News Archives

If Return to New York Giants Doesn’t Happen, Ahmad Bradshaw Would Like to Play Close to Home

February 17th, 2013 at 9:30 AM
By Dan Benton

Although running back Ahmad Bradshaw has left a door open to return to the New York Giants, and possibly even to sign with the New York Jets, the veteran also said earlier this week that he'd like to play closer to his family in Bluefield, Va. if neither of those options pan out.

"I’m a country boy from the mountains of Virginia," he said on SiriusXM NFL Radio's Late Hits earlier this week. "I would love to be anywhere close to there … so my family could see me every week. There’s a lot of close teams that are possible."

Since being drafted in 2007, Bradshaw has played 562 miles away from his home in Bluefield, and as with most athletes, that takes a bit of a toll. But now that he's a free agent, Bradshaw may be blessed with the opportunity of playing closer to home, and there are a number of potential options out there. If, of course, some of these teams are interested in investing in another running back.

The closest NFL team to his hometown of Bluefield is the Carolina Panthers, who play 175 miles away. And although they have a healthy number of running backs, their brand new General Manager, David Gettleman, is familiar with Bradshaw from his days with the Giants.

Other potential suitors, based on distance alone, include the Pittsburgh Steelers (294 miles), Cincinnati Bengals (314 miles), Washington Redskins (341 miles), Cleveland Browns (361 miles), Baltimore Ravens (379 miles) and Tennessee Titans (380 miles).


Tags: Ahmad Bradshaw, Carolina, Carolina Panthers, Football, New York, New York Giants, NFL

14 Responses to “If Return to New York Giants Doesn’t Happen, Ahmad Bradshaw Would Like to Play Close to Home”

  1.  Krow says:

    These guys have to make their money while they can. I hope he finds a team and gets another couple/three years out of the NFL. He was a big part of two Superbowls.

  2.  fanfor55years says:

    I think Ahmad DOES have 2-3 more good years in him. His departure is more about getting Wilson into the role he was drafted to fill than it is dumping Bradshaw because he cannot contribute any longer. He wasn’t worth the kind of money he probably wants (probably at least #2 back money, perhaps even a bit more) when he was going to have to play a very complementary role behind Wilson and Brown, but I think he can successfully become someone’s #2 back.

    This stuff about wanting to play close to home, though, is silly. After he retires he’s unlikely to ever see any compensation that approaches what he’ll make from football. He should be worrying about whether he can find someone to pay him more than $1.5MM. The guy might see a $2-2.25MM contract from someone, and might even get some performance incentives. He should take the money and run….to wherever that team calls home.

    •  GmenMania says:

      +1. He’ll have plenty of time to be near his home after he retires. Right now, he should just focus on getting as much money as possible.

    •  Chad Eldred says:

      I like Bradshaw, but I’m not convinced this guy has 3 years left period, much less 3 good years. I’m admittedly no Dr, but my gut tells me that this guy has been playing with wheels that ordinary men would wince when walking with. From the ankles up he may be a young man, but unfortunately the foot problems are chronic and have aged him beyond his chronological years.

  3.  fanfor55years says:

    Speaking of running backs, I’m very curious. I know some of you are high on Scott. I cannot figure out why. Except for that one play in preseason against scrubs I don’t remember seeing anything that would lead me to believe he is anything other than another speedster who won’t have any impact in the NFL because he doesn’t have the lateral movement necessary to get to the areas of the field where speed does you lots of good.

    But I’m willing to be educated as to why I should be happy to have him on the roster. Anyone?

    •  Chad Eldred says:

      I’m actually with you on this one, and I’m far from convinced that Scott is going to be the #3 back on this team. There will be others coming to camp at the RB position, you can guarantee it. I’m optimistic that a complete back will emerge in camp to fill the number 3 role on this team. Someone that take 4 or 5 meaningful carries in a game.

    •  Dirt says:

      We can always turn to Kregg Blumpkin!

  4.  fanfor55years says:

    By the way, apparently Alec Ogletree was arrested on a DUI. He was also suspended for the first four games of his junior season for drug violations. I want absolutely no part of that kid. I wouldn’t want a linebacker at #19 anyway, but this seals it for me. Let someone else grab his talent and hope he doesn’t destroy it. (Yeah, yeah, I know, LT, but he was a once-in-a-lifetime talent and Ogletree ain’t no LT).

  5.  GmenMania says:

    Some franchise tag ruminations from Ralph Vacchiano:

    Starting tomorrow, teams can begin using the “franchise tag”. Will the Giants use it? Here’s a look …
    … at some of their potential “franchise” candidates:

    T Will Beatty – From what I hear, re-signing Beatty is the Giants’ highest priority among their own free agents, which makes sense since he’s their left tackle and they don’t have a replacement ready. The franchise tag for an OL will be about $9.7 million, which is a very hefty price. The preference would be a long-term deal that’s a little more cap friendly. The Giants could slap him with the “tag” though if they’re close to a deal and sure they could work one out before free agency begins on March 12.

    TE Martellus Bennett – Impressed with his ability and potential, the Giants want to re-sign him, but it’ll depend on what the market is (the Bucs are already reported to be interested). He made $2.5 million last year and the “tag” for a tight end is about $6 million. That’s too much considering the Giants have a history of developing tight ends and there are some intriguing options for replacements on the free-agent market.

    S Kenny Phillips – This has been reported as a possibility because the “tag” for safeties is said to be “low”. Well, it’s $6.8 million. And that’s not “low” for a guy who hasn’t really been the same since major knee surgery a few years ago and who had more knee issues last year. When he was in the game, the Giants were better, but can they afford that much cap space on a player they can’t be sure will stay healthy? That’s the question.

    Prediction: The Giants won’t use the tag. I think the numbers are too high to justify using it on Bennett or Phillips. And using it on Beatty is a big risk because if they don’t sign him to a long-term deal he’ll be eating up 8% of their cap space. That’s a lot for a team that’s only currently about $5 million under the projected cap. When they use it, that’s usually why – to put a temporary hold on a guy they’re close to re-signing. But the numbers make that a difficult gamble this year.

  6.  fanfor55years says:

    No way they’re tagging Bennett or Phillips.

    But I would not be afraid to tag Beatty if they have worked out restructures with Eli and/or Rolle (which they should). That keeps him for 2013 and gives them lots of options for 2014 and forward.

    But if they don’t tag Beatty and he moves on we may be looking at one more year of David Diehl at left tackle for the Giants. If that’s the case I hope Gilbride isn’t looking to make a lot of “big” plays on long passes because he’d be putting his franchise QB at risk with slow-developing patterns.

    •  Krow says:

      Tackles, CBs, and WRs. You have to constantly draft them and churn them. Either that or overpay for mediocrity.

  7.  GmenMania says:


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Login with: