Packers weighing contract options for Grant

[Brando19]

http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080124/PKR01/80124171/1989
By Pete Dougherty
pdougher@greenbaypressgazette.com

Ryan Grant was one of the best bargains in the NFL this season.


The Green Bay Packers’ halfback, picked up just before the start of the regular season in a trade for a sixth-round draft pick, gained 1,189 yards and averaged 5.4 yards per carry in the final 12 games of the season (playoffs included), and he did it while making the minimum salary for a first-year player of $310,000.

His rights belong to the Packers for two more years before he’ll become a restricted free agent, but the Packers might consider rewarding him sooner for outperforming his contract and becoming their primary halfback, perhaps this offseason or sometime during the 2008 season.

The NFL’s salary landscape has changed in the last couple of years, and teams, including the Packers, have taken to extending core players’ contracts and giving them raises even when the player has multiple years left on his deal. Grant appears to be a good candidate for such a move, though his agent, Alan Herman, said he hasn’t yet talked to the team about it.

“I’ll discuss it with Ryan,” Herman said. “A player that’s accomplished what he has, I don’t think there’s any secrets what he’s brought to the Packers this year. It’s clear around the league (for) anyone who’s astute in terms of football that it wasn’t a fly-by-night type of thing. He changed their offense and enabled them to have a running game. Since he’s an exclusive-rights free agent, it’s up to the Packers to decide how they want to approach the situation. You have leverage situations in this business, and right now Ryan’s under contract. We’ll sit back and see what position the Packers take.”

In the past couple years, General Manager Ted Thompson and vice president of player finance Andrew Brandt have upgraded contracts of a few players who outperformed their deals but had multiple seasons remaining on their contracts. Most notably, they signed cornerback Al Harris and receiver Donald Driver to contract extensions to modest raises last offseason, and added weekly roster bonuses to tackle Mark Tauscher’s deal in September.

Thompson wouldn’t address Grant’s contractual status in particular, but he would not rule out signing an exclusive-rights players to long-term deal in general.

“We look at every situation,” Thompson said. “We’re always focused on the immediate, how to be good today, but we’re always looking at stability down the road. We’ve spent a lot of effort and time addressing some of the fellas that are a little bit more veteran in terms of doing contract extensions, but as we grow as a team and these young guys move through their initial contracts, we’ll address those as we go along, sure.”

The urgency for Grant to sign a long-term deal and gain financial security probably is greater than for most first-year players, because he’s been out of college for three years and is 25. Grant signed with the New York Giants as an undrafted rookie in 2005 and spent the season on their practice squad, so he did not gain an accrued season toward free agency. In the following offseason, he suffered a severe cut on his hand and arm that landed him on the nonfootball injury list for all of 2006, which again prevented him from gaining an accrued season. Thus, he remained a first-year player — but not a rookie — when the Packers traded for him at the end of training camp, and made the first-year minimum salary of $310,000.

If the Packers want, they can tender him a one-year contract for 2008 at the second-year minimum of $370,000. His only options would be to sign it, or withhold his services in hopes the Packers made a better offer. And he’ll be in the same position in 2009, when the minimum for a player entering his third season will be $460,000.

But Grant was productive enough to perhaps warrant a long-term deal soon. Over the last 10 games of the regular season, he was the NFL’s second-leading rusher, behind only San Diego’s LaDainian Tomlinson.

The difficulty is determining Grant’s value relative to his lack of contractual leverage.

For comparison, Pittsburgh halfback Willie Parker was in a somewhat similar situation in 2006. Parker, like Grant, was undrafted out of college, but unlike Grant, he played in enough games as a rookie in 2004 to gain an accrued season. In 2005, he became the Steelers’ primary halfback, gained 1,202 yards in 15 regular-season games, and had a 75-yard touchdown run in Pittsburgh’s win over Seattle in the Super Bowl.

He remained an exclusive-rights free agent going into 2006, though he had two accrued seasons instead of Grant’s one. That offseason, the Steelers signed Parker to a four-year deal worth $13.6 million, including a signing bonus of $3.75 million.

However, salaries have gone up considerably even in the two years since then, so it probably would take a far bigger bonus than that to convince Grant to sign a long-term deal.

“We’ll see what happens,” Herman said. “We’ll see if the organization is aggressive and wants to do the right thing, then you certainly reward a player and try to lock him up for the future. If they’re going to entertain that thought process, we’d be more than happy to listen. Do you hope for something like that? Sure, every player would.

“The contribution he made this year and the way it appears he can continue to help this team, you’d hope the club would recognize that and you see what position they take. Are they going to move forward and say, ‘Hey, he’s our guy for the next five years, and let’s get something done?’ That would be a wonderful thing.

“The key point is Ryan has been out of college for three years. He’s been on the practice squad, obviously he sustained the injury, those things have impacted on what he can earn. For a minimum-wage player, to say he outperformed the contract is an understatement.”

[ny10804]

It's a touchy situation. For one, I have to see more evidence that Ryan truly is a top back. It's tough because we own his next two seasons when he'll be 25 and 26, a running back's prime years, and all smart RBs have an urge to cash in while they have value.

I say, sign him to the minimum, and if 8 games into next season he has around 550 yards, sign him long term. He'll work his ass off to earn the contract, and seems to have a work ethic and pride similar to Kampman and Driver that won't let him slouch off even after getting big money. He's always wanted to be a great running back, and that motivation is invaluable in a player (see Cletidus Hunt).

[CaliforniaCheez]

They can low ball him with a minimum wage deal.

[Joemailman]

I see no reason to make him play for the minimum considering he is without question your starting RB. Not saying he should make what the top backs make because he hasn't played a full season yet. The 2 sides should be able to come to a fair accomodation.

[4and12to12and4]

If he would've been able to prove himself over the span of sixteen games (or 18 technically), and would've put up the numbers he put up ALL year long, he would've been neck and neck with LT for the rushing title. If that would've happened, I say you reward him with a nice deal, because you know what you've got. But, he only did well for just over a half of a season, and in the biggest game of the season, he underperformed, so, I think you have to let him continue playing at his salary, and if he has a great year this year, you reward him at the end of the year. If he is outstanding through the first 10 games, and is near the league lead in ypg, maybe give him a contract even before the season is over, but I think he will be hungrier in postseason to prove himself if you wait until the end of next season. What's he gonna do, sit out? He only had a half of a season of success. The league will now pay attention to him, and coaches will make their adjustments. How good will he be when defenses key on him? Don't pay him until you have that answer.

[Scott Campbell]

I suspect Grant is going to get paid pretty well. Perhaps in the top 1/2 to 1/3 of the starters in the league.

He didn't have a good game against the Giants, but that can't all be on him. They didn't feed him the ball much. When they did, there weren't any holes. But on one play there was a tiny little crease for a split second on the left side of the line, and sure enough he hit it quick and busted one for 10.

I've seen more than enough. I also think Ted and McCarthy have more than enough film on him at this point. He's the real deal, and I'm pretty sure Grant and his agent know it. Low balling doesn't look like a viable option to me.

[Partial]

13.6 million, including a signing bonus of $3.75 million.

I would say they try to get him to agree to something a little less than this.

[vince]

I suspect Grant is going to get paid pretty well. Perhaps in the top 1/2 to 1/3 of the starters in the league.

He didn't have a good game against the Giants, but that can't all be on him. They didn't feed him the ball much. When they did, there weren't any holes. But on one play there was a tiny little crease for a split second on the left side of the line, and sure enough he hit it quick and busted one for 10.

I've seen more than enough. I also think Ted and McCarthy have more than enough film on him at this point. He's the real deal, and I'm pretty sure Grant and his agent know it. Low balling doesn't look like a viable option to me.
They've also seen his work ethic every day in practice and in the weight room, his demeanor, character and consistency on the field. He will never again be able to be signed to a long-term deal as cheaply as he can be this offseason.

It's not difficult to project this guy's future. He's as consistent and level-headed as they come.

[b bulldog]

Good kid but I need to see more than 12 games worth

[Partial]

"However, salaries have gone up considerably even in the two years since then, so it probably would take a far bigger bonus than that to convince Grant to sign a long-term deal."

That is some speculation right there. Writer should take a look at the Ikegwuonu story. Taking 4 mil guaranteed up versus playing two years on a week-to-week pay check is definitely a smart career move. Even if you have to sacrifice a bigger potential pay-day for a year or two.

[LL2]

I think they should give him a 1 yr deal worth close to 1 mil to reward him for this season, and then if towards the end of next season he's still producing at a high level give him a nice long term deal. If they decide to give him a long term deal now I wouldn't have a problem with it. Rookie's out of college get big deals before they play their first NFL game. Brandon Jackson is making more than Grant and he didn't perform as well.

GB still needs to look for a big power type back like the Giants Jacobs.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Sign him long term right now. Sure we only saw 12 games, but he was also running behind one of the worst run blocking lines in the league. Imagine what he could do if actually had a line like the Vikings or another team, he wouldn't be stopped.

Sign him now before the price just gets higher and higher. Believe the guy is good, the longer you wait is just the money you will have to pay him.

[The Leaper]

Good kid but I need to see more than 12 games worth

I would generally agree. He's a great runner...with vision, power and speed. He is below average as a receiver and blocker though.

I'd offer a modest 4 year deal paying roughly $2M per year with a $2M bonus...and make the 4th year voidable based on reasonable performance goals as a juicy carrot to keep Grant motivated.

[RashanGary]

He's got next year and the year after before he's even restricted and if he were restricted, we'd still have the leverage of tenders.


A 4 year deal is basically only adding on a year to what we already own him for. It would amount to a big gift, really. I could see doing something after next year, but even then it would have to be somewhat discounted.


