Loss of Grant changes everything

Like a little cut that becomes infected, the real effects of the loss of Ryan Grant may not show up right away. Even without Grant the Packers will be favored to win their next three games and probably will rely on the arm of Aaron Rodgers more than the legs of Brandon Jackson, which is wrong.

While we have seen a new and improved Jackson this year his track record of getting hurt does not bode well for the Packers come November and December. I can see a 2005-type fiasco looming with no Samkon Gado to bail us out this time. The boys on Sportsline said no big deal, just put the ball in Rodgers’ hand 10-15 more times per game. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Why don’t we just hold up a sign showing the play we are running too. Becoming completely one-dimensional is not the answer.

Granted, the Packers are not a running team but the 1250 yards-a-year you get from Grant is just enough to keep the defenses honest, and late in the year in Green Bay you need to be able to run the ball and the clock. Besides, the last thing I want to do is expose Rodgers to injury 15 more times a game.

I have to believe the Packers are looking at all options including maybe trading a tight end for help. I wouldn’t look for anything to happen right away though, crunch time isn’t quite here yet, unless Jackson goes down this week, which really wouldn’t surprise me. The most games he’s been able to stay healthy for in a season is 13. He missed five games last year because of injury.

I know it was the first game of the year and the Packers will have time to plan for the loss, but it without a doubt throws a wrench into the Packers’ Super Bowl plans. Instead of a solid veteran running back you have an unknown commodity that could be gone in a week. Laurence Maroney may have been an option but who knows if the Patriots even contacted the Packers, plus he has been hurt all preseason so the young guy they did pick up might be a better option in the short term.

You can lose a receiver much easier than you can your starting running back, at least you have other receivers and in the Packers’ case their third receiver is probably starting quality anyway, running back is a different story. Now the whole game plan has to change around the new running back’s style. The offensive line has to adjust to Jackson as well. Thankfully the Bills, Bears and Lions aren’t world beaters so the Packers might be able to work it out. I’ll take 2-1 over that stretch, which probably means we lose at Chicago.

I’m not in panic mode, but to be honest, I’m close, I think Grant means that much to the Packers. He is a pro’s pro and consistent as hell. You know what you get from Ryan Grant and it is always good and until next Sunday it was always there. This is going to be a tough one to overcome.

Packernet is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker. Thanks, and Go Pack!

  • donno in texas

    i agree. if you knew for sure jackson could stay healthy, it might not be as bad. but his track record says hold your breath. of course, being packer fans you knew something like this was going to happen. to many people on the bandwagon. to many super bowl predicitions. an injury had to be around the corner for someone important….

  • Well, I’ll kick this off with a disagreement, Al. I think Nance is probably exactly like Gado in that hes coming out of nowhere and will disappear just as fast. From what I saw of Jackson at PHI, Kuhn and his few carries, and the film on Nance, they all seem to be just like Grant in the way they hit a hole. Plus none can go outside, not even Jackson, but Grant couldn’t either – so to me its a wash. I don’t know whats out there available, other than Lynch, and don’t know how he would fit into the locker room (you know thats always a concern for me, because I tend to think long term not the immediate). STL Jackson would be perfect, but we could not afford him. Frankly, I’m really not that upset since we’re a pass first O, and I want to see more of Kuhn w/ a FB in there just for kicks and giggles. Hell, we’ve got a game or three to experiment a lot. This might be fun.

    • AATP

      I’m with you LT, I’m less worried than Al. I do agree there is time to figure things out. I expect during that time we may find that we already have what we need…

  • DelGBFan

    As you said in previous posts, the talent at running back for this team has not approached scary for awhile. We will probably still come close to the 1200+ yardage that Grant always gets with the backs we have. The game against the Eagles showed that the team can get third down conversions with passing plays, with a high level of success.

  • cdk4205

    As I mentioned in an earlier post, an adequate veteran who knows the system would be a nice addition. I suppose they only bring Ahman Green back when Jackson goes down with an injury. He has his moments last year in backup / third down role – showed he has something left in the tank.

  • Rick

    We play with what we have and if needed we trade with someone if injuries force us to by week 6.

    If we trade, Moroney showed what the market is as an excellent pick up for a 4th tround pick from the Patriots.

    You have to admit though that after we play the Bills next week that trading a TE (Lee) for a RB (Lynch) even up, makes sense to both teams IF we believe we can handle Lynch’s baggage.

    As a thinking outside the box manuever, I wonder if Ricky Williams is available from the Dolphins for a 4th and Nance. He is older but a solid RB, as long as he does not inhale. Might be a phone call to make as we play the Bills this weekend and we see what happans with Jackson, Nance, and Kuhn in the backfield.

  • nerdmann

    Actually, when Grant is in there, it’s telegraphing the plays more, because you know it’s usually a run. When Bjack is in there, it’s usually for pass pro. So if Bjack is the every down guy, it’s LESS of a tipoff. He is also faster than Grant (which isn’t saying much,) cuts way way better, and has superior vision. Did I mention he can also CATCH?
    We will also have Starks coming off the PUP around week six or so, presumably. Should be able to bring Porter back after like a month or so too, being that we reached an injury settlement and waived him. He just has to be away for a certain number of weeks, iirc. We’re fine. If anything, better off.

  • CheesyD

    Starks is back after week 6 but I don’t know how much help he will be. Just have to hope Jackson can handle the brunt of it come late November-December.

    No matter what, we’re still better than the Queens.

    • Steve Cheez

      Good point

  • sammy

    I agree Al. I’ve heard some people say Grant is average and he may be, but without him in the backfield, the loss is more than average. If the O-line is improved enough, any decent running back can get the job done if the holes are there. The jury is out but I am near panic mode also. Let’s hope we can get a Gado for the year and re-assess later.

  • You know, bouncing around once in a while on the other blogs, you’ve really got to appreciate this one. We go after each other sometimes, but for the most part its pretty civil. Come back and play, Rocky, this RB discussion will probably go on for quite some time. At least we don’t have to kick Bush around for a while.

  • Three Lakes Terry

    Calm down – the sky is not falling. Jackson and Kuhn will get it done without to much of a drop off. In fact, having Jackson on the first 2 downs opens up the playbook a bit as the screen pass is now actually in play on the early downs. Plus there is Porter and Starks up ahead if we need them. So we just have to make it through the next few weeks to have a full set of options. A word about Nance……It must be that TT looked over the bunch of old running backs sitting around and taking the Packers players and situation into account decided to pass on them probably for various reasons. If someone else goes down then I think that you will see real action.

  • Oh, if only we had a fly-spy on the wall when those conversations are held at the office. I know this, a position of weakness or desperation is not a good negotiation position.

  • CheesyD

    Any rumblings on Ahman Green?

  • mel e mel

    Everyone is making excellent points. Starks has to be in their thinking. Thats why I believe they went IR on Grant so quickly. Jackson is not faster than Grant, but he is quicker. Grant is a productive back, I believe Jackson can be. If you look at the Philly game and I watched it twice, Philly seemed less inclined to blitz when Jackson was in. Grant is more of a power runner but we bring in 2 fullbacks plus Crabtree to run a power formation. Only an idiot doesnt know a run is comming. Grants inability to catch the ball really was an issue. Teams have 3 years of film to know whats coming when Grant is on the field. If we had a dominant run blocking line Grant would be ideal. We dont so a slippery back like Jackson is a good option.

  • roy jamison

    I agree with the nerdmann, I like Grant a lot as a runner. But, where Ahman Green presented a duel problem as a runner-pass catcher, Grant couldn’t catch a pass unless it was slipped under his jersey. Jackson, if he stays healthy, may be a big surprise this season.

  • jimmyus333333

    TT had to see something like this coming when he made his cuts and skipped on signing any FAs in the offseason. I’m not accepting excuses from TT apologists.

    Anyway, it’s still early in the season. A lot has to play out yet. Both MN and CHI have started slow with more questions then answers.

    Gives me hope. All is not lost even if Grant can’t be replaced.

  • Larry

    1250 yards a season is 78 a game. Essentially Jackson and Kuhn did replace Grant against Philly.

    Crunch time is when Jackson will have to earn his salt. GB should be protecting a lead in alot of games and Jackson will be counted on to keep the chains moving. Like others have said perhaps the chains move more with the screen/checkdown than with the off-tackle.

