RB Ryan Grant optimistic about new contract

[woodbuck27]

http://blogs.jsonline.com/packers/archive/2008/05/21/grant-optimistic-about-new-contract.aspx

Grant optimistic about new contract

By Greg A. Bedard
Wednesday, May 21 2008, 05:37 PM

SEE LINK for rest of story.

PACKERS FOREVER!

[HarveyWallbangers]

I guess I don't understand the statement in bold.


The Packers have shown a willingness to take care of productive players if they play the part of good soldier, which makes Grant's stance somewhat puzzling.

Read his quotes in the blog. It sounds like he's going about it wonderfully.

[Guiness]

I tend to agree with the writer - the first line HW quoted said it. The Packers have been good to players that have produced, I would really expect they've got enough 'brownie points' that players trust them somewhat?

There's also the other side - as stated a thousand times - he has NO leverage. He has to sign the one year tender, and hope the Pack rewards him, now or after the season. I have no doubt that if he thinks he can play hardball, we'll be watching BJack on opening day.

I have to say I'm disappointed in his posturing. I'd much rather see him out there, happy as shit to be the anointed starter and busting his butt so he can go out there and light it all on fire. Then the contract will come. Has he forgotten already that he was almost a TC cut last year, traded for because we had multiple injuries in our camp, and was roughly a 4th stringer when the season began???

Instead, he's wingeing that he's not being treated well enough, trying to cash in after half a year of success.

[HarveyWallbangers]

What posturing? He's under no obligation to sign the tender at this time.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm not going to pretend to know what will happen. Thompson is unpredictable, and he has a great record of making it work.

I'm just going to say what I think should happen.

I see Grant as probably the most important single player the Packers have, bar none. I want Thompson to negotiate the best way he knows how, but bottom line, do NOT let the guy get away or sit out.

I was saying similar things when the whole Javon Walker mess--to sign before we absolutely had to or not--came up. In hindsight, I was probably wrong--IF you assume Walker would have gotten injured the same way and basically been a big waste of money. I also was on record as strongly opposing paying enough to keep Ahman Green--I got that one right, but it was a slam dunk. I have said, you NEVER overpay for a high price RB--the logic being that by the time they are in line for the big money, they usually have too much mileage on them to justify the cost.

I think we can sign Grant for a large but moderate amount now--moderate in comparison to LaDainian Tomlinson, etc.--proven superstars. Grant won't command that much, especially now when he can't sign with somebody else. You wait a year, though, as many advocate, the cost will undoubtedly be MUCH higher--assuming he isn't a one year wonder, and plays like he did last season. I'd rather sign him now and take that risk than wait, thinking maybe he will drop off.

[vince]

Well said Tex. I agree that now is the time when Grant has the least amount of leverage he's likely to have in the next three years. Signing him now to a relatively modest 4-5 year deal will give the Packers the greatest value for a vital contributor.

Assuming he continues to produce as he did last year, he may come back to the table wanting more before that deal expires, but it's better to have him locked down in that circumstance than see him on the verge of UFA.

[CaliforniaCheez]

The articles I've read said they are talking regularly. That's good.

They are arguing back and forth over things like:

Productivity

Due to Offensive line. Half year wonder.

You got any other half year wonders?

Fumble at the Metrodome, fumbles that put the team in the hole in the playoffs.

Long term deal

Short term deal

Intermediate deal

Cash up front

Incentive based contract

Better parking spot

We can do that

I want money before the lock out wrecks my career

That's why we are offering what we are offering

Look at those productive stats.......

[Guiness]

I think we can sign Grant for a large but moderate amount now--moderate in comparison to LaDainian Tomlinson, etc.--proven superstars. Grant won't command that much, especially now when he can't sign with somebody else. You wait a year, though, as many advocate, the cost will undoubtedly be MUCH higher--assuming he isn't a one year wonder, and plays like he did last season. I'd rather sign him now and take that risk than wait, thinking maybe he will drop off.

Yes, I also think that should happen, and I think it would happen...if Grant wasn't doing what he is. That's what pisses me off - sign it, show some trust that the Pack will take care of you, and get back to work.

You're right HW, he doesn't have to sign the tender. But I don't know what he has to gain by not signing it! And a lot to lose. He's opening the door for another back to come in and shine. He should be in there taking the first team reps. Where will he be if BJack, Morency or Wynn look lights out, and the Pack decides they can start? I don't care what you think of them, it may not be probable, but it is possible.

Does he really think the Pack would continue to pay him the minimum for as long as they can? Or is he afraid of injury? I just don't understand why he is behaving this way.

[Zool]

If he signs the tender and blows out a knee in practice they wont give him another dime. He's being very smart IMO. There's no reason he cant get a chunk of the $15+mil available this year under the cap with a moderate salary with incentives for the next 3.

Julius Jones got 4/$12. I dont think that would be unreasonable for Grant at all. $3mil signing bonus, $4mil in incentives over the next 4 and a base of $1.25mil avg for each season.

[sharpe1027]

I think we can sign Grant for a large but moderate amount now--moderate in comparison to LaDainian Tomlinson, etc.--proven superstars. Grant won't command that much, especially now when he can't sign with somebody else. You wait a year, though, as many advocate, the cost will undoubtedly be MUCH higher--assuming he isn't a one year wonder, and plays like he did last season. I'd rather sign him now and take that risk than wait, thinking maybe he will drop off.

Yes, I also think that should happen, and I think it would happen...if Grant wasn't doing what he is. That's what pisses me off - sign it, show some trust that the Pack will take care of you, and get back to work.

You're right HW, he doesn't have to sign the tender. But I don't know what he has to gain by not signing it! And a lot to lose. He's opening the door for another back to come in and shine. He should be in there taking the first team reps. Where will he be if BJack, Morency or Wynn look lights out, and the Pack decides they can start? I don't care what you think of them, it may not be probable, but it is possible.

Does he really think the Pack would continue to pay him the minimum for as long as they can? Or is he afraid of injury? I just don't understand why he is behaving this way.

If, as you said, he doesn't think the Packer would continue to pay him the minimum, what the does he gain by signing? Nobody is going to displace him in these workouts. I doubt anybody could displace him by having lights-out preseason games.

IMO, the reason he hasn't signed is that once he does he becomes obligated to meet all the requirements of his contract so if he misses anything he is breaking his contract. More importantly, if he doesn't breach his contract he exposes himself to injury while playing under a minimum contract. Smart move, IMO.

[Guiness]

Nobody is going to displace him in these workouts. I doubt anybody could displace him by having lights-out preseason games.


I doubt it too. I also doubted he would be our feature back when we traded a 6th round pick for him.

I just think he'd want to be protecting his job by being out there taking the reps, rather than sitting back thinking that no one can displace him.

[sharpe1027]

I doubt it too. I also doubted he would be our feature back when we traded a 6th round pick for him.

I just think he'd want to be protecting his job by being out there taking the reps, rather than sitting back thinking that no one can displace him.

I agree. I just think he has to weigh that possibility against getting hurt under a shitty contract. I have to agree with the logic of his decision, eventhough I'd personally (and selfishly) prefer that he listened to you.

[MadScientist]

The trick with this is that any contract will set a precedent. Grant isn't close to free agency, but he's not under contract, so he's not holding out. He deserves a pay raise over the minimum, but how does anyone determine how much. Also, the Packers have to make sure they don't do anything to encourage 1 or half year wonders to start holding out.

Something will get done, but I don't expect it to be soon.

[woodbuck27]

I see both sides of this debate.
I like his position. I do believe also he has some leverage because he's demonsrated solid poduction amonst a weak crop of so far wanna be's.

[Gunakor]

I see both sides of this debate.
I like his position. I do believe also he has some leverage because he's demonsrated solid poduction amonst a weak crop of so far wanna be's.


Grant has no leverage. When it comes time for the season to start, either he signs for whatever Green Bay offers him or he doesn't play. He can't go anywhere else. If say Green Bay tells Grant they will only offer him the low tender they've already offered him and Grant refuses, he won't play at all and his career could be over as quickly as it began. Where does Grant have ANY leverage in the deal? He wants a bigger deal to protect against injury, I can understand that. But holding out could do the same thing to him that an injury would. It could end his career. He should consider that come August if this is still unresolved and he absolutely needs to make a final decision.

[bobblehead]

If he signs the tender and blows out a knee in practice they wont give him another dime. He's being very smart IMO. There's no reason he cant get a chunk of the $15+mil available this year under the cap with a moderate salary with incentives for the next 3.