Right now, I'd offer him 1 year $750,000 just because he's worth so much more than $275,000 and it would allow him to live more like an NFL player for this year.

After next year, I'd consider a 5 year deal to lock him up through his prime.

[run pMc]

Assuming there really isn't any other decent RB out there, I'd pay him Willie Parker money. I'd rather they resign Grant than sign somebody like Shaun Alexander.

I think he's shown enough where (if he were a UFA) some team would throw $ at him. I like the idea mentioned earlier of locking him up with about a 3 year deal (maybe 4 with the last voidable).

I also think the team needs to improve its overall talent at RB and OL. BJack hasn't shown enough. Wynn showed little. Herron? Yikes.

[The Leaper]

Right now, I'd offer him 1 year $750,000 just because he's worth so much more than $275,000 and it would allow him to live more like an NFL player for this year.

There is no reason for Grant to accept that...and if you lowball him like that, good luck signing him in the future.

Giving him a 4 year deal at $2M a year is fair based on what he's shown so far. If you aren't fair to your players, the word gets out that your organization is cheap. Since Green Bay already fights an uphill battle based on climate and city size, you don't want to look like cheap asses as well.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Right now, I'd offer him 1 year $750,000 just because he's worth so much more than $275,000 and it would allow him to live more like an NFL player for this year.

There is no reason for Grant to accept that...and if you lowball him like that, good luck signing him in the future.

Giving him a 4 year deal at $2M a year is fair based on what he's shown so far. If you aren't fair to your players, the word gets out that your organization is cheap. Since Green Bay already fights an uphill battle based on climate and city size, you don't want to look like cheap asses as well.

Even a 4 year deal worth 2 mil a year is to low. I say give him a 5 year deal worth about 15 mil with a small signing bonus. That would keep him with us until he's about 30, about the time when ou should be looking for a new back.

[The Leaper]

Even a 4 year deal worth 2 mil a year is to low.

I disagree...not when the guy has 2 more years remaining on a puny contract. Green Bay holds the leverage, and they shouldn't overpay based on 8 games of performance.

Besides, Grant won't want a lengthy deal...he's not going to get maximum dollar after a half season of play. He wants a chance to prove himself and get another opportunity at a huge payday down the road...but still also secure his financial future now. Getting $2M a year plus a signing bonus will do just that.

[Guiness]

He's got next year and the year after before he's even restricted and if he were restricted, we'd still have the leverage of tenders.


A 4 year deal is basically only adding on a year to what we already own him for. It would amount to a big gift, really. I could see doing something after next year, but even then it would have to be somewhat discounted.


Right now, I'd offer him 1 year $750,000 just because he's worth so much more than $275,000 and it would allow him to live more like an NFL player for this year.

After next year, I'd consider a 5 year deal to lock him up through his prime.

I'd say you got a key part correct there JH - a four year deal only gives the team one more year, and they pay a LOT for it.

So I like your idea - offer him around a million for this year, and sign him to a 4 or 5 year deal after that. I like the guy a lot, but also think we need to see him on his second go-around the league before he gets big bucks.

[RashanGary]

This year, one year deal @ 1 mil. (I'll up it just so he feels good making a million.



Next year sign a 5 year, 15 million dollar deal.



Really, the Packers could have him for three years at about $300,000 per year. That's 1 million after three years. With the deal I'm suggesting, he gets an additional 15 million for the fourth and fifth years. Really, it's a fair deal for him because he gets a lot more up front when he signs next year as opposed to risking the next three years of injury for peanuts. It's a good deal for us because it locks him up through his prime at a reasonable rate. Everyone wins.

If we just fork up a bunch of money now and don't even extend him longer than we have him, it's sort of silly. There has to be some compramise as in, we'll give you some early and you take that security in exchange for not getting max dollar in three years. Not "We'll give you a bunch more money for nothing". That's not compromise. That is stupid on the Packers part.

[The Leaper]

This year, one year deal @ 1 mil. (I'll up it just so he feels good making a million.

Why would you offer him a one year deal for $1M when you have him under contract for less for TWO more years?

Grant wants financial security, just as any of us do. $1M is not financial security after taxes and agents get through pilfering it.

Besides, that offer would be a slap in the face to Grant.

[The Leaper]

I'd say you got a key part correct there JH - a four year deal only gives the team one more year, and they pay a LOT for it.

It gives them TWO more years.

And it gives them the opportunity to include incentives that will keep Grant motivated and happy...and I like the voidable year because it is another carrot for Grant.

Or do you want another McKenzie incident?

$2M a year is hardly a lot in today's NFL. With a 53 man roster, that is about the AVERAGE amount a player is going to count against the cap. It is enough to ensure Grant financial security when combined with a similar sized signing bonus.

[Partial]

I am telling you, it will be very similiar to Fast Willie's deal. Maybe slightly more.

[RashanGary]

I'd say you got a key part correct there JH - a four year deal only gives the team one more year, and they pay a LOT for it.

It gives them TWO more years.



YOu don't know what you are talkign about, Leaper.

[The Leaper]

I am telling you, it will be very similiar to Fast Willie's deal. Maybe slightly more.

I doubt more. Parker was entering the last year of his deal when he signed the extension. Grant still has two more years under contract at this point, which gives him less leverage. Parker also was the 7th leading rusher in the AFC in the year prior to the deal...and had a full season of evidence that he was a capable starter, plus some reliable time as a reserve behind Bettis.

[The Leaper]

YOu don't know what you are talkign about, Leaper.

You are the one offering a one year deal for $1M.

[RashanGary]

The Packers have next year, the year after and then a restricted year where they can put a 1st and 3rd tender on him. No team will bid.

If the Packers wanted to be ass holes, Grant could get $1,000,000 (before taxes and agent) over the next three years. Almost nothing. The agent pretty much said they have all of the leverage.

The 4 year deal you propose helps Grant, but does nothing for us. We're better off waiting one more year and then locking him up for 5 (which is three more years than what we have him).

As far as 1 mil next year being an insult, Grant is an undrafted 1st year player who's only had success for 8 games. It's hardly an insult to require a player to get a years worth of production before getting a big contract. I don't agree with one single point you've made, Leaper. Not one and not even close on most of them.

[RashanGary]

It gives them TWO more years.



No, this is Grants first accrued year toward free agency (see above artical). To become an unrestricted free agent, you need four years accrued (see current NFL CBA). Grant has three more years before he is there and that is undebatable.

As far as unrestricted free agency goes, it's essentially a free year for us because we can put the 1st and 3rd tender on him. He'll go no where.

[RashanGary]

If the Packers wanted to, they could have him for three more years (almost free) and then let him go in free agency (aquiring a compensitory pick). Grant will 28 years old at that time (two years before RB's lose value and drop off).

Anything we give him right now is nothing but a big gift to him. He's played well for 8 games. Giving him 4 times what we have to after 8 games is hardly an insult and signing him to a 5 year deal next year helps him a lot and if we like him it helps us a lot too because we get him till he's 30. Your deal is rediculous. Just using common sense I can pretty much gaurantee that nohting even remotely close to what you suggested will come true.

[Partial]

Yeah, but consider the potential ramifications of not paying a guy what he is worth. I'm hope TT isn't in the market of being a dick to players.

[The Leaper]

The 4 year deal you propose helps Grant, but does nothing for us.

It does plenty for us.

A. It rewards a player for performance, which sends a message to the rest of the team.

B. It makes Grant happy and secure, which is better than him being a malcontent.

C. It sends a message to the league that the Packers aren't cheap skates, which will entice more free agents to look at Green Bay.

[The Leaper]

Giving him 4 times what we have to after 8 games is hardly an insult and signing him to a 5 year deal next year helps him a lot

No it doesn't. It doesn't really help him a damn bit.

Grant is a potential Pro Bowl caliber player who could command a $10M+ signing bonus in 2-3 years if he puts up great numbers.

Why the hell would he want to sign a lengthy 5 year deal right now that basically wipes out any chance he has to get a monster payday? He knows he is at a disadvantage right now, so he sure as hell isn't going to lock in long term.

[The Leaper]

The Packers have next year, the year after and then a restricted year where they can put a 1st and 3rd tender on him. No team will bid.

Grant's current situation is essentially a two year deal...because Green Bay would be almost forced to produce a big deal going into that third year if Grant proves himself. Otherwise, Grant would probably holdout and be a major pain in the ass...with good reason.

That is why you put him into a 4 year deal now...with a voidable 4th year if he performs. That gives us at least an extra year of Grant's services, allows Grant to have financial security, and doesn't bust our cap.

[RashanGary]

I'm sorry Leaper, you are freaking crazy. YOu just said gave a list of three things which was essentially one.

On top of that, Grant is one of the more unaccomplished players in the entire NFL. Not giving him money "right now" is absolutely not an insult. Not one bit. Christ, Wynn has 1/4th of Grants accomplishments. Should we redo his deal next year if he stays healthy.

Hell, you need to contact Pioli at the Foxborough and tell him his guys are underpaid. Tell him they are the best team in the league but they don't spend any more than anyone else. Remind him what a cheap ass he is and how it's blowing up in his face.

:roll:

Any winner has guys over performing. If they weren't, they'd be losing and if we make it a point to deal mega cash out to every player who has 8 good games and three years left on his deal, we'll be right at the bottom of the pack with the NFL's worst.

[vince]

This year, one year deal @ 1 mil. (I'll up it just so he feels good making a million.



Next year sign a 5 year, 15 million dollar deal.



Really, the Packers could have him for three years at about $300,000 per year. That's 1 million after three years. With the deal I'm suggesting, he gets an additional 15 million for the fourth and fifth years. Really, it's a fair deal for him because he gets a lot more up front when he signs next year as opposed to risking the next three years of injury for peanuts. It's a good deal for us because it locks him up through his prime at a reasonable rate. Everyone wins.

If we just fork up a bunch of money now and don't even extend him longer than we have him, it's sort of silly. There has to be some compramise as in, we'll give you some early and you take that security in exchange for not getting max dollar in three years. Not "We'll give you a bunch more money for nothing". That's not compromise. That is stupid on the Packers part.
I think this is the right idea, but I'm not sure Grant signs for 5/15 if he rushes for 1300+ yards next year. That's pretty cheap for a top shelf runner. He can be had for 5 years, $15 mil this year no doubt, but I think the risk of the price going significantly higher after another season is significant.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

This year, one year deal @ 1 mil. (I'll up it just so he feels good making a million.



Next year sign a 5 year, 15 million dollar deal.



Really, the Packers could have him for three years at about $300,000 per year. That's 1 million after three years. With the deal I'm suggesting, he gets an additional 15 million for the fourth and fifth years. Really, it's a fair deal for him because he gets a lot more up front when he signs next year as opposed to risking the next three years of injury for peanuts. It's a good deal for us because it locks him up through his prime at a reasonable rate. Everyone wins.

If we just fork up a bunch of money now and don't even extend him longer than we have him, it's sort of silly. There has to be some compramise as in, we'll give you some early and you take that security in exchange for not getting max dollar in three years. Not "We'll give you a bunch more money for nothing". That's not compromise. That is stupid on the Packers part.
I think this is the right idea, but I'm not sure Grant signs for 5/15 if he rushes for 1300+ yards next year. That's pretty cheap. He can be had for 5 years, $15 mil this year perhaps, but I think the risk of the price going up after another season is significant.

Vince, thats what am scared of. What if he gets 1400+ this year? Good luck trying to sign him then. Give him a long term deal now thats pretty cheap and if he out plays that then upgrade it. The Eagles always do this. Once they see a player is good they sign him long term while he's still cheap.

[esoxx]

I wouldn't go crazy with Grant just yet. Too much leverage here for the Packers to just hand over the car keys.
We'll see what he's worth after next season.

[Bretsky]

I wouldn't go crazy with Grant just yet. Too much leverage here for the Packers to just hand over the car keys.
We'll see what he's worth after next season.

I too would like to see him for a half year or so before throwing serious money at him; I'd give him a nice raise for next year though and let him prove himself

[Partial]

I'd say you got a key part correct there JH - a four year deal only gives the team one more year, and they pay a LOT for it.

It gives them TWO more years.



YOu don't know what you are talkign about, Leaper.

You don't know what you're talking about. You want to screw over a player who out performed his contract. You want TT to be an asshole. Whatever happened to taking care of your own?

[RashanGary]

I think this is the right idea, but I'm not sure Grant signs for 5/15 if he rushes for 1300+ yards next year. That's pretty cheap for a top shelf runner. He can be had for 5 years, $15 mil this year no doubt, but I think the risk of the price going significantly higher after another season is significant.

If he wants to play hardball after this season, let him find out if he can stay healthy for two more full years and then send him packing at age 28 to get a big one if he makes it that long. On top of that, if he's as good as he thinks he is he'll fetch us a 3rd round compensitory on the way out.

The Packers have all of the cards right now. Every single card. There is no need to go jumping the gun right now. Wait one year, then sign him to a decent long term deal two years early. If he's not willing to take a discount two years early then just use up the best years of his career and let him go. It won't come to that though. His agent knows who has the cards now and he'll know who has the cards next year too.


It would be different if he racked up 2500 yards in three years but he racked up 900 yards in three years. The only way I'd consider locking up Grant right now is if it was 6 years with some up front and then another big bonus after two years. There is no need to panic with him right now. Worst case, we have him for ages 26,27 and 28, then he leaves as he's turning 29. Big deal, hardly the end of the world.

[RashanGary]

The Corey Williams situation is much stickier than this one. Williams has every bit of leverage (unless we franchise him). He'll probably be gone in his prime. That stinks.


Grant is going no where untill he's damn near the downside of his career. I'm all for hooking him up, but not after 8 games. That is just too soon with nothing to gain on our part.

[Jimx29]

If he continues to perform at or even close to this years performance at the mid way point of next year, then lock him up in a nice multi-tear contract.
The Pack has had very good results giving proven talent new contracts while still under contract.

[twoseven]

I wouldn't go crazy with Grant just yet. Too much leverage here for the Packers to just hand over the car keys.
We'll see what he's worth after next season.

I too would like to see him for a half year or so before throwing serious money at him; I'd give him a nice raise for next year though and let him prove himself
Absolutely. The guy got by as an unknown all year. That's over now, he'll be part of every opponents' defensive game plan next year AND MM has said he'd like to revert back to more of a power running game. Let Grant, if faced with those added challenges, prove he can do it for a full year before you start rewarding him with a longterm deal.

[Guiness]

I'm sorry Leaper, you are freaking crazy. YOu just said gave a list of three things which was essentially one.



I agree with JH, Leaper; all the benefits you laid out are intangeable; they'd be building goodwill, which is good, but not to the point of being stupid. Plus, they've already shown they're willing to reward performers by redoing DD and Kamp's deals, twice each.

However JH - dunno if this proves Leaper is crazy! :cat:

[Guiness]

I think this is the right idea, but I'm not sure Grant signs for 5/15 if he rushes for 1300+ yards next year. That's pretty cheap. He can be had for 5 years, $15 mil this year perhaps, but I think the risk of the price going up after another season is significant.

Vince, thats what am scared of. What if he gets 1400+ this year? Good luck trying to sign him then. Give him a long term deal now thats pretty cheap and if he out plays that then upgrade it. The Eagles always do this. Once they see a player is good they sign him long term while he's still cheap.

That's the quandry Vince - a 'what if' scenario. So you have to look at the other side...what if he runs for 800-900ish yards? Then you've got a guy being overpaid...unless you can get him to sign w/o a big signing bonus so that you can cut him later if he doesn't live up to it.

MD - I like that idea, and it's workable, partially because the Pack has shown a willingness to redo the deals - as I mentioned above with DD and Kamp. So something that gives him some money now, guarantees a decent salary...but he has to trust the Pack to give him the money if he deserves it.

Anyways, I see this discussion is a moot point now - there's another thread about him getting a deal that I'm anxious to read!

[vince]

I think this is the right idea, but I'm not sure Grant signs for 5/15 if he rushes for 1300+ yards next year. That's pretty cheap. He can be had for 5 years, $15 mil this year perhaps, but I think the risk of the price going up after another season is significant.

Vince, thats what am scared of. What if he gets 1400+ this year? Good luck trying to sign him then. Give him a long term deal now thats pretty cheap and if he out plays that then upgrade it. The Eagles always do this. Once they see a player is good they sign him long term while he's still cheap.

That's the quandry Vince - a 'what if' scenario. So you have to look at the other side...what if he runs for 800-900ish yards? Then you've got a guy being overpaid...unless you can get him to sign w/o a big signing bonus so that you can cut him later if he doesn't live up to it.

MD - I like that idea, and it's workable, partially because the Pack has shown a willingness to redo the deals - as I mentioned above with DD and Kamp. So something that gives him some money now, guarantees a decent salary...but he has to trust the Pack to give him the money if he deserves it.

Anyways, I see this discussion is a moot point now - there's another thread about him getting a deal that I'm anxious to read!
Right, which is what the GM has to do when making these decisions. I'm looking at what I've seen thus far and what I know of him and projecting another solid year for Grant next season. If defenses key on Grant, that bodes well for the Packers explosive passing attack. If defenses key on the pass or stay balanced, that bodes well for Grant. Obviously, they'll do a little of all of the above. Either way, I see another strong offensive performance for this team next year, with Grant being a key contributor all year long. That tells me that now is the time to get him at his cheapest over the long haul.

[RashanGary]

Right, which is what the GM has to do when making these decisions. I'm looking at what I've seen thus far and what I know of him and projecting another solid year for Grant next season. If defenses key on Grant, that bodes well for the Packers explosive passing attack. If defenses key on the pass or stay balanced, that bodes well for Grant. Obviously, they'll do a little of all of the above. Either way, I see another strong offensive performance for this team next year, with Grant being a key contributor all year long. That tells me that now is the time to get him at his cheapest over the long haul.

Show me a contract idea (I know it's hard to project), but show me one and I'll show you why I think it won't help us keep him cheaper.

[vince]

If he wants to play hardball after this season, let him find out if he can stay healthy for two more full years and then send him packing at age 28 to get a big one if he makes it that long. On top of that, if he's as good as he thinks he is he'll fetch us a 3rd round compensitory on the way out.

The Packers have all of the cards right now. Every single card. There is no need to go jumping the gun right now. Wait one year, then sign him to a decent long term deal two years early. If he's not willing to take a discount two years early then just use up the best years of his career and let him go. It won't come to that though. His agent knows who has the cards now and he'll know who has the cards next year too.

It would be different if he racked up 2500 yards in three years but he racked up 900 yards in three years. The only way I'd consider locking up Grant right now is if it was 6 years with some up front and then another big bonus after two years. There is no need to panic with him right now. Worst case, we have him for ages 26,27 and 28, then he leaves as he's turning 29. Big deal, hardly the end of the world.
The fact that the Packers hold the cards means that now is the time to play those cards. You don't hold them until Grant gets four of a kind and beats you later. It's not about the Packers panicking. They're not panicking. In my opinion, they'd be smart to sign him now for cheap.

I know you agree that the key to success is about getting productive players on your team for the long haul at less than their market value. I believe that, for the long haul (through his prime), Ryan Grant will never be cheaper than he is now.

And to say that it took him three years to rack up 900 yards is ridiculous. Not to belabor the obvious, but Grant didn't play his first two years after being undrafted out of Notre Dame, which I know you're well aware of. In the first 12 games he's played, he racked up 1186 yards. He's on pace to rush for 4,744 yards in his first three years worth of games. That means he's more than 5 times the player you are attempting to insinuate he is for some reason.

[vince]

Right, which is what the GM has to do when making these decisions. I'm looking at what I've seen thus far and what I know of him and projecting another solid year for Grant next season. If defenses key on Grant, that bodes well for the Packers explosive passing attack. If defenses key on the pass or stay balanced, that bodes well for Grant. Obviously, they'll do a little of all of the above. Either way, I see another strong offensive performance for this team next year, with Grant being a key contributor all year long. That tells me that now is the time to get him at his cheapest over the long haul.

Show me a contract idea (I know it's hard to project), but show me one and I'll show you why I think it won't help us keep him cheaper.
5 years for $15 mil.

[RashanGary]

OK,

If we don't give him a deal until free agency, we keep him for three years for a total of one million dollars. With that in mind, we could give him 14 million dollars over the final two years and still be at the 15 million you just suggested. You think he's going to demand a contract bigger than 7 million per year at age 29? If so, I see your point. If not, we just dumped a shit load of money when we absolutely didn't have to.


I could see a 6 year, 16 million dollar deal with a nice bonus upon signing (to lure him in) and a nice bonus after 3 years (to limit our initial risk).

This way we keep him for an extra three years beyond what we have him and keep him until he turns 30.


Honestly, I'd be perfectly content keeping him for peanuts and letting him fly at age 29. Hopefully we'll have a young set of legs by then but if we want to lock him up, then it would have to be longer than two extra years for 14 extra million..

[RashanGary]

I think the place we are differing is that you are looking at is as getting a good running back for 3 mil per year. You're not taking into consideration that we already have the same one for .333 million per year for three years and that same guy will be 26 next year, making him 29 when our hold on him is over.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think you are seeing quite how bad his situation is. Any thing the Packers do right now is a big favor. 5 years 15 mil is nice, but it's not nearly as nice as three years 1 mil.

[vince]

OK,

If we don't give him a deal until free agency, we keep him for three years for a total of one million dollars. With that in mind, we could give him 14 million dollars over the final two years and still be at the 15 million you just suggested. You think he's going to demand a contract bigger than 7 million per year at age 29? If so, I see your point. If not, we just dumped a shit load of money when we absolutely didn't have to.


I could see a 6 year, 18 million dollar deal with a nice bonus upon signing (to lure him in) and a nice bonus after 3 years (to limit our long term risk).

This way we keep him for an extra three years beyond what we have him and have him until he turns 30.


Honestly, I'd be perfectly content keeping him for peanuts and letting him fly at age 29. Hopefully we'll have a young set of legs by then but if we want to lock him up, then it would have to be longer than two extra years for 14 extra million. Three years 17 (like I suggested) even seems high.
What I think is more likely at the age of 28 (his first year of UFA, right in the height of his prime...) IF the Packers do what you are espousing is that he signs a 6 year $50 mil contract with someone. Hopefully, the Packers would have someone to fill his shoes, because that's where they would be caught between a rock and a hardplace. The temptation at that point is to give him a Shaun Alexander type deal (8/64 mil) and watch him drag the team's competitiveness down because he's a serious drag on the cap long after he's productive.

I say we sign him now and keep him through his prime - with a possible one or two year extension on the deal I'm espousing, if he's willing... Then sign him for less or let him go at THAT point when he's 30 or 31 - not when he's 28, in the middle of his prime, and a UFA.

Edit: Also, your assumptions are incorrect. We can't keep him the next three years for $1 mil. Here's the MINIMUM it will cost with a projected 15% increase each year in the minimum salaries, consistent with the cap increase...

2008 ERFA 2nd YEar Player... $500,000
2009 ERFA 3rd Year Player... $674,000
2010 RFA - 1st and 3rd Tender... $3.2 mil.

[MJZiggy]

You guys are nuts. You treat your players with respect. It's hard enough to attract big name players to a frozen hamlet, and you wanna give the team the reputation for lowballing it's players on top of it. The only reason this team had a run game this season is named Ryan Grant. By the end of the season, opposing teams knew he was there and were attempting to gameplan for him. Holmgren said it and look where it got him. This is the player you take care of and make sure that when the deal you give him is up, you're the first team he looks to. (See Corey and the "hometown discount") You don't take advantage of him so that he goes off and makes Tampa a better team in a few years.

[RashanGary]

Nobody ever suggested signing him as an unrestricted free agent in the heart of his prime. I suggested giving him a mil now so he doesn't work for peanuts and then giving him a 5 year deal next year. If he doesn't want a discount next year, then just ride him out for two more years.

2007 - 2008 season Grant was 25

2008-2009 season Grant will be 26
2009-2010 season Grant will be 27
2010 - 2011 season Grant will be 28

20011-2012 season we lose Grant and he's 29

If you think losing Ryan Grant at age 29 is any worse than losing Ahman Green at age 30, I think you are mistaken. I'm not knocking Grant, I just think you wanting to make sure we have him into his 30's right now is sort of silly considering we already have him through a RB's real prime (Age 23-Age 29). We can just use him and let him go with nothing. I don't want to do that, but I don't want to give him 15 extra millino right now for two extra years. That's not a great deal.

I'm perfectly OK with letting him go after his current situation expires. It won't come to that though. The logic I am using right now is the same exact logic that will again leave us with every single card next year.

[Guiness]

I think we all see - it's a ridiculous situation. There really is very little reason on the face of it for the Packers to do anything - Grant is over a barrel so bad, because of his age and the fact that he only has one accrued season, that the only thing he can really do it hold out. A 29-30yr old running back who hasn't seen him payday is screwed.

Having said that, I don't see the Packers doing that to him. It would be nasty, I don't think they're a nasty organization, and I don't want to be the fan of one. However, I also don't want to be the fan of a stupid organization. There's a reason the CBA is set up so a team has a player for a few years before they have to pay him - it's just that it doesn't work 100% of the time, and this is one of those times it doesn't.

btw - the other thread I mentioned simply told us the Pack doesn't need to sign Grant for 2 more years! *shakes fist at KY*

I was actually kind of happy to see that, because a 2yr deal made no sense at all. A one year or a 5 yr does, but not a 2 or 3.

[vince]

Nobody ever suggested signing him as an unrestricted free agent in the heart of his prime. I suggested giving him a mil now so he doesn't work for peanuts and then giving him a 5 year deal next year. If he doesn't want a discount next year, then just ride him out for two more years.

2007 - 2008 season Grant was 25

2008-2009 season Grant will be 26
2009-2010 season Grant will be 27
2010 - 2011 season Grant will be 28

20011-2012 season we lose Grant and he's 29

If you think losing Ryan Grant at age 29 is any worse than losing Ahman Green at age 30, I think you are mistaken. I'm not knocking Grant, I just think you wanting to make sure we have him into his 30's right now is sort of silly considering we already have him through a RB's real prime (Age 23-Age 29). We can just use him and let him go with nothing. I don't want to do that, but I don't want to give him 15 extra millino right now for two extra years. That's not a great deal.

I'm perfectly OK with letting him go after his current situation expires. It won't come to that though. The logic I am using right now is the same exact logic that will again leave us with every single card next year.

Grant was 24 this year. He turned 25 in December, so your years are one year off.

Also, I'll repost the edit from above just so you don't miss it.

Also, your assumptions are incorrect. We can't keep him the next three years for $1 mil. Here's the MINIMUM it will cost with a projected 15% increase each year in the minimum salaries, consistent with the cap increase...

2008 ERFA 2nd YEar Player... $500,000
2009 ERFA 3rd Year Player... $674,000
2010 RFA - 1st and 3rd Tender... $3.2 mil.

That's 4.3 mil MINIMUM that it will cost to keep Ryan Grant for the next three years.

[vince]

Nobody ever suggested signing him as an unrestricted free agent in the heart of his prime. I suggested giving him a mil now so he doesn't work for peanuts and then giving him a 5 year deal next year. If he doesn't want a discount next year, then just ride him out for two more years.

2007 - 2008 season Grant was 25

2008-2009 season Grant will be 26
2009-2010 season Grant will be 27
2010 - 2011 season Grant will be 28

20011-2012 season we lose Grant and he's 29

If you think losing Ryan Grant at age 29 is any worse than losing Ahman Green at age 30, I think you are mistaken. I'm not knocking Grant, I just think you wanting to make sure we have him into his 30's right now is sort of silly considering we already have him through a RB's real prime (Age 23-Age 29). We can just use him and let him go with nothing. I don't want to do that, but I don't want to give him 15 extra millino right now for two extra years. That's not a great deal.

I'm perfectly OK with letting him go after his current situation expires. It won't come to that though. The logic I am using right now is the same exact logic that will again leave us with every single card next year.

Grant gets a better hand to play with every year until he reaches 30. Sign him now until then (and give him his props for a job well done this year) at the cheapest possible rate over that timeframe.

[RashanGary]

I see your point, Vince. I didn't know the minimum salaries. I'm sure Grant and his agent would be extatic. I thought Grant played well. If Thompson really believes he's the real deal (and I do trust Thompson's judgement) then I'd be OK with the deal you suggested. I'd want to see 6 million of it come in the final two seasons though, just so we can cut him if something bad happens. It's a risk that we don't have to take right now, so I'd rather keep that risk down.

[RashanGary]

I still think there was relevance behind my thoughts, but I think there is more to yours than I initially saw so "I was wrong". :) :)

Not completely wrong, but wrong enough to say I see your point. I won't go back on Leapers though. His was a 4 year deal with a voidable year. That was just a big fat present.

[vince]

I still think there was relevance behind my thoughts, but I think there is more to yours than I initially saw so "I was wrong". :) :)

Not completely wrong, but wrong enough to say I see your point. I won't go back on Leapers though. His was a 4 year deal with a voidable year. That was just a big fat present.
Yeah, JH. Your thoughts definitely hedge against injury or non-productivity. It all goes back to projecting the future. My money would defintitely be on more of what we saw this year. I see no reason whatsoever why we shouldn't expect that for at least the next 5 years. Signing him now also for less also leaves money readily available for another big back if they go with more of a two-back attack down the road.

[vince]

double post

[RashanGary]

The reason I like your 5 year deal is because:
(and this assumes Grant is a good to very good running back)


A. It locks him up through his prime for a very reasonable price
B. It makes him happy because he's in a really shitty situation with his age/injury/contract situation.


Take away the "If we treat our guys like shit, we'll fall apart" part and I'd just ride him for three years at bottom rate. However, I think the 5 year deal you proposed is just good enough for us and good enough for him to work out.

[Patler]

The Packers had Tauscher under contract, but gave him more because he deserved it.
The Packers had Driver under contract, but gave him more because he deserved it.
The Packers had Harris under contract, but gave him more because he deserved it.

Between now and when he becomes an UFA, there is no way the Packers will pay him minimums if Grant remains their featured back. It is a totally different situation than with drafted players (especially "first day" draftees) who received signing bonuses and salaries above minimums. They might be forced to play out rookie contracts. Grant would be payed significantly less than they would, if he was held to minimums.

[mission]

im with ya patler... or cliff, whatever your name is.

i love that our organization does that... win or lose, i love knowing that i root for the team with class.

that said, at this point in the discussion, i think "deserved it" needs to be defined. im as big of a ryan grant fan as anyone but i wanna wait to see how he looks in training camp, i want to see him for at least 4 games before we begin talks and i wanna see the stats after 8 before we extend.

if we do anything this offseason with ryan, i think its a huge mistake. bring it up, let him know we're going in that direction but keep that carrot out there. i want to see what happens with this kid if he knows big money is on the line.

be fair. but dont be stupid.

[Patler]

that said, at this point in the discussion, i think "deserved it" needs to be defined. im as big of a ryan grant fan as anyone but i wanna wait to see how he looks in training camp, i want to see him for at least 4 games before we begin talks and i wanna see the stats after 8 before we extend.

if we do anything this offseason with ryan, i think its a huge mistake. bring it up, let him know we're going in that direction but keep that carrot out there. i want to see what happens with this kid if he knows big money is on the line.

be fair. but dont be stupid.

I would offer him a two or three year contract, with a signing bonus and salaries that would pay him an average of a million or so per season. With a two-year contract, that would require around $1 million in signing bonus, and on a three-year about $1.5 million. I would include performance bonuses that would give him the opportunity to earn more, perhaps even significantly more. The cap impact if he is a flash-in-the-pan and flops would be insignificant. If he is what he appears to be, he would be somewhat fairly compensated with the performance bonuses.

[vince]

that said, at this point in the discussion, i think "deserved it" needs to be defined. im as big of a ryan grant fan as anyone but i wanna wait to see how he looks in training camp, i want to see him for at least 4 games before we begin talks and i wanna see the stats after 8 before we extend.

if we do anything this offseason with ryan, i think its a huge mistake. bring it up, let him know we're going in that direction but keep that carrot out there. i want to see what happens with this kid if he knows big money is on the line.

be fair. but dont be stupid.

I would offer him a two or three year contract, with a signing bonus and salaries that would pay him an average of a million or so per season. With a two-year contract, that would require around $1 million in signing bonus, and on a three-year about $1.5 million. I would include performance bonuses that would give him the opportunity to earn more, perhaps even significantly more. The cap impact if he is a flash-in-the-pan and flops would be insignificant. If he is what he appears to be, he would be somewhat fairly compensated with the performance bonuses.
Patler, Grant would never agree to this deal you're suggesting. If he just accepts the MINIMUM salary allowed under the CBA, he will make more than that over the next three years.

1. As a 2nd year pro, the minimum allowable salary in 2007 was $435,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL). Assuming that increases 10% with the salary cap, that goes to $478,000 next year.

2. In his third year, the minimum allowable salary in 2007 was $510,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL). Assuming that increases 10% per season, that goes to $617,000 two years from now.

3. In his fourth year, he's an RFA. Assuming the Packers want to keep him at that time, the minimum allowable salary to protect him in 2007 was $2,096,600 (http://www.nflpa.org/CBA/free_agency_System_explained.aspx). Assuming the same increase in this number, that goes to $2.8 mil by the time he becomes an RFA.

That means that the MINIMUM he'll make if the Packers don't sign him to another deal is $3.9 million. That of course assumes that the Packers want to keep him through that time.

Edit: Sorry Patler, I didn't read your post quite closely enough. He may go for such a deal if the performance bonuses are significant enough.

The bottom line here is that I've seen enough of his skills, his work ethic, demeanor and his performance to project his future in my mind. Others obviously haven't.

I don't see anything that would remotely suggest Grant is a flash in the pan. He absolutely transformed this offense running behind a questionable line.

I'd prefer the Packers lock him up through his prime now. If he is what I think he is, then that gives both Grant and the Packers the security they are each looking for at a reasonable price.

[Patler]

that said, at this point in the discussion, i think "deserved it" needs to be defined. im as big of a ryan grant fan as anyone but i wanna wait to see how he looks in training camp, i want to see him for at least 4 games before we begin talks and i wanna see the stats after 8 before we extend.

if we do anything this offseason with ryan, i think its a huge mistake. bring it up, let him know we're going in that direction but keep that carrot out there. i want to see what happens with this kid if he knows big money is on the line.

be fair. but dont be stupid.

I would offer him a two or three year contract, with a signing bonus and salaries that would pay him an average of a million or so per season. With a two-year contract, that would require around $1 million in signing bonus, and on a three-year about $1.5 million. I would include performance bonuses that would give him the opportunity to earn more, perhaps even significantly more. The cap impact if he is a flash-in-the-pan and flops would be insignificant. If he is what he appears to be, he would be somewhat fairly compensated with the performance bonuses.
Patler, Grant would never agree to this deal you're suggesting. If he just accepts the MINIMUM salary allowed under the CBA, he will make more than that over the next three years.

1. As a 2nd year pro, the minimum allowable salary in 2007 was $435,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL). Assuming that increases 10% with the salary cap, that goes to $478,000 next year.

2. In his third year, the minimum allowable salary in 2007 was $510,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL). Assuming that increases 10% per season, that goes to $617,000 two years from now.

3. In his fourth year, he's an RFA. Assuming the Packers want to keep him at that time, the minimum allowable salary to protect him in 2007 was $2,096,600 (http://www.nflpa.org/CBA/free_agency_System_explained.aspx). Assuming the same increase in this number, that goes to $2.8 mil by the time he becomes an RFA.

That means that the MINIMUM he'll make if the Packers don't sign him to another deal is $3.9 million. That of course assumes that the Packers want to keep him through that time.

Not that's not the minimum he will make. He could make much, much less. Blow out a knee next year and he gets only the 2008 minimum.

Your summary assumes he will merit a tender in the third year. If he does merit it, he would easily achieve the performance bonuses I proposed, which I did not attach a figure to, because I did not feel like going in to great detail, but should be significant. I also proposed a two or three year deal. You obviously only focused on the three year part of it. Grant may prefer two years, which would be an easier negotiation for both parties and under my proposal even without performance bonuses would exceed what he would make under the minimum tenders.

The hook for Grant would be in the first two years, with signing bonus and salary guaranteeing him more than he would get under the minimums by a significant amount, AND the chance to earn significantly more in those years with performance bonuses. It offers him injury protection, not unlike first day draft picks get.

If he doesn't play well enough to get the performance bonuses I suggested, he sure as heck isn't going to be tendered as you discussed for the third year, so my proposal would benefit him. My proposal would give him as much or more than what you summarized over three years and would guarantee him more in the first two years. More upfront, same or more overall.

Good for both sides.

[vince]

Yeah I missed the performance bonuses and your post and my edit crossed over. Sorry about that.

Injury is a concern, so particularly with performance bonuses that could increase his salary significantly, he could very well be interested in what you're suggesting.

[Patler]

I would like to see the Packers offer him a decent short term deal, along the lines what I suggested. A 1-2 million dollar signing bonus on a two or 3 year deal, with other bonuses possible is certainly not an insult, and could pay him well while he sets himself up for a big pay day down the road.

Basically, I would kind of approach it like a mid to late first round draft pick negotiation, but for a shorter term based on his circumstances.

I doubt Grant will be a truly elite back, like Green was. He could be a very good back, like Bennett or Levens. Grant has shortcomings as a blocker (which he might improve) and as a receiver (which he also might improve). Until he shows improvements in those areas, I would prefer a more wait and see approach for a long term contract.

However, if he picks up next year where he left off this year, I certainly would not hesitate renegotiating my two or three year deal after only one season.

[Guiness]

I doubt Grant will be a truly elite back, like Green was. He could be a very good back, like Bennett or Levens. Grant has shortcomings as a blocker (which he might improve) and as a receiver (which he also might improve). Until he shows improvements in those areas, I would prefer a more wait and see approach for a long term contract.