    Certainly Jackson will now be on the field to block the early down blitzes if Rogers checks-off. Maybe a bright side!

    • Amen! Whats been the weakest part of the O since AR became the starter? Not the OL, especially when healthy, and now with depth. Forget QB ’cause Flynn has made great strides, and the rest of the league would give their right arm for AR. Not tight end; Lee was serviceable if not All-Pro, and now Finley who can light up anybody and requires constant double. The FBs can plow and catch and don’t even think about the Fab(4) you can bet TT gets plenty of calls of inquiry about them. Excellent point Larry!!!

  • iccyfan

    I’ve got to chuckle a little at the contingent who thinks we’ll be better with BJax than Grant; I guess McCarthy doesn’t value his job much if he’s maintained starting the lesser player for the past two years!

    Having said that, count me in with the group who believes RB’s are plentiful and we’ll end up just fine with Jackson or somebody else. Hopefully we’ll be like the old Broncos with their next-man-in rushing attack (T. Davis / Olandis Gary / Mike Anderson)…

  • Greg

    How about trading Hawk for Lynch. Buffalo is needing a middle linebacker bad.

    • #12 without any prompting said he wanted Lynch on the same day Hawk says he wants a trade!

      • Steve Cheez

        Hawk for Lynch sounds like a win-win. They’re down a LB, we have one we’re not using. We need a RB, Lynch is buried in the depth chart.

  • monty

    The one thing about “action jackson” is he is also injury prone as he missed what, three games last year? In today’s NFL, you just need depth at this position. Kuhn gives us an emergency back for game situations, but we should be three deep, imo, at this position. Currently, we have two hbs on the roster, action jackson and the new guy they signed from Atlanta’s practice squad. While it makes sense to trade a TE for Lynch as someone suggested, it does not fit into Ted and Mike’s philosophy which is “draft and develop” even though I think Ted would have taken Lynch instead of Harrell (now that would have gotten cheers from the draft crowd that day instead of boos) had the Bills not taken Lynch with the 12th pick. As one national blog writer wrote, Ted would rather talk about his personal life than give up a third round draft choice lol. It would be nice to have a hoss like Lynch in the backfield, I think SB teams can run or pass at will, but it wont happen, not unless “action jackson” goes down as well.

    • I suggest you look at his rap sheet………!

      • monty

        You dont think Rogers would keep him in line since they played together at Cal? I dont know what you think Hawk for Lynch? When we drafted Hawk, I think people expected what we are getting from Mathews. Its a tough call, needless to say we need quality running backs to keep the machine going. Starks comes off for game 7 if he’s healthy. Ted drafts these guys that are injured their senior season (Starks, Harrell) expects them to play then McCarthy gets miffed cuz they get injured easily and cant play. I wish they would stop drafting players who have a history of injuries especially their senior year. Well, we’ve been in this situation before, so all we can do is sit back and see what unfolds. They played better in Philly (the whole team) then they did against the Bears in last year’s opener (no Barbre). Im sure they will have a good day against Buffalo, and work on getting the machine rolling again. I still think we can go 4-0 for the first four games.

  • Sammy

    GOD, PLEASE, don’t invite Rocky back…it has actually been civil around here with him gone. However, I am sure he will be back. He has no other life. Anyway, I still believe if an 0-line is great an average back can really excel. I have some faith in Jackson as he looks bigger, faster, and more prepared this year than last. Maybe he will surprise us…let’s hope. Now is the time to step up.

  • OK, the initial shock is over and the first roster moves have been made to lesson the blow.
    In the long run I think you’ll find the loss of Harrell to be more serious than Grant……..!
    The corporate strategy was to overload the O this year because in the prior years, especially the 6-10, it was the O injuries that caused the greater damage to winning and greater risk to our franchise QB. So what does a pass first, west coast offense team do to win? You score more points than the other guy. Doesn’t matter if your opponent scores 50; if you get 51 you win. Look at the depth chart:
    (5)WR, (10)OL, (4)TE, and (3)FB, vs (5)DE, (1)NT, (8)LB, (6)CB which includes nickle and dime, (2)FS, and (2)SS. Two things are readily apparent, 1) protect the QB, and 2) beef up the STs.
    Thats what MM wanted and thats what TT gave him. Further, I think MM convinced TT and not the other way around because if anything is true its that MM is O, and TT is D. (Hence also, the move to bring in Capers). I also don’t think this was a recent decision – we’ve been moving in this direction for a few years now. Problem is we missed on a few draft picks, notably, Jackson-Harrell-Jolly-Barbre for various reasons. Back to my original thesis:
    IF I’m right, and I agree that in the above senario it makes Hawk expendable, look for Hawk for a DE not a RB.

  • Conflicting view: On the other hand don’t read much into the fact that Hawk didn’t take snaps in PHI. We all know the reason; ’cause we played nickle all day. The reason for the nickle, however, was injuries to (you guessed it) Harrell, as well as Neal and Jenkins. No rotation, which we cannot get by with against Matt Forte or Adrian Peterson.
    That, my friends, makes Hawk somewhat untouchable for the near future. Better switch to maybe a TE for a DE rather than a LB.

  • Pierre

    That seems to be right LT, they do not want to compromise the linebacking corps when the defensive line has less experienced depth at this point in time. Hawk is a part of the run-stopping defense that will be needed and is now a strength; don’t want that area to deteriorate and become a weakness that teams will look to exploit.

    • Well, WAS and DAL, are the only ones who would spend the $ for Hawk (I think he gets 10M on his backloaded contract next yr). Ironic that DAL has a 13yr vet and WAS a 12yr guy starting on the inside, but Hawk is just not going to command that kind of money next yr – not even from us.

  • Let’s be honest. Hawk would be a good MLB in a 4-3. His career has been a disappointment because he struggles in coverage. We should let him go for the best deal we can get. We could use a RB, NT(since replacing Raji with Pickett leaves us short at end) and CB(I don’t see anyone giving a good CB up). Draft picks would be a last resort since we’re trying to go to the SB this year and we won’t do better than a 4th.

    • Can’t disagree, Mark, but it just galls me when people post and insist TT could do better w/ personnel moves if it weren’t for his stubborness, ego, won’t admit a mistake, etc. They don’t have any idea what it takes to make a deal. In this day and age its usually a three-way because the agents have to agree on some kind of a contract rewrite. I’ve got to hold out for a DE though, because I think thats more critical than a RB. Yeah, a Woodson CB would be great, but remember he came with us because everybody else he was talking to wanted him to play safety.

  • Rick

    Monday or Tuesday after game…

    TE Lee for RB Lynch

    AJ is unhappy because he is not a better nickel LB than Barnett. Trading AJ to the Bills for Lynch sounds good for both teams, but whom do we have if Barnett goes down? Who is the nickel LB then? Bishop…Poppinga

    Barnett can’t play both spots in the base 3-4 either. Yes his contract number is huge and yes he is not happy but we ride this out. I want Defense side players only leaving for other Defense players and the same on the Offense.

    • AR and DB think they can control Lynch and keep him in line given the GB environment. Do you think they can? Did they do that good a job at CAL? I like the deal, Rick, but you know I think the DL is a bigger priority unless you can convince me that CJ or Wynn can do the job or Neal comes back in a hurry. No question what Lynch CAN do on the field.

      • Rick

        I agree DLine can be a serious issue but you have two guys already in the pipeline for depth that know the system. Wynn is just a body for rotation, but CJ made the 53 roster. Neal needs a couple of weeks to be in the rotation too. At least there are bodies.

        RB we go Jackson and then FB Kuhn and then maybe the UDFA pick up Nance. He is a great project but this is not preseason, it is big boy time. There is really no time for school so Nance will have to ride with out training wheels like Gado did.

        IF and I mean IF, Capers feels we are sticking in Nickel coverage most of the year and, IF and I mean IF again, Capers feels that Chillar in the sub packages can also handle base 3-4 assignments close to Hawk’s levels; then seeing whether the Bills would swallow his contract may be okay. I assume they will resign a new one with him to adjust the money to make it more team friendly.

        My issue is again to lose an defense player for an offense player. A starter versus aquiring a back up.