Julius Jones got 4/$12. I dont think that would be unreasonable for Grant at all. $3mil signing bonus, $4mil in incentives over the next 4 and a base of $1.25mil avg for each season.

Here is the problem. If we gave him 4/12 like jones it would be unfair to the club. We have him, exclusive, for minimum for 3 years. It would be in effect giving him about 10 million for year 1 of FA, and no garauntee he doesn't hold out again later since the 10 million would have been paid out over the first 3 years anyway. ie, if year 4 pays 4 million he has in effect collected 6 million of the "buyout" already, and he may hold out then saying 4 million isn't enough and he wants a new deal.

We really had a long thread on this before the JS site went down and some good points were made. My problem is this, Bigby finished really strong and signed the deal (he didn't fumble twice against seattle either). If you cave on Grant, why not pay bigby?? What about if another undrafted or exclusive rights guy has a big half year this season? Do we automatically give him more than he has coming?

I get Grants position, he got a late start in the NFL (his own fault) and now he wants to get paid before he gets old. I wish they had offered him and Bigby a 1 million tender no strings attached to reward them for their play. It would have been a great message, but on the flip side they have extended guys who have played by the rules of the collective bargaining agreement, and if Grant had just signed the deal and had a good 8 games this year I bet he would have gotten a nice deal about midway, now.....TT may play it a bit harder.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Bigby finished really strong and signed the deal (he didn't fumble twice against seattle either). If you cave on Grant, why not pay bigby?? What about if another undrafted or exclusive rights guy has a big half year this season? Do we automatically give him more than he has coming?

He didn't run for a Packers playoff record in rushing yards (200+) either.

You may want to do it with Bigby. The team might get a good deal by signing him early. It's a case-by-case basis, and Thompson has shown he won't go hard-line on contracts (he saves up money by not signing big name FAs, so he can keep his own players happy). It depends on how you value that particular player.

It's similar to what the Crew did with Ryan Braun. Now, an NFL player could hold out later on, but the team could also cut the player before his contract ends. That's just the way it works in the NFL.

[Zool]

Bigby finished really strong and signed the deal (he didn't fumble twice against seattle either). If you cave on Grant, why not pay bigby?? What about if another undrafted or exclusive rights guy has a big half year this season? Do we automatically give him more than he has coming?

He didn't run for a Packers playoff record in rushing yards (200+) either.

You may want to do it with Bigby. The team might get a good deal by signing him early. It's a case-by-case basis, and Thompson has shown he won't go hard-line on contracts (he saves up money by not signing big name FAs, so he can keep his own players happy). It depends on how you value that particular player.

It's similar to what the Crew did with Ryan Braun. Now, an NFL player could hold out later on, but the team could also cut the player before his contract ends. That's just the way it works in the NFL.

Right. Thats why you sign Grant to a decent signing bonus and put a bunch of incentives in the contract. If Grant doesn't play, its BJax and Fatboy along with Cement Shoes Herron and some practice squad guys. I wouldn't count on picking up a cast off from another team for a 6th each season.

[bobblehead]

Bigby finished really strong and signed the deal (he didn't fumble twice against seattle either). If you cave on Grant, why not pay bigby?? What about if another undrafted or exclusive rights guy has a big half year this season? Do we automatically give him more than he has coming?

He didn't run for a Packers playoff record in rushing yards (200+) either.

You may want to do it with Bigby. The team might get a good deal by signing him early. It's a case-by-case basis, and Thompson has shown he won't go hard-line on contracts (he saves up money by not signing big name FAs, so he can keep his own players happy). It depends on how you value that particular player.

It's similar to what the Crew did with Ryan Braun. Now, an NFL player could hold out later on, but the team could also cut the player before his contract ends. That's just the way it works in the NFL.

That is kinda my point, there is a system in place and he has no leverage at this point in time. I wasn't trying to say Bigby was as good as Grant down the stretch (but he did fumble in that record setting game you mention causing coronaries thruout wisconsin), I was saying he outplayed a minimum contract as well. The way it works in the NFL is that you sign the deals until you get to be a FA then you cash in. If you approach the club saying you might want to work out a mutually beneficial long term deal then good things might happen. So far Grant hasn't signed the deal and has no leverage, but I like him, I just wish he had signed first then made his desires known.

[HarveyWallbangers]

That is kinda my point, there is a system in place and he has no leverage at this point in time. I wasn't trying to say Bigby was as good as Grant down the stretch (but he did fumble in that record setting game you mention causing coronaries thruout wisconsin), I was saying he outplayed a minimum contract as well. The way it works in the NFL is that you sign the deals until you get to be a FA then you cash in. If you approach the club saying you might want to work out a mutually beneficial long term deal then good things might happen. So far Grant hasn't signed the deal and has no leverage, but I like him, I just wish he had signed first then made his desires known.

1) I think he has more leverage than Bigby because the Packers would be a lot worse off starting Brandon Jackson at RB than Aaron Rouse at S.
2) Like I said, you go by a case-by-case basis. Grant wasn't just solid last year. He was really good. Bigby was decent. Grant has a better case to make there.
3) RBs tend to have a short shelf-life in the NFL and are more suspectible to injuries than most positions, so I can see why a RB wants to get paid while he can.

A deal will get done with Grant, so I wouldn't sweat it. His agent knows he doesn't have premium leverage. It's a good chance to get a good deal and reward a player who will likely be a cornerstone on your team for the next several years. In four years, $3M/year might look like a bargain for Grant--just like it was when Ahman was playing for that at the end of his contract. Braun's salary will look like a bargain at the end of his contract too. Thompson didn't have to reward Donald Driver twice in the last three years, but he did. He doesn't have to break the bank to do it, it keeps the guy happy, and it signals to your team that you reward your own.

This situation is similar to Javon Walker, but Thompson has learned from that. He also has gotten his salary cap in order, so that helps. Thompson has changed his philosophy. Realizing that Thompson isn't going to go after too many big FAs anyways and gives himself salary cap room, I'm okay with that.

[rbaloha1]

RG deserves pay better than the minimum tender.

This is a tough situation for TT since rbs performance decline quickly.

I would not pay RG Marion Barber type money with huge guaranteed income. Contract should be incentive based which prevents salary cap hits.

IF RG chooses to hold-out it is not catastrophic. Brandon Jacobs finished the year strong and was singled out as one of the players expected to take it to the next level.

Brandon is explosive with great abilities after the initial hit. The rb situation is fine.

[Gunakor]

RG deserves pay better than the minimum tender.

This is a tough situation for TT since rbs performance decline quickly.

I would not pay RG Marion Barber type money with huge guaranteed income. Contract should be incentive based which prevents salary cap hits.

IF RG chooses to hold-out it is not catastrophic. Brandon Jacobs finished the year strong and was singled out as one of the players expected to take it to the next level.

Brandon is explosive with great abilities after the initial hit. The rb situation is fine.

If RG chooses to hold out, it's not going to be catastrophic to the Green Bay Packers. It could be catastrophic for Ryan Grant though. He doesn't have the ability to accept offers from any other team, so if he holds out he doesn't play until he decides to sign whatever deal Green Bay offers him.

The biggest thing here is that Ryan Grant needs the Green Bay Packers more than the Packers need Ryan Grant. It's just as easily believable that last season was a fluke as it is to believe that this season will be a stellar year for Grant. Without the Packers, Grant's career is over. Without Grant, Green Bay will simply find another RB to fill the starting role. Life still goes on.

Grant should just stop anticipating an injury as though it's certain to happen this year and just sign and get his ass on the practice field. If he wants to be a part of this team, now is the time to join them in getting ready for the season. If he just plays football the money will take care of itself in time. And as many on these forums have pointed out in other threads, if he signs a shorter deal now and waits for a couple years, he'll make more money overall because his next contract will be huge. If he signs a long term deal now for a modest salary, he'd be over 30 when the contract expires and won't find much luck getting his big contract from anybody. So perhaps it's in the teams best financial interest to lock him up long term, but I don't see any problems arising in the future in giving him a blockbuster deal in 2 years - should he earn it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

IF RG chooses to hold-out it is not catastrophic. Brandon Jacobs finished the year strong and was singled out as one of the players expected to take it to the next level.

Brandon Jacobs did finish strong. Unfortunately, we have Brandon Jackson. He flashed a few good plays, but he hardly finished strong. He did well enough to think he might be solid as a backup, but nothing that makes most think he can be a good starter. We'll see how much he improved in the offseason. I tend to think RBs either have it (vision, cutting ability, power) or they don't, so I'm skeptical. That's coming from a guy who liked Jackson when we drafted him.

This team had a terrible running game before Grant took over last year. Sure, we can alter our game-plan without him, but this team (without Brett Favre) isn't likely going to win a championship without a similar effort by Grant this year.

[sharpe1027]

Grant would be stupid to sign the tender. There is a difference between holding out and not signing a contract. For example, I think he could be fined thousands every day he misses training camp while under contract. He is not holding out right now and cannot be fined. He would be stupid to sign the tender and be forced to give up his only leverage, however small it is.

Bottom line:

They will sign him to a deal that is good for both sides. Everyone will pretty much forget this ever happened. Relax.

[bobblehead]

I think if I were TT I would invite Grant up to my office to talk and have an Eric Rhett tape playing on the bigscreen when he walked in. Then I would offer him a modest, but fair contract...take it or leave it.

I do however believe RG is the real deal, I just also happen to believe that finding a running back who can run behind a good line is not a big challenge...why I bet we could probably trade a 6th in next years draft for a guy who is stuck on someones depth chart who might be productive.

[MadtownPacker]

Grant should just stop anticipating an injury as though it's certain to happen this year and just sign and get his ass on the practice field. If he wants to be a part of this team, now is the time to join them in getting ready for the season. If he just plays football the money will take care of itself in time.Seems like players that have injury and $$ on the brain usually end up getting both. The fact it is what fuels his request for more $$$ after half a season concerns me bigtime.

Can anyone say javon walker?

[Patler]

Grant is in the same position as Bubba Franks was when he was tagged, except Grant's contract is only a drop in the bucket of Franks' contract. Once the offer period ended, Franks had no option but to play for the Packers. Yet he refused to sign until a multi-year deal was worked out. Both were tendered one year contracts. Neither was satisfied with it.

Did Franks have any more leverage than Grant? I think he had much LESS, because the contract he was refusing to sign was worth millions of dollars, enough to set him up for life. Grant is risking a decent one year salary by our standards, but a McDonalds hamburger jockey salary by NFL standards.

I think Grant has more leverage than some of you are willing to acknowledge. Yes his performance was for less than a year, but it was consistent enough against enough different teams, it was very, very good, not just adequate and it was done without a stellar line; which indicate it was not a fluke. TT and MM know they need Grant this year. He made a big difference last year.

[Patler]

Grant should just stop anticipating an injury as though it's certain to happen this year and just sign and get his ass on the practice field. If he wants to be a part of this team, now is the time to join them in getting ready for the season. If he just plays football the money will take care of itself in time.Seems like players that have injury and $$ on the brain usually end up getting both. The fact it is what fuels his request for more $$$ after half a season concerns me bigtime.

Can anyone say javon walker?

Maybe I missed it, but when did Grant use the Javon Walker argument about risk of injury as his reason for wanting a better contract? He's not practicing now when he is not signed, but normally the team will not allow them to anyway, because of the injury risk.

I don't recall Grant being quoted as saying he wants a bigger contract because of the risk of injury, just that he believes he has earned a better offer than what he has been given.

[Patler]

Cullen Jenkins was signed to a big contract a full year before he would have reach free agency, and it was based pretty much on the last four games of 2006 when he was moved to DE. Before then, Jenkins was "OK", but nothing special at DT, probably not special enough to have gotten more than the RFA tender.

Grant showed more over a longer time in 2007 than Jenkins did in 2006.

Personally, I think they gave Jenkins too much, and I said so at the time. I'm not in favor of a huge deal for Grant, either. But certainly more than $370,000.

[MadtownPacker]

Maybe I missed it, but when did Grant use the Javon Walker argument about risk of injury as his reason for wanting a better contract? He's not practicing now when he is not signed, but normally the team will not allow them to anyway, because of the injury risk.

I don't recall Grant being quoted as saying he wants a bigger contract because of the risk of injury, just that he believes he has earned a better offer than what he has been given.Facts are not always your friend Sir Patler.

He may not say it but I am willing to bet he is thinking it. I went overboard with the walker comparison but usually when you fear bad things is when they happen in my experience.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Maybe I missed it, but when did Grant use the Javon Walker argument about risk of injury as his reason for wanting a better contract? He's not practicing now when he is not signed, but normally the team will not allow them to anyway, because of the injury risk.