However, if he picks up next year where he left off this year, I certainly would not hesitate renegotiating my two or three year deal after only one season.

He's pretty darn close to elite play already. I know, I know, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. But Grant had some pretty amazing statistics. Like the second most rushing yards (after LT) for the second half of the season. Peterson had that monster 200+ yd game, but Grant did it during the playoffs, against a Seattle team that was supposed to give us fits!

IMO he has already surpassed Levens. I saw somewhere that he already has more 100yd games than Levens did in his career! I think the main question with him is not durability.

[vince]

I have no concerns whatsoever about his ability to receive out of the backfield. While the team as a whole has had problems coordinating an effective screen game, Grant's 30 catches this year and 4 explosive 20+ yd. gains receiving have demonstrated he can catch the ball and run effectively as a receiving back when he's thrown to.

If he's a featured back as he's now expected to be, he may never need to do a ton of blocking, but I haven't seen him be deficient in that area either, and with his work ethic, I have no doubt whatsoever he'll be more than adequate in that area too.

Signing him to a shorter-term contract will cost the team more over the course of his prime years, or cause them to lose his services during that time.

Obviously, only time will tell if he continues to produce as he did this year.

[Patler]

He's pretty darn close to elite play already. I know, I know, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. But Grant had some pretty amazing statistics. Like the second most rushing yards (after LT) for the second half of the season. Peterson had that monster 200+ yd game, but Grant did it during the playoffs, against a Seattle team that was supposed to give us fits!

IMO he has already surpassed Levens. I saw somewhere that he already has more 100yd games than Levens did in his career! I think the main question with him is not durability.

Elite backs do it all, run, catch and block. Backs that are great runners, but not good blockers or receivers become two down backs and are worth less than a more complete back. Right now Grant is a two-down back because of his shortcomings, not because they had a very good third down back to use in his place. Levens and Bennett may not have been as good of runners, but were very good in the passing game, both receiving and blocking. Since Grant is more one-dimensional, I put him at their level and not the Ahman Green level.

It also remains to be seen if Grant will be as successful running when teams have respect for the Packers running game. This year they did not. I think he will be, but he still has to prove it.

[run pMc]

IMO

Grant is a good back. Maybe great, not elite.

I agree with Vince that signing him early would benefit the cap the most, but I could see TT letting it play out thru next season to make sure he isn't some flash in the pan. I'm OK with that -- it's not like GB is right at the edge of the cap.


If you think losing Ryan Grant at age 29 is any worse than losing Ahman Green at age 30, I think you are mistaken.

This may not be true. Green had a lot of wear on him when he left town, and that was after exceeding most expectations with his comeback from a scary-bad leg injury. If Grant stays healthy he'll probably have much less wear on him at 29 than Green did at 30. OTOH, I'm not a fan of keeping 30 year old RBs since they decline awful fast around that age.

An incentive laden contract is a very good idea. Either way, I'd like to see Grant stay with the team for a few years, and I'd hate to think that TT lowballed him. The ability to reward and treat players well goes a long way towards recruiting FAs and to having a harmonious locker room. It's tough to win when players are unhappy and the locker room is in turmoil.

[vince]

Here are the contracts for all 32 of the featured backs for each team.

The only guys making less than 3.5 mil/year are still working through their rookie contracts. A 5/15 contract for Ryan Grant would still make him the lowest paid featured back in the league not under their draft contract. Even if you're not convinced Grant is great, you gotta say he's better than half of the guys on this list. When guys like Steven Jackson, Brandon Jacobs, Laurence Maroney and Joseph Addai come due, that deal looks even better yet.

Also, the average length of deal is exactly five years, and that includes a lot of guys at or past their prime, unlike Grant.

Name.....................Age......Years......Milli ons......Avg. per Year......Year Signed
Reggie Bush............22..........6...........52.5...... ........8.8...............2006
Shaun Alexander......30..........8...........62.0....... .......7.8...............2006
Edgerrin James.........29.........4............30.5........ ......7.6...............2006
Larry Johnson...........28.........6............45.0.... ..........7.5...............2007
LaDainian Tomlinson...28.......8............60.0............ ..7.5...............2004
Cedrick Benson..........25........5...........35.0........ .......7.0...............2005
Frank Gore...............24.........4............28.0... ...........7.0...............2007
Ronnie Brown............26........5............34.0...... ........6.8................2005
Adrian Peterson........22.........6............40.5...... ........6.8................2007
Clinton Portis...........26.........8............50.5..... ..........6.3...............2004
Jamal Lewis.............28.........2............12.0.... ...........6.0...............2008
Carnell Williams.......25.........5............30.0....... ........6.0...............2005
Ahman Green...........30.........4............23.0...... .........5.8...............2007
Fred Taylor...............32........4............23.0.. .............5.8...............2007
Willis McGahee.........26.........7............40.0...... .........5.7...............2007
Thomas Jones.........29.........4............20.0........ .......5.0...............2007
Rudi Johnson..........28..........5............25.0.... ...........5.0..............2005
Brian Westbrook.......28.........5............25.0...... .........5.0..............2005
DeShaun Foster........28.........3............14.5........ .......4.8..............2006
Travis Henry.............29.........5............22.5.... ...........4.5..............2007
Warrick Dunn...........33..........3............12.5...... .........4.2..............2006
Willie Parker............27..........4............14.0... ............3.5.............2006
Marshawn Lynch........21.........6............19.0......... ......3.2..............2007
Joseph Addai............24.........5............12.0..... ..........2.4.............2006
Laurence Maroney.....22.........5.............9.0.......... ......1.8.............2006
Kevin Jones.............25..........5.............7.0... .............1.4.............2004
Steven Jackson.........24.........5.............7.0...... ..........1.4.............2004
LenDale White..........23.........4.............2.5....... ..........0.6............2006
Brandon Jacobs.........25........4..............2.3....... .........0.6.............2005
Justin Fargas............28........UFA
Marion Barber...........24........RFA
Ryan Grant..............25........ERFA

[BallHawk]

3 years, 17 million would be a fair deal, IMO.

[The Leaper]

Elite backs do it all, run, catch and block. Backs that are great runners, but not good blockers or receivers become two down backs and are worth less than a more complete back. Right now Grant is a two-down back because of his shortcomings, not because they had a very good third down back to use in his place. Levens and Bennett may not have been as good of runners, but were very good in the passing game, both receiving and blocking. Since Grant is more one-dimensional, I put him at their level and not the Ahman Green level.

I absolutely agree Patler. Grant has plenty still to prove IMO before you give him a break-the-bank deal that would be necessary to wrap the guy up until he's 30 years of age.

[The Leaper]

I think this is the right idea, but I'm not sure Grant signs for 5/15 if he rushes for 1300+ yards next year.

Of course he won't.

He wouldn't sign for 5/15 right now.

NFL players consider free agency a huge deal. They don't sign 5 year deals unless they break the bank. $15M is not breaking the bank.

You have 3 choices with Grant, from the Packer's perspective:

A. Keep the status quo, give Grant one more year to prove himself, and hopefully sign him to a monster deal next year when he does. This option may be viewed negatively by both Grant and future FAs looking at Green Bay. Grant deserves some kind of payday now...and everyone knows it.

B. Sign him to a modest deal which allows Grant that FA window in 3 years if he proves himself. This guarantees that Grant has the chance to make elite money if he proves himself, but also shields the Packers from having to eat a huge contract if he never becomes elite.

C. Sign him to a monster deal right now...which basically will eliminate Grant's chances to get a FA deal, so it will be long term and COSTLY. I doubt Grant accepts a 5 year deal under $25M in value. He knows he has a chance to pocket that much money in a signing bonus alone if he has a window to the FA market in 2-3 years after a productive run.

I'd pick B myself. Give him what will be in essence a 3 year deal if he proves himself...$10M total value, at least half guaranteed. That would be a huge payday right now for the kid...yet would give him another chance at an ever bigger payday in 2-3 years if he continues to progress like we hope he will. He's not even proven over 16 games yet...I'm not willing to cough up $30M for him yet. Most big money deals for RBs also tend to be busts. I'd rather keep him at a modest price for a few more years.

If you choose C, you better be ready to cough up an $8M+ signing bonus and a contract value of $30M+. He's not going to forgo free agency until he is 30 years of age for a song.

[vince]

I think this is the right idea, but I'm not sure Grant signs for 5/15 if he rushes for 1300+ yards next year.

Of course he won't.

He wouldn't sign for 5/15 right now.

NFL players consider free agency a huge deal. They don't sign 5 year deals unless they break the bank. $15M is not breaking the bank.

You have 3 choices with Grant, from the Packer's perspective:

A. Keep the status quo, give Grant one more year to prove himself, and hopefully sign him to a monster deal next year when he does. This option may be viewed negatively by both Grant and future FAs looking at Green Bay. Grant deserves some kind of payday now...and everyone knows it.

B. Sign him to a modest deal which allows Grant that FA window in 3 years if he proves himself. This guarantees that Grant has the chance to make elite money if he proves himself, but also shields the Packers from having to eat a huge contract if he never becomes elite.

C. Sign him to a monster deal right now...which basically will eliminate Grant's chances to get a FA deal, so it will be long term and COSTLY. I doubt Grant accepts a 5 year deal under $25M in value. He knows he has a chance to pocket that much money in a signing bonus alone if he has a window to the FA market in 2-3 years after a productive run.

I'd pick B myself. Give him what will be in essence a 3 year deal if he proves himself...$10M total value, at least half guaranteed. That would be a huge payday right now for the kid...yet would give him another chance at an ever bigger payday in 2-3 years if he continues to progress like we hope he will. He's not even proven over 16 games yet...I'm not willing to cough up $30M for him yet. Most big money deals for RBs also tend to be busts. I'd rather keep him at a modest price for a few more years.