        • Sound principle, ie; O for O, D for D, however, we are overloaded on the O. Point is do we really need the RB? I’ve always complained, for years, that we have’nt had one since Hornung/Taylor or Anderson/Grabowski but if Green could have held on to the ball more, he’d have been one maybe.
          Levins, Bennett, Ivory, etc. – pedestrian (sp?) at best.

          • Rick

            You sir are correct that other than 02-04 with Ahman we have not had a dominating RBs in the last 10-15 years.

            But this is a passing league with the Pass Int. rules in effect and we are a great passing team.

            The O gets more bodies because of past injury history and 5 O line versus 3 D line positions.

  • sammy

    Wow, read the article on Mathews. The word STUD is too lame for him. I hope he retires as a Packer. I find it interesting the higher draft picked Hawk is not half the player Mathews is. What would we be like if Hawk could play like Clay?…wow! Just dreamin’ Not meaning to bash Hawk, just am impressed with Mathews’ play.

    • Rick

      No bash at all. We drafted Hawk as a LB for a 4-3 defense and switched to a 3-4. He is a great run stuffing LB that is a little slow in the hips as a coverage LB. Urlacher is the same way, in a 4-3 it is much less an issue.

      CM3 is a great 3-4 OLB that is playing in the correct system and he played in a 3-4 in college too which is rare. Oh and he happens to be a stud player too 🙂

    • You’re both right, of course, however Hawk has not shown the athleticism of that high a pick. Something happened between Columbus and Green Bay because he was all over the field at OSU. Perhaps its nothing more than that old bugaboo – NFL speed. It gets a lot of ’em.

      • Rick

        I see him and Kaupman as 4-3 players in a 3-4 world here in Green Bay. They are great players but not in the system we are using. They try hard but a square peg just does not fit into a round hole sometimes. Thompson at DE was that way too, but because he was a low pick guy the Pakcers used him for a year or two until they got better suited talent into to camp.

      • Kampman is doing great in Jax. They had 17 sacks last yearr. He had 1 1/2 last week.

        • Packer’s Advocate

          That’s great!!!!!!!!!!! Hope he adds another 15.

  • PackFanStuckInMN

    First let me make it clear I am not saying Jackson is better than Grant and I realize it was only one game:

    Before Grant injury – 3 sacks allowed and 3 points scored
    After Grant injury – 0 sacks allowed and 24 points scored

    For those that are saying the sky is falling, those numbers speak for themselves. The offense was able to adjust accordingly. I don’t think a big trade is coming right away. TT & McCarthy will wait it out a few weeks to see how the team responds.

    • Hey, StuckInMN, a shout out – Last yr Favre says “This is the best team I’ve ever played on”. I just saw on NFL Live that “we have some issues that we will have to work on all year”. Did MIN fall that far w/o only Rice and Chester. There’s your “this year or bust” philosophy at work guys.

      • PackFanStuckInMN

        If you look back over the previous 3 seasons, I think there has been 1 team each season in the NFC North that was not as good/bad as the record indicates.

        Go back to 2007, I honestly don’t believe GB was as good as their 13-3 record. They got several bounces to go their way (Philly, Washington & NY) where 2 of those 3 could have been losses. I think they were a legitimate 11-5 team but got the bounces to go the right way.

        In 2008, I don’t think GB was 6-10 bad. They seemed to be an 8-8 or 9-7 team that just had the bounces go against them (blocked FG & missed FG to win games, last minute TD to lose).

        Last year I don’t think MN was as good as their 12-4 record. 11-5 or 10-6 was appropriate to me. They were literally 2 plays from being 10-6 (last second TD against SF, last second missed FG against Baltimore). They also benefited from an easy schedule to start the season while Favre got acclimated with the team and could just hand off to Peterson. On top of all of that, Favre had a career year that he likely will not duplicate.

        So to your original question, I don’t think they really fell all that far without Rice & Taylor. I think they are still a legitimate 10-6 or 11-5 team even with their lack of depth at DB or WR. I think it all hinges on Favre. If he doesn’t drop off too far from his numbers last year, they can go 11-5. If he is merely average, 8-8 or 9-7 is not out of the question. Favre has always made the players around him better than they really are (see Javon Walker or Antonio Freeman). If he can play at higher level this year, he can do the same with that rag tag bunch of WR he has now.

