was good enough for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 That's true but Rodgers stays within the 4 - 5WR offense better than the gunslinger in my opinion. In that system he can get rid of the ball quicker than blitzers can get to him. It will take time. He isn't the big play guy Brett is, but with 4 WR's, 1-2 TE's 1-2 RB's who do you cover? My point was simply that it is not fair to discount Grant's production because Favre was the QB. Favre was the QB all year and Grant was the only RB that was able to move the chains. From a fantasy perspective, the only reason I'd be laying off Grant is if the contract issue becomes, well, an issue. IMO, GB needs to sack up and treat the kid like a starting RB in the league. If they make a fair offer, they are likely to secure themselves a very quality back for several years to come at less than he'll probably command if he was allowed to hit the market. As I have said plenty of times, I don't think they need to treat this kid like the next LT. They just need to treat this kid better than a journeyman back-up which it seems they are. I'm quite frankly amazed at how many seem to be stuck on the fact that he wasn't drafted. What the hell difference does that make? All we know is that 3 or 4 different RBs were given the chance to carry the load in GB. All of them but Grant failed to do anything and he pretty much went off. If GB wants to revisit the abortion that was Wynn and co. again, more power to them. They'll have a green QB and RBs that failed to get the job done when given the chance. Sounds like a great way to follow up a NFC Championship run. You guys talk like he has no leverage. I'd say he has plenty. How many play-off teams want to come back with a new QB and a new RB the following year? If they want to push their chips behind Rodgers, they need to give the kid a chance. It might not hurt to have a RB that put together a very 2nd half of the season rather than a bunch of hacks who didn't do squat. That's really all. Opie, not getting upset, just stating the facts. As long as people make bogus arguments, I will be here to point out the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Me? fwiw, I agree 100% with you on all your points. Kissarse!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Me? fwiw, I agree 100% with you on all your points. Oops, my bad, I meant Laylow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 My point was simply that it is not fair to discount Grant's production because Favre was the QB. Favre was the QB all year and Grant was the only RB that was able to move the chains. From a fantasy perspective, the only reason I'd be laying off Grant is if the contract issue becomes, well, an issue. IMO, GB needs to sack up and treat the kid like a starting RB in the league. If they make a fair offer, they are likely to secure themselves a very quality back for several years to come at less than he'll probably command if he was allowed to hit the market. As I have said plenty of times, I don't think they need to treat this kid like the next LT. They just need to treat this kid better than a journeyman back-up which it seems they are. I'm quite frankly amazed at how many seem to be stuck on the fact that he wasn't drafted. What the hell difference does that make? All we know is that 3 or 4 different RBs were given the chance to carry the load in GB. All of them but Grant failed to do anything and he pretty much went off. If GB wants to revisit the abortion that was Wynn and co. again, more power to them. They'll have a green QB and RBs that failed to get the job done when given the chance. Sounds like a great way to follow up a NFC Championship run. You guys talk like he has no leverage. I'd say he has plenty. How many play-off teams want to come back with a new QB and a new RB the following year? If they want to push their chips behind Rodgers, they need to give the kid a chance. It might not hurt to have a RB that put together a very 2nd half of the season rather than a bunch of hacks who didn't do squat. That's really all. Opie, not getting upset, just stating the facts. As long as people make bogus arguments, I will be here to point out the facts. I agree except they don't like giving a lot of money after just 1 season. I would give an incentive laden contract that escalates if he performs like many think he will. He has a lot of leverage. He was 5 times better than anyone last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 As for cutting him, go for it, lots of teams would love to have him. In fact, that might be Grant's agent's tactic... piss off the team, get cut, get FA money. Detroit would love to have him, nice irony there. I bet that's what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 I agree except they don't like giving a lot of money after just 1 season. I would give an incentive laden contract that escalates if he performs like many think he will.He has a lot of leverage. He was 5 times better than anyone last year. The Packers obviously disagree -- Grant's agent said if he finishes with the same stats as last year, he wouldn't even make $1 million. Also, the Earnest Graham situation is a really bad comparison. If they're offering Grant what Graham got, then Grant absolutely has reason to be miffed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LayLow Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 My point was simply that it is not fair to discount Grant's production because Favre was the QB. Favre was the QB all year and Grant was the only RB that was able to move the chains. From a fantasy perspective, the only reason I'd be laying off Grant is if the contract issue becomes, well, an issue. IMO, GB needs to sack up and treat the kid like a starting RB in the league. If they make a fair offer, they are likely to secure themselves a very quality back for several years to come at less than he'll probably command if he was allowed to hit the market. As I have said plenty of times, I don't think they need to treat this kid like the next LT. They just need to treat this kid better than a journeyman back-up which it seems they are. I'm quite frankly amazed at how many seem to be stuck on the fact that he wasn't drafted. What the hell difference does that make? All we know is that 3 or 4 different RBs were given the chance to carry the load in GB. All of them but Grant failed to do anything and he pretty much went off. If GB wants to revisit the abortion that was Wynn and co. again, more power to them. They'll have a green QB and RBs that failed to get the job done when given the chance. Sounds like a great way to follow up a NFC Championship run. You guys talk like he has no leverage. I'd say he has plenty. How many play-off teams want to come back with a new QB and a new RB the following year? If they want to push their chips behind Rodgers, they need to give the kid a chance. It might not hurt to have a RB that put together a very 2nd half of the season rather than a bunch of hacks who didn't do squat. That's really all. Opie, not getting upset, just stating the facts. As long as people make bogus arguments, I will be here to point out the facts. Gotcha detlef, i see the light. I see you are high on him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 The Packers obviously disagree -- Grant's agent said if he finishes with the same stats as last year, he wouldn't even make $1 million. Also, the Earnest Graham situation is a really bad comparison. If they're offering Grant what Graham got, then Grant absolutely has reason to be miffed. They can disagree all they like. I'm not in charge. That's what I would have done with Walker and now with Grant. They obviously see things differently. They do need to offer more than backup money. If they want to see another year of production first find a way to work that out. I believe they will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Cheezhead Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 They can disagree all they like. I'm not in charge. That's what I would have done with Walker and now with Grant. They obviously see things differently. And I tend to agree with YOU on those points, not the Packers' brass. That's why this Grant situation is troubling to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I am wondering if the Packers are stalling until they see where they are with Favre before committing big bucks to Grant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Didn't Jackson get injured early last year....then Morency took over and got promptly injured...then DeShawn Wynn took over and look real good....until he got injured....then it went to Grant. Maybe the Packers see Julius Jones in Ryan Grant....I can't remember the last great NFL running back from Notre Dame. Maybe they actually think Jackson is the real deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.