If you choose C, you better be ready to cough up an $8M+ signing bonus and a contract value of $30M+. He's not going to forgo free agency until he is 30 years of age for a song.
You may be right Leaper. What's given is that now is the time when the Packers have the best chance to lock him up long-term for the cheapest price if they are inclined to want to do so. If the Packers pick option B, they likely lose him in 3 years, so as JH pointed out, I'm not for giving him a big contract for three years.

Although he doesn't really have an opportunity for another big contract if he signs long-term now, he can extend it down the road. I think he'd sign for 5 years for way less than $30 mil. I think he'd sign for 5/20, and the Packers wouldn't likely go much beyond that.

[MJZiggy]

Well, I get the feeling that for the moment it's a moot point, as the person responsible for handling the contracts just quit. That probably means that unless M3's deal was just about finished, it's not getting done for a while yet either.

[vince]

I think this is the right idea, but I'm not sure Grant signs for 5/15 if he rushes for 1300+ yards next year.

Of course he won't.

He wouldn't sign for 5/15 right now.

NFL players consider free agency a huge deal. They don't sign 5 year deals unless they break the bank. $15M is not breaking the bank.

You have 3 choices with Grant, from the Packer's perspective:

A. Keep the status quo, give Grant one more year to prove himself, and hopefully sign him to a monster deal next year when he does. This option may be viewed negatively by both Grant and future FAs looking at Green Bay. Grant deserves some kind of payday now...and everyone knows it.

B. Sign him to a modest deal which allows Grant that FA window in 3 years if he proves himself. This guarantees that Grant has the chance to make elite money if he proves himself, but also shields the Packers from having to eat a huge contract if he never becomes elite.

C. Sign him to a monster deal right now...which basically will eliminate Grant's chances to get a FA deal, so it will be long term and COSTLY. I doubt Grant accepts a 5 year deal under $25M in value. He knows he has a chance to pocket that much money in a signing bonus alone if he has a window to the FA market in 2-3 years after a productive run.

I'd pick B myself. Give him what will be in essence a 3 year deal if he proves himself...$10M total value, at least half guaranteed. That would be a huge payday right now for the kid...yet would give him another chance at an ever bigger payday in 2-3 years if he continues to progress like we hope he will. He's not even proven over 16 games yet...I'm not willing to cough up $30M for him yet. Most big money deals for RBs also tend to be busts. I'd rather keep him at a modest price for a few more years.

If you choose C, you better be ready to cough up an $8M+ signing bonus and a contract value of $30M+. He's not going to forgo free agency until he is 30 years of age for a song.
You may be right Leaper. What's given is that now is the time when the Packers have the best chance to lock him up long-term for the cheapest price if they are inclined to want to do so. If the Packers pick option B, they likely lose him in 3 years, so as JH pointed out, I'm not for paying him off now just to lose him in his prime.

Although he doesn't really have an opportunity for another big contract if he signs long-term now, he can extend it down the road. I think he'd sign for 5 years for way less than $30 mil. I think he'd sign for 5/20, and the Packers wouldn't likely go much beyond that.

[The Leaper]

You may be right Leaper. What's given is that now is the time when the Packers have the best chance to lock him up long-term for the cheapest price if they are inclined to want to do so. If the Packers pick option B, they likely lose him in 3 years, so as JH pointed out, I'm not for giving him a big contract for three years.

Favre's $10M cap number will be gone as soon as he retires. That is a huge chunk of coin that will be available by the time we need to resign Grant again, so I don't see how you can so easily discount our ability to re-sign him if he proves himself.

Again, my take on a 4 year deal with a voidable year that in essence makes it a 3 year, $10M deal...but looks much better in the press at 4 years, $15M+.

Year 1: $1M salary + $3M bonus - $1.75M cap number in 08
Year 2: $2.5M salary - $3.25M cap number in 09
Year 3: $3.5M salary - $4.25M cap number in 10
Year 4: $5.5M salary (voidable)

I think this is a fair contract for both sides...it gives Grant financial security now as opposed to his current deal, and it gives the Packers a good working relationship with Grant while not breaking the bank until we KNOW Grant is a top 5 back.

A long term deal just won't be cheap. I suppose you throw something out there and see what Grant is looking for...but I'm assuming his agent's advice would be to ignore any long term deal that did not set him up financially for life (meaning $20M+ in relatively guaranteed money...bonus plus first 3 years salary while high cap number discourages release).

[Patler]

What's given is that now is the time when the Packers have the best chance to lock him up long-term for the cheapest price if they are inclined to want to do so. If the Packers pick option B, they likely lose him in 3 years, so as JH pointed out, I'm not for giving him a big contract for three years.

Although he doesn't really have an opportunity for another big contract if he signs long-term now, he can extend it down the road. I think he'd sign for 5 years for way less than $30 mil. I think he'd sign for 5/20, and the Packers wouldn't likely go much beyond that.

Now is also the best opportunity to make a big cap mistake, too, committing much too much money to a player that doesn't end up earning it. I am actually a big fan of Grant, even when he was at ND. But his history is odd. He was "the man" at ND as a sophomore, gaining over 1000 yards. The next season he quickly became the forgotten man playing second fiddle to Julius Jones who came back after a year suspension. Jones was playing into shape, was not stellar early by any means, but unseated Grant. The next year Grant was second fiddle to a true freshman, Darius Walker. Then this year he was #5 with the Giants, a team that knew him well.

Before I would commit significant guaranteed money to him, I would make him play at least the first half of next year.

Grant has no bargaining power. Giving him anything more than what is required right now after the small exposure he has had is really a gift. Giving him a few million in guaranteed money and the chance to earn more for the next three years is generous.

The chance that he will be in a break the bank situation as a free agent 3 years from now is probably a lot less than the chance he will be just a decent back affordable by the Packers. Besides they can always renegotiate agin next year, if he deserves it.

Getting him for a "bargain" on a long term contract wouldn't last anyway. If he is a top 5 back and is paid like top 15, he will be disgruntled and demand renegotiation. "Bargains" rarely last more than a year or two.

I say give him a nice raise, like a lower first round draft choice, but why risk more when you don't have to?

[vince]

What's given is that now is the time when the Packers have the best chance to lock him up long-term for the cheapest price if they are inclined to want to do so. If the Packers pick option B, they likely lose him in 3 years, so as JH pointed out, I'm not for giving him a big contract for three years.

Although he doesn't really have an opportunity for another big contract if he signs long-term now, he can extend it down the road. I think he'd sign for 5 years for way less than $30 mil. I think he'd sign for 5/20, and the Packers wouldn't likely go much beyond that.

Now is also the best opportunity to make a big cap mistake, too, committing much too much money to a player that doesn't end up earning it. I am actually a big fan of Grant, even when he was at ND. But his history is odd. He was "the man" at ND as a sophomore, gaining over 1000 yards. The next season he quickly became the forgotten man playing second fiddle to Julius Jones who came back after a year suspension. Jones was playing into shape, was not stellar early by any means, but unseated Grant. The next year Grant was second fiddle to a true freshman, Darius Walker. Then this year he was #5 with the Giants, a team that knew him well.

Before I would commit significant guaranteed money to him, I would make him play at least the first half of next year.

Grant has no bargaining power. Giving him anything more than what is required right now after the small exposure he has had is really a gift. Giving him a few million in guaranteed money and the chance to earn more for the next three years is generous.

The chance that he will be in a break the bank situation as a free agent 3 years from now is probably a lot less than the chance he will be just a decent back affordable by the Packers. Besides they can always renegotiate agin next year, if he deserves it.

Getting him for a "bargain" on a long term contract wouldn't last anyway. If he is a top 5 back and is paid like top 15, he will be disgruntled and demand renegotiation. "Bargains" rarely last more than a year or two.

I say give him a nice raise, like a lower first round draft choice, but why risk more when you don't have to?

A big risk is giving 5/35 to Ced Benson, or 6/52 to Reggie Bush, or 5/34 to Ronnie Brown, or 6/40 to Adrian Peterson - none of whom had played ONE DOWN against the defensive beasts of the NFL before signing big long-term contracts.

Ryan Grant is no more a risk than any of the backs on the list above. We've all seen with our own eyes what he can do in the NFL. How is it that people put more stock into ancient history about which they have little or no context or relevant information than the most recent and highly relevant information possible that they see with their own eyes?

Ryan Grant HAS PROVEN HIMSELF in the NFL. He's not a whim and a prayer of a college standout. He was clearly a victim of circumstance in New York. The Giants regime has a bias for thick punishing backs. I can't speak for what the Notre Dame staff thought they had in Julius Jones or Darius Walker at the time, but I can speak for what the Green Bay Packers KNOW they have in Ryan Grant. Given one opportunity, he's absolutely grabbed it by the balls and owned the running back position for this team.

Every contract is a risk. But in this case there's even more risk on the other side of the equation. If you don't lock him down, you risk losing him in the middle of his prime, and all that has to happen for that risk to come to fruition is for him to continue to do what he has already PROVEN at the NFL level that he can do. The risk is that he gets seriously hurt while under an even bigger contract than he could be signed at now. Watch how much financial "risk" the team has to take on in two or three years in order to keep him.

Also, with regard to him wanting to renegotiate if he outplays a new contract, I'd much rather be negotiating a restructure or extension with him locked up than with him on the verge of free agency.

[Patler]

Some would have argued that Samkon Gado had proven himself, too.

My point is simply that you don't have to take much risk at all with Grant, so why do it?