I don't recall Grant being quoted as saying he wants a bigger contract because of the risk of injury, just that he believes he has earned a better offer than what he has been given.Facts are not always your friend Sir Patler.

He may not say it but I am willing to bet he is thinking it. I went overboard with the walker comparison but usually when you fear bad things is when they happen in my experience.

I highly doubt he is even aware of Jwalk as he wasn't on the pack when walker was here.

As for bad things happen when you think of them...what a bunch of superstition. As if only thinking good things leads to good things. :roll:

I guess that isn't working out for grant..you don't think he was thinking positive last year when he accumulated those yards..and that it would lead to a lucrative offer?

[Gunakor]

Maybe I missed it, but when did Grant use the Javon Walker argument about risk of injury as his reason for wanting a better contract? He's not practicing now when he is not signed, but normally the team will not allow them to anyway, because of the injury risk.

I don't recall Grant being quoted as saying he wants a bigger contract because of the risk of injury, just that he believes he has earned a better offer than what he has been given.Facts are not always your friend Sir Patler.

He may not say it but I am willing to bet he is thinking it. I went overboard with the walker comparison but usually when you fear bad things is when they happen in my experience.

I highly doubt he is even aware of Jwalk as he wasn't on the pack when walker was here.

As for bad things happen when you think of them...what a bunch of superstition. As if only thinking good things leads to good things. :roll:

I guess that isn't working out for grant..you don't think he was thinking positive last year when he accumulated those yards..and that it would lead to a lucrative offer?


Lucrative deals are not warranted after 9 productive games. He has to show he can last a full season before a lucrative deal is warranted. What if he's just another guy, who happened to get lucky for half a season? Geez man, you make it sound so certain he's going to be our starter for the near future. What if he does turn out to be the next Eric Rhett?



I think Grant has more leverage than some of you are willing to acknowledge. Yes his performance was for less than a year, but it was consistent enough against enough different teams, it was very, very good, not just adequate and it was done without a stellar line; which indicate it was not a fluke. TT and MM know they need Grant this year. He made a big difference last year.

I am of the belief that Brett Favre aided in Ryan Grant's production tremendously just by being #4 under center. We'll see whether it was a fluke or not this year. Defenses won't be gameplanning the same way against us. Not until AR proves himself anyway. RG will probably be the main focus of alot of DC's when coming up with gameplans against us, something that he didn't have to deal with even once last year. The situation is not the same, so no, we don't know whether last year was a fluke or not.

[MJZiggy]

Brett Favre being under center didn't do much for Brandon Jackson...

[RashanGary]

I think Grant has more leverage than some of you are willing to acknowledge. Yes his performance was for less than a year, but it was consistent enough against enough different teams, it was very, very good, not just adequate and it was done without a stellar line; which indicate it was not a fluke. TT and MM know they need Grant this year. He made a big difference last year.

3 years before his contract is up? That is no leverage if you ask me. Bubba was the transition player. He had other teams that could have bid for his services with the Packers getting right ot first refusal. I don't know where you went to school, but where I attended supply and demand had a little something to do with the price of goods :) When you have 32 teams able to bid with maybe 5 of them wanting the item, that would represent much higher demand than only one person able to bid. There are no other shoppers. Nobody to drive up the price. Grants only option is to not play and never make it to UFA and never make another dollar in the NFL, let alone a million. Grant is a good player. I really like him, but if he wants to play hard ball, let him sit. The Packers will do just fine.

[Gunakor]

Brett Favre being under center didn't do much for Brandon Jackson...

That's because Brandon Jackson would routinely run up his linemen's asses and then dance around in the backfield. Had more to do with a poor runner than a good run defense. Jackson didn't seem to "get it" until late in the season, and when he did "get it" he was somewhat productive when given opportunities.

[RashanGary]

Rock Gullickson describes Brandon Jackson as a different person in regard to his strength and conditioning - whatever that's worth.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Rock Gullickson describes Brandon Jackson as a different person in regard to his strength and conditioning - whatever that's worth.

Won't help his vision.

Were you in favor of the Crew signing Ryan Braun to a long-term deal?

[MadtownPacker]

I highly doubt he is even aware of Jwalk as he wasn't on the pack when walker was here.

