Ryan Grant getting cut and replaced by Dimitri Nance?· Page 15

Greg C.
Registered

13 years ago

Why the generalization? Who's saying the Packers should cut Ryan Grant in favor of keeping Dimitri Nance? I know this is a long thread, but I don't recall that.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

You might want to take a look at the thread title and the initial post, for starters.

blank

evad04
Member

13 years ago

#142

Basically this. Just trying to keep up with nerdmann

Originally Posted by: Silentio

I LOL'd.

And thanks Greg C. for beating me to the punch and pointing the real doozie of bullshit in this thread. Attention gentleman:

Had Sherrod not been shifted to guard, he'd have beaten out Chad Clifton already

William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."

DakotaT
Select Member Topic Starter

13 years ago

#143

Originally Posted by: evad04

Yeah, I can't even defend my boy Nerdmann for that doozie, but the Nance thing is from the article not my demented mind.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

13 years ago

#144

Fine, I was going to say, if only I had $5; you'd be calling me Daddy!

Originally Posted by: DakotaT

lmao, I was figuring you were using the whole 'scold' comment because you had nothing to come back with. This proves it. But hey, how about $774 a month??? I'll call you whatever the hell you want me to!! lol

Greg C. I read it wrong then. I took it more as saying it could be possible, not that the Packers were better off with cutting Grant and keeping Nance. In my defense, there weren't many good pictures.

evad04
Member

13 years ago

#145

Ever thought about the contract changes being accepted from Grant's side were not as much because of a fear of being cut, but because of a mutual agreement that this'd be better for both sides?

I mean, with Starks exploding in the play-offs the way he did last year, he's going to take some hand-offs from Grant. Hitting those incentives might become quite a bit harder that way. Going to a 2.5 mil guaranteed contract might actually be better for him. And for the organization, as well, clearing up 1 mil in cap space. It's a win-win, that way.

Now, I'm not sure if that's what really happened. Of course he should be a little anxious, but let's be honest, if he's not the best HB on the roster, he's the 2nd best. Starks has had his share of injuries and his play has been up and down. Alex Green hasn't done a thing, but seems to be the beneficiary of some green and gold goggles.

Not quite sure what Nance did to deserve that roster spot, either. Is it the 2.7 avg last year, the 7-runs sample in the pre-season this year or his non-standout practice results?

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder

Good for both sides? Way too optimistic, brah. They just guaranteed him money because ... because they wanna get rid of him or something. /sarcasm

I actually really like this post. For someone like Grant, getting $2.5 mil guaranteed against performance and injury isn't a bad idea. I'm just speculating, but I think he might also want to stick around in Green Bay. Whether he gets another contract will likely depend on his performance. He will be 29 by the end of the season so I won't be shocked if Green Bay picks youth in the offseason -- but again, I'd like to think that it his future will be contingent on how he plays.

And for the record, I am excited about Starks and Green. It's just hard to say that either are "better" than Grant when they haven't done it before. If after 5-6 games Starks is doing more with less (or more with more if he's cut that dramatically into Grant's carries) I'll be the first one to change my tune. But I'll change it based on what happens on the 2011 Packers rather than rely on a limited sample from last season. When Starks put up some good numbers (and to be fair, it's not like he set the world on fire) we'd just suffered through nearly 3 months of NO run game whatsoever. In that sense a 70-yard game was stupefying. Similarly, we were all stupefied in '07 when Grant came out of nowhere. Now, I'm not citing a season from four years ago as reason for still having confidence in Grant. No, for him, it's the additive effect of being a back-to-back, solid-if-not-sexy 1,200 yard rusher. He goes down to injury, has plenty of time to heal, and now that expectation level is back to where it was before.

Silentio pointed out that 4-yard boring runner is all our offense needs. Grant can be that guy again, I believe. Can Starks or Green? They both seem to have tons of talents, so I sure hope they get involved. If they're so great that they usurp the job, I'm all for it.

William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."

DakotaT
Select Member Topic Starter

13 years ago

#146

Silentio pointed out that 4-yard boring runner is all our offense needs. Grant can be that guy again, I believe. Can Starks or Green?

Originally Posted by: evad04

See this is where you guys all miss the boat in my opinion. 4 yards a rush is good, you eat the clock, ladadadada.

What about hitting the home run once in a while with your running back. It demoralizes a defense. I don't think Grant is that guy anymore, cause I rarely ever see him break a tackle. I'm not saying he never has, but it is rare.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

13 years ago

#147

Originally Posted by: DakotaT

Ryan Grant was never really a major threat to take it to the house 40+ yards. He has had a few, sure, but that's because he ran through a good size hole at the line and the secondary had to do a 180 to chase him down. I don't care how fast you are, that's extremely hard to do.

zombieslayer
Registered

13 years ago

#148

Originally Posted by: DakotaT

This is where you and I differ I guess. Grant has a second gear. Starks doesn't. Whereas Starks may break more tackles, he's gonna get caught from behind. Grant isn't.

Grant is more likely to bust the 20+ yard runs. I don't see Starks doing too many of them. Starks is more likely to run the first guy over. Grant is more likely to be tackled by the first guy.

Apples and oranges. We could use both styles. Grant's style is more likely to have a longer career though. Starks' style is more likely to get him injured.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

DakotaT
Select Member Topic Starter

13 years ago

#149

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer

What makes you think I was talking about Starks? My chubbie is over Alex Green; and I want to see him lined up with Sitton and the boys to see what he can do from scrimmage.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

13 years ago

#150

Ryan Grant's long runs have come when he had a big hole to run through and the defenders had to change direction to catch him.

James Starks has not had an opportunity to show he won't get caught from behind, however, I feel it could happen because of his wide running stance. That same wide stance also provides better balance I would imagine, but sacrifices straight line speed.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Martha Careful (15h) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me

Martha Careful (15h) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not

Mucky Tundra (18h) : Rude!

beast (19h) : Martha? 😋

Zero2Cool (23h) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.

dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.

beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC

Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no

Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.

beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?

beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you

wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.

wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.

wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.

Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down

Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious

beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere

beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.

beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.

beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...

beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered

wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.

wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.

wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.

Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet

beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury

beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State

beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24

Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM

Eagles

10 - 22