I'm just going to go along with what Uncle Ted decides. I enjoy riling everyone up, cause let's face it, we've had a boring off season.

I use to call him TNS Grant - tiny nut syndrome - cause he could never break a tackle and always went down like a $2 hooker. Can't argue with 1,200 yards though; but we're now 2 years removed from that.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

By Bob McGinn

Running back Ryan Grant probably strengthened his chances of making the final roster of the Green Bay Packers by accepting a $1 million reduction in his base salary this season in exchange for a guaranteed contract.

On Aug. 9, the Packers and Alan Herman, the agent for Grant, agreed to a restructuring in which Grant's base salary was reduced from $3.5 million to $2.5 million. His cap salary this year decreased from $4.797 million to $3.797 million, which gives the Packers an extra $1 million of room to resign veterans such as Josh Sitton and Jermichael Finley.

However, Grant's new base salary of $2.5 million was fully guaranteed against both skill and injury. His previous base of $3.5 million was not guaranteed.

Thus, if the Packers were to cut Grant on the final roster reduction Sept. 3, they now would have to pay him the $2.5 million. Before the restructuring, they wouldn't have had to pay him the $3.5 million if he was cut before the start of the regular season.

No other changes were made to the final year of the four-year, $18 million contract that Grant signed in August 2008.

Earlier this month, Grant was paid a roster bonus of $1 million paid on the 15th day of the NFL year. He can earn another $750,00 in roster bonuses by being active for every game.

All that means to me is the team Grant is being traded to wanted him to have a lower salary.

But I suppose for the Nostalgia gang - we'll keep Driver and Grant another year and let some young talented bucks go. We should start keeping a log of our TC cuts that immediately find their way on to another roster.

Hell, Colledge and Spitz got contracts and we through them out like garbage.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

But I suppose for the Nostalgia gang - we'll keep Driver and Grant another year and let some young talented bucks go. We should start keeping a log of our TC cuts that immediately find their way on to another roster.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

I'm not sure if it's even worth replying to you, since you've admitted that you just like to stir things up, but here's a question: Do you really think Dimitri Nance is any good? Last week he showed a little flash for the first time since he came to Green Bay, but we've heard very little about him in practice.

Here's another question: Do you think Driver and Grant are similar in quality to Colledge and Spitz?

And one more: Do you think Ted should've gotten rid of Chad Clifton before last season?

I know nostalgia when I see it. Those are the people who want old players to come back, or who want to keep players who are clearly replaceable (e.g., Barnett vs. Bishop). But most of us want the Packers to win games. We like it that the Packers are a young team, but veterans do have a place. I think you've become an extremist on this issue.

At any rate, Bob McGinn's news of the contract restructuring pretty much settles the issue anyway: Grant is staying. You don't restructure a guy's contract to guarantee his salary and then turn around and cut him so that you lose the money.

Originally Posted by: Greg C. 

I'm with Greg here. I think Veterans should make the team until someone proves beyond reasonable doubt that they're better. I want to win titles.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 

Thanks for agreeing with me (I wish everybody did!) but my standards for keeping young guys are even lower than yours. Rather than having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're better than the veterans, I'm in favor of keeping them if they look like they are probably going to be just about as good as the veterans. I don't feel that way about Nance vs. Grant. Not even close.

Originally Posted by: Greg C.