As for bad things happen when you think of them...what a bunch of superstition. As if only thinking good things leads to good things. :roll:

I guess that isn't working out for grant..you don't think he was thinking positive last year when he accumulated those yards..and that it would lead to a lucrative offer?Listen you all-knowing superbrain circus freak, I already said the my jwalk comment was excessive but what the hell does Grant being on the team the same time as walker have anything to do with it??

You know what I actually do think it helps to think good things you negative bastard. If you dont that is your thing not mine. But for someone who claims to be so opened minded you sure aint acting like it. :wink:

I do think Grant was thinking positive last year and as you said he had all those yards. He comes in, does his thing and I am 100% positive Thompson hooks him up sometime halfway through the season.

[motife]

Q: Terry Chaney of Royal Oak, Mi - Assuming that Ryan Grant hasn't signed his contract and won't be participating in the ota's, how much of a risk is he taking from the perspective of potentially loosing his starters status.

A: Greg Bedard - If I were the Packers, I wouldn't give Grant anything. If he wants to sit out and get further and further from unrestricted free agency, then he should go do that. I'd go into the season with Jackson, Wynn and Morency and forget about Ryan Grant. The Packers will likely give him a new contract, but not until he actually makes it out of training camp healthy. No team would give a six-game wonder a new contract before training camp. He should sign his tender and go do his job. The Packers have shown time after time that they will do what's right. But not at the end of a rifle.


Is it just me, or does Grant look exceedingly uncomfortable in this photo from the OTA last week? :

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v288/11/1/605353733/n605353733_462992_7073.jpg


Q: Packer Jim of Chicago - Greg, I think Ryan Grant has shown that he can be an excellent #1 RB for Green Bay. Do you agree? What is the situation with his contract? Thanks for the chats. '08 promises to be a very interesting year. Jim.

A: Greg Bedard - I think Grant's a No. 1, but you need a 1A and 1B in this league behind a good offensive line. His contract is still up in the air. I don't agree with what him and his agent are doing. Asking for a new contract off of six games when the Packers basically rescued you off the scrap heap is idiotic if you ask me.

[Gunakor]

I do think Grant was thinking positive last year and as you said he had all those yards. He comes in, does his thing and I am 100% positive Thompson hooks him up sometime halfway through the season.


The way RG's camp talks about this deal, Thompson would have to hook him up before the season starts if they want him in uniform this year. He's made it quite clear he won't sign the tender Thompson has offered him.

Whatever. If the guy is willing to risk millions on a gamble that may or may not pay off, fine. He should remember, though, that TT does not have to pay him anything more than what he's already offered. And if he doesn't reach an agreement, he'll never make free agency, and his career is over. Right now Thompson holds all the chips. The best thing it seems is for him to sign the tender and then continue negotiations as the season progresses. Maybe then TT would indeed hook him up midway through the season. But not if he continues to be a hard ass right now and doesn't find his way onto the field before then.

[Rastak]

I do think Grant was thinking positive last year and as you said he had all those yards. He comes in, does his thing and I am 100% positive Thompson hooks him up sometime halfway through the season.


The way RG's camp talks about this deal, Thompson would have to hook him up before the season starts if they want him in uniform this year. He's made it quite clear he won't sign the tender Thompson has offered him.

Whatever. If the guy is willing to risk millions on a gamble that may or may not pay off, fine. He should remember, though, that TT does not have to pay him anything more than what he's already offered. And if he doesn't reach an agreement, he'll never make free agency, and his career is over. Right now Thompson holds all the chips. The best thing it seems is for him to sign the tender and then continue negotiations as the season progresses. Maybe then TT would indeed hook him up midway through the season. But not if he continues to be a hard ass right now and doesn't find his way onto the field before then.


I would agree with other posts that he has very little leverage. If he thinks he is being dealt with unfairly then he has no choice but to work off the last years of his contract and instruct his agent to ignore all calls from Green Bay period.

More likely, he works something out given the number of years he has left.

[RashanGary]

If he worked off the last three years and left at age 29, I would be OK with that - getting him for pennies and all. I don't want it to get to that because he'd stand a bigger chance of getting injured and never earning a nice deal than he wold getting it, but one more year (or half a year at least) before the nice deal seems about right.

[RashanGary]

Won't help his vision.

Were you in favor of the Crew signing Ryan Braun to a long-term deal?