[Rastak]

I gotta side with Patler on this one. There's no reason to rush anything. What is this big fear of having to pay market value at some point? I don't 100% understand the bargin obsession. The Packers are in excellent cap shape and when Favre comes off the books someday they will be in even better shape. History is full of one year wonders and running backs are a torn up knee away from the scrap pile. Now for the record I like Grant, seems to fit the system and I don't think he's a one year wonder but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

[vince]

Those that argued Samkon Gado had a future with the Packers would have been wrong, obviously. Samkon Gado was a 4.7 40 guy who averaged a full yard per carry less than Grant. He looked like he was running in cement shoes, particularly when the ZBS came to town. Grant on the other hand, fits what the Packers want to do like a glove.

You say why take the risk with Grant when you don't have to. I agree. You say you aren't taking risk with Grant, but I say you're wrong. You are ignoring the future risk and only thinking about the immediate risk. The future risk is much, much bigger. You let him go into free agency, you're risking millions upon millions upon millions, and you're risking having to lock him up THEN to a contract that would likely take him beyond his prime - another significant risk.

And Ras, I am convinced that having players, particularly at high-profile, high-cost positions, to outplay their contracts is absolutely key to achieving consistent success in the salary cap era. Football injuries are so unpredictable, you need better depth throughout the roster than the rest of the league to consistently win. That requires maintaining cap flexibility to maintain a deep roster throughout.

In my opinion, teams taht pay "market prices" for players on the backside of their careers consistently, find themselves having to scramble every year just to maintain competitiveness. Then, when injuries come during the year, they're screwed.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree on this. Thanks for the exchange.

[Patler]

Those that argued Samkon Gado had a future with the Packers would have been wrong, obviously. Samkon Gado was a 4.7 40 guy who averaged a full yard per carry less than Grant. He looked like he was running in cement shoes, particularly when the ZBS came to town. Grant on the other hand, fits what the Packers want to do like a glove.

You say why take the risk with Grant when you don't have to. I agree. You say you aren't taking risk with Grant, but I say you're wrong. You are ignoring the future risk and only thinking about the immediate risk. The future risk is much, much bigger. You let him go into free agency, you're risking millions upon millions upon millions, and you're risking having to lock him up THEN to a contract that would likely take him beyond his prime - another significant risk.

And Ras, I am convinced that having players, particularly at high-profile, high-cost positions, to outplay their contracts is absolutely key to achieving consistent success in the salary cap era. Football injuries are so unpredictable, you need better depth throughout the roster than the rest of the league to consistently win. That requires maintaining cap flexibility to maintain a deep roster throughout.

In my opinion, teams taht pay "market prices" for players on the backside of their careers consistently, find themselves having to scramble every year just to maintain competitiveness. Then, when injuries come during the year, they're screwed.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree on this. Thanks for the exchange.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but you seem to be suggesting that they either give Grant a big contract now or lose him in three years. I think you can give him a moderate short-term contract now along the lines I suggested earlier, and still re-sign him sometime between now and three years from now if it seems prudent to do so. If you get him at a long term bargain now, he will want to renegotiate later anyway. so you are no further ahead than with a short term deal anyway.

[vince]

I'm suggesting that the Packers keep negotiating leverage on their side through his prime at the lowest possible cost. That is how to minimize the risk in this situation, IMO. That places the Packers much further ahead down the road, PARTICULARLY if/when there's a renegotiation of his contract.

The most likely thing to expect from Grant is for him to continue to produce in the ballpark of what he did this year running the ball. And as a first year player who will enjoy the benefits of having a full offseason with the team and coaching staff to get better in the passing game and in protection, to improve in those areas. He has the work ethic, demeanor and consistency to do all of that. If I were GM, and had to project the future, that's what I would be projecting.

Sure there's a risk he will uncharacteristically drop off. That would be inconsistent with what we know about him. There's also a risk (and it's a bigger one, IMO) that he'll continue on his current path.

I'm advocating for holding negotiating leverage throughout Grant's prime years in order to minimize their risk throughout that time.

[The Leaper]

And Ras, I am convinced that having players, particularly at high-profile, high-cost positions, to outplay their contracts is absolutely key to achieving consistent success in the salary cap era.

Don't tell that to the Colts.

[The Leaper]

I'm advocating for holding negotiating leverage throughout Grant's prime years in order to minimize their risk throughout that time.

That is nearly impossible to do if the player is performing at a high level. If he isn't getting paid market value, he's going to be pissed off.

As we've seen with McKenzie and Walker, it doesn't pay to have cheap ass deals if the player wants something more. Suddenly, your cheap ass deal isn't cheap...because your player is a distraction and locker room cancer.

[The Leaper]

A big risk is giving 5/35 to Ced Benson, or 6/52 to Reggie Bush, or 5/34 to Ronnie Brown, or 6/40 to Adrian Peterson - none of whom had played ONE DOWN against the defensive beasts of the NFL before signing big long-term contracts.

Ryan Grant is no more a risk than any of the backs on the list above. We've all seen with our own eyes what he can do in the NFL. How is it that people put more stock into ancient history about which they have little or no context or relevant information than the most recent and highly relevant information possible that they see with their own eyes?

Not a fair comparison Vince. Rookies that are high picks get risky deals. That is a given...part of how the current NFL works. Grant is not a high draft pick. Green Bay has far more leverage in this instance...so a costly long term deal really isn't necessary.

Most RBs are peak performers for only 3-4 seasons tops. There is no reason to extend his deal past that IMO. If you think he is a great back...then getting him in the prime of his career for $10M over 3 years is a helluva bargain.

[vince]

I'm advocating for holding negotiating leverage throughout Grant's prime years in order to minimize their risk throughout that time.

That is nearly impossible to do if the player is performing at a high level. If he isn't getting paid market value, he's going to be pissed off.

As we've seen with McKenzie and Walker, it doesn't pay to have cheap ass deals if the player wants something more. Suddenly, your cheap ass deal isn't cheap...because your player is a distraction and locker room cancer.
See Willie Parker and Brian Westbrook.

I'm not advocating for a cheap ass deal. I'm advocating for an appropriate long-term deal given his circumstances, which as you noted, he could out-produce. Then, when it's time to extend or renegotiate him, he's at least locked up, so he doesn't have free agency as leverage.

You noted awhile back that he'll not want to give up that card, which could very well be the case. It's a question of whether he values security or the prospects of maximum dollars more. Only he will be able answer that.

[woodbuck27]

What's given is that now is the time when the Packers have the best chance to lock him up long-term for the cheapest price if they are inclined to want to do so. If the Packers pick option B, they likely lose him in 3 years, so as JH pointed out, I'm not for giving him a big contract for three years.

Although he doesn't really have an opportunity for another big contract if he signs long-term now, he can extend it down the road. I think he'd sign for 5 years for way less than $30 mil. I think he'd sign for 5/20, and the Packers wouldn't likely go much beyond that.

Now is also the best opportunity to make a big cap mistake, too, committing much too much money to a player that doesn't end up earning it. I am actually a big fan of Grant, even when he was at ND. But his history is odd. He was "the man" at ND as a sophomore, gaining over 1000 yards. The next season he quickly became the forgotten man playing second fiddle to Julius Jones who came back after a year suspension. Jones was playing into shape, was not stellar early by any means, but unseated Grant. The next year Grant was second fiddle to a true freshman, Darius Walker. Then this year he was #5 with the Giants, a team that knew him well.

Before I would commit significant guaranteed money to him, I would make him play at least the first half of next year.

Grant has no bargaining power. Giving him anything more than what is required right now after the small exposure he has had is really a gift. Giving him a few million in guaranteed money and the chance to earn more for the next three years is generous.

The chance that he will be in a break the bank situation as a free agent 3 years from now is probably a lot less than the chance he will be just a decent back affordable by the Packers. Besides they can always renegotiate agin next year, if he deserves it.

Getting him for a "bargain" on a long term contract wouldn't last anyway. If he is a top 5 back and is paid like top 15, he will be disgruntled and demand renegotiation. "Bargains" rarely last more than a year or two.

I say give him a nice raise, like a lower first round draft choice, but why risk more when you don't have to?

A big risk is giving 5/35 to Ced Benson, or 6/52 to Reggie Bush, or 5/34 to Ronnie Brown, or 6/40 to Adrian Peterson - none of whom had played ONE DOWN against the defensive beasts of the NFL before signing big long-term contracts.

Ryan Grant is no more a risk than any of the backs on the list above. We've all seen with our own eyes what he can do in the NFL. How is it that people put more stock into ancient history about which they have little or no context or relevant information than the most recent and highly relevant information possible that they see with their own eyes?

Ryan Grant HAS PROVEN HIMSELF in the NFL. He's not a whim and a prayer of a college standout. He was clearly a victim of circumstance in New York. The Giants regime has a bias for thick punishing backs. I can't speak for what the Notre Dame staff thought they had in Julius Jones or Darius Walker at the time, but I can speak for what the Green Bay Packers KNOW they have in Ryan Grant. Given one opportunity, he's absolutely grabbed it by the balls and owned the running back position for this team.

Every contract is a risk. But in this case there's even more risk on the other side of the equation. If you don't lock him down, you risk losing him in the middle of his prime, and all that has to happen for that risk to come to fruition is for him to continue to do what he has already PROVEN at the NFL level that he can do. The risk is that he gets seriously hurt while under an even bigger contract than he could be signed at now. Watch how much financial "risk" the team has to take on in two or three years in order to keep him.

Also, with regard to him wanting to renegotiate if he outplays a new contract, I'd much rather be negotiating a restructure or extension with him locked up than with him on the verge of free agency.

Excellent POST Vince!