        • Rick

          Very astute observation. Good Job

          • Packer’s Advocate

            Agree. An observer, instead of a #’s guy!!!

  • Packer’s Advocate

    The way I see it, they’ll leave things alone w/the RB situation unless an injury forces a move. B-Jac should be just as effective (a little better/worse?) as Grant but in a little different kind of way. Kuhn as the #2 works fine cause they can go to the big package w/three wides (or maybe 1 TE, 2 WR’s) and pound it/play action passes (though requires Q. Johnson on the active 45). Don’t know if Kuhn would work real well in the same way as Grant or B.Jac???? These coaches aren’t stupid, they’ll make packages each week based on their own and the opponents personnel. And I like that……

  • Larry

    This situation reminds me of Kampy last year (before injury) By not trading him early we essentially got nothing for him. If MM/TT had recognised that Kampy would struggle in the 3/4 early and traded him we may have gotten a 2??? probably 3.

    If Gb has that overpowering O as we think…Capers is going to be in nickle alot…and AJ will be sitting alot.

    He will be cut next year (10M salary) and other teams know it. Now is the time if we want to get anything for him. I think we have 3 or 4 more weeks to ponder this.

    • The same reason we will not keep him next year (ie; 10M) is the same reason that makes him untradable. UNLESS! As I mentioned earlier no deal will be done w/o the presence of his agent. However, if they (he and his agent) are willing to wheel and deal with another team, so would they be willing to deal with us. He is a good, if not great LB, and very usable to us. He does not struggle in the 3/4 he struggles in the nickle and dime. I’ll gamble that he stays here and renegotiates his #s into the 2.5-3.5 range. I’ll go as high as 4M; I think he is that valuable, even to us.

  • mel e mel

    Buffalo has no shot unless they run the ball, Hawk will get some play this week. Also bear week is coming up so they will try to run as well. LBs have a high attrition rate so we will need AJ this year. Still good running attacks in the division, so AJ has value.

    Did you see that Colledge got sick and may not play? I am ready for the Bulaga era.

  • Larry

    L/T you miss the point…Hawk wants to play and in GB his time is limited due to his shortcomings. He isn’t going to be here next year because he isn’t playing (his choice) and the $10M salary. The only question is WHEN to lose AJ Hawk.

    Is it next year when he’s cut or won’t renegotiate so he can PLAY somewhere else or is it in the next month when POTENTIALLY a lb needy team would make a deal.

    Hawk will renegotiate with a 4-3 defensive team because he’ll play. Given that all Hawk wants to do is play..GB must decide when he leaves and if they want to get anyting for him.

    All Hawk wants to do is play and be successful…just like Kampy…and just like Kampman he needs to be in a 4-3.

    • I don’t agree! 1) Hawk wants to stay w/ a potential SB team. 2) He will renegotiate his contract because he would have to do that regardless where he went. 3) He, we, the league, and the team know these things to be true. Hawk is fine except on passing downs, but somehow I think Capers will come up w/ a scheme to rectify that. If all that fails, we just plain cut him, its that simple. Kampman was a square peg in a round hole, Hawk is nowhere near that much of a liability.

    • LT, yes he is a liability. Did you see him make any big plays or for that matter any plays vs the Cards. He could go someplace where they have a good 4 man line and do as well as Dan Morgan did in Carolina and be a star. This is a waste of a career for him and us.

      • Are you talking about ARI ’09 Pri, ARI last yr, or ARI playoffs, and what does that have to do with this year? The guys been a starter for 4 yrs, and that makes him a liability? And you think he is a liability in a run stopping 3/4 D – thats 4 with 2 in the middle. Damned if Moss, Capers, McCarthy, and TT don’t agree with me, hmmm.

        • Playoffs , of course, where we were desperate for help. What this has to do with this year is why he couldn’t get on the field vs the Eagles. That’s what the coaches think of him.

  • Its true, Its true, the rain may never fall until after sundown here in Camelot.
    The only viable trade comodity we have and you want to tear him down. Good thing a trading partner would be basing their value of him on film rather than your opinion. If they take your analysis we’ll be offered an 8th rnd pick in the 2014 draft. He starts, thats all I know.

  • Larry

    L/T…AJ didn’t play one snap against Philly (He’s a starter?) and publicly his agent has indicated he would be OK with a trade. You drank the kool-aid on this one.

    Lets’s see how much he plays once the Packers get a lead or someone like Chicago comes in with the Martz 3 or 4 wides or Forte out of the backfield. His snaps are going to go down…and he will become very unhappy (although always the pro).

    He is a square peg in a 3/4 hole…like Kampy.

  • Larry

    Rocky…Rocky is that you posing as L/T.

  • Thats crazy talk and you know it! He will start tomorrow, he will start against the CHI, MIN, and any other team that has a formable running attack. Having said that, I’ve previously stated that he is the most likely to be traded for a starting caliber DE IF Neal or Jenkins have trouble w/ their injuries for a long duration. It can happen, however, only if he agrees to a new rewrite of his contract in any case. My original thesis was that he would not be traded for a journeyman RB (Grant, Jackson type) or a locker room cancer. This all started by someone thinking STL would trade their Jackson for Hawk. Nonsense!

  • Rick

    AJ is not going anywhere this year unless we get something we could not pass up. If a trade was to happen then a Lee for Lynch is probably more in line.

  • Larry

    To conclude this…L/T and Rick are correct about AJ probably not going anywhere this year…my only point is that one of the key elements in the next month (trading deadline) is what a team would offer…and to a lesser degree his play…he simply won’t be on the field enough unless he plays nickle.
    No one doubts that GB will have the lead alot this year.

    When he is cut next year( salary $10M) we get nothing. If he’s traded this year we get something.

    PS..L/T no Mike Martz coached offense is a run offense…you’re a year behind.

    • Rick

      Actually with a redone contract he is very keepable or tradeable next year. If there is football next year.

      • Rick

        Probably performace based 4 year deal with minimal salary and the next two years pay spread over the 4 years. It would beabout 3-4 Mil per year which is fair to both sides. If he pro bowls he can make it 3-5 per year.

      • Rick, I appreciate what you’re saying but if I were Hawk I’d take less money to go somewhere they have a good 4-3 D-line. He can force his way out by not renegotiating with GB.

        • Rick

          If he does not work out something he loses money because the 10Mil is not guaranteed. In a redone contract that can be the signing bonus so he comes out money ahead.

    • Very true, he seems to be using Foote like he did Faulk, geez, MM has what 10-20 yrs of film to review; we’d better be ready for that game…..you’d think, regardless of what formations he uses.

  • Packer’s Advocate

    Wonder how the Pack will play tomorrow???? They could play vanilla and save the good stuff for better teams…. They could play it pretty wide open and try to put about 3-4 TD’s on them in the 1st half and then another in the 3rd and go to their backups (Bulaga and Lang at T, Spitz inside, DD a break, Flynn and the elder guys on on D). Or they could use it to try new things or show looks that they want other teams to see, so they can play off them in up-coming games. Guess I’m looking past the Bills a bit, hope the Pack isn’t!!!!!

  • Rick

    I say you grab the Bills by the noise and keep kicking them in the ass until the clock says 00:00. Pull players if and only if it gets out of hand. These Bills are professionals. The best 4% of all college players in America, so they may not be good but they are not bad. Never give them a chance.

  • Rick

    That was supposed to be nose… AL, we need an edit button 🙂

    • Any given Sunday come to mind? This year we take nothing for granted; learned our lesson.

  • Larry

    Bears is the team to watch as they progress in the Martz system….reminds me of Pittsburgh game a LITTLE. Strong armed QB in a passing system with a spread offense opening up yards for Forte…This is the recipe that beat us last year although Da Bears are short some personnel this year.

    Receivers are below average and line is short handed.

    On the Hawk debate…IF by years end AJ has sat 1/2 the snaps he won’t resign (currently at 0)…Ted won’t overpay and AJ will go to a 4-3 to play. Can you say Jacksonville! Take a good Penn State LB and he’ll play good fundamental ball.