Yeah, I think that was a good move. It's acctually really cheap for what he brings. Corey Hart should be the next position player IMO and Sheets right now (before FA) if possible. Baseball is kind of like football (maybe worse) in that if you sign guys early it makes things a little more affordable.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Is it just me, or does Grant look exceedingly uncomfortable in this photo from the OTA last week?

I think it's just you. Camera caught him with a weird expression. I wouldn't read too much into it.

[MadScientist]

I would agree with other posts that he has very little leverage. If he thinks he is being dealt with unfairly then he has no choice but to work off the last years of his contract and instruct his agent to ignore all calls from Green Bay period.

More likely, he works something out given the number of years he has left.

He has worked off all the years of his contract. The Packers have to give him a new contract in order for him to play. It's just a question of how much. Curiously this is like the old pre-FA days where the players had no leverage, but were not under long term contracts. Players could always reject what was offered to try to get more, but they were stuck if they didn't get what they wanted.

It's hard to blame the featured back for wanting to be offered something more than roster filler money.

[Patler]

Lucrative deals are not warranted after 9 productive games. He has to show he can last a full season before a lucrative deal is warranted. What if he's just another guy, who happened to get lucky for half a season? Geez man, you make it sound so certain he's going to be our starter for the near future. What if he does turn out to be the next Eric Rhett?



Then how do you explain the deals given to rookies who have never played an NFL game? Should Grant continue to be "punished" just because he was overlooked in the draft?

Grant is less of an uncertainty then Swain, for example, but if Grant signs the tender, he could very well have a 2008 income less than or not much more than Swain.

[Patler]

Facts are not always your friend Sir Patler.

He may not say it but I am willing to bet he is thinking it. I went overboard with the walker comparison but usually when you fear bad things is when they happen in my experience.

So now we should criticize a player because of what YOU THINK he might be thinking? Ridiculous!

NFL teams routinely pay players based on what they believe their potential to be. They do it all the time with the players they draft, who have proven nothing in the NFL. Minimum salaries are there for the players with undetermined potential, or essentially with no potential for being anything other than a roster filler. Does Grant fit that description? Based on his performance last year, can you honestly say his potential is no greater than any run of the mill player off the street? Based on their performances last year, who do you think has more potential, Grant or Brandon Jackson?

[Patler]

Bubba was the transition player. He had other teams that could have bid for his services with the Packers getting right ot first refusal.

Well, as I wrote, the Packers were his only option after the signing period was up for tagged players, yet he still held out. At that point his situation was no different than Grants. It was play for the Packers or play for no one, because he could no longer sign with another team.

[Patler]

Ryan Grant has no leverage only if you think TT and MM don't care if Grant is on the team or not. So long as they want him, he has some leverage. If they are counting on him to be the starter, he has more leverage.

Joe Toledo had no leverage.

[RashanGary]

Ryan Grant has no leverage only if you think TT and MM don't care if Grant is on the team or not. So long as they want him, he has some leverage. If they are counting on him to be the starter, he has more leverage.

Joe Toledo had no leverage.

I'll say this - Ryan Grant IS worth more than the min. He's worth a lot more and it's probably not fair to punish him for his unfortunate situation that was really out of his control (just from a decency stand point, not anything owed). I still don't think he has much leverage, but he does have the right to get really pissed off if the Packers treat him like shit. I really want to wait 1/2 more year just to be sure and then give him a nice fair deal that's not a complete rip off, but not maxed out either. Right now, any long term deal this early would have to be an extreme rip off for Grant. If I"m the Packers I'd give him 1.5 million to play this year and then tell him the long term deal will be hammered out based on the first half of this season. Grant gets a million after taxes (which should be enough to give his life a nice kick start if he is injured), the Packers get his services and if everything works out for 8 games Grant will get a deal that he probably never dreamed of when he entered the NFL as an undrafted rookie.

[Scott Campbell]

I think Grant has more leverage than some of you are willing to acknowledge.


I agree. and I think he's going to get a lot of money too because the Packers also know he's really good. It'll be done before the year starts, and it will make jaws drop. How long did we let Brett play for 2nd round money?

[RashanGary]

It'll be interesting to see it play out. If it is a huge deal this early, I would think much of it will come later in the deal. I don't see him getting a huge up front deal this early. (something similar to what Walker signed at Denver where it looked big but he didn't get much up front - only saved face). I think if he waits 1/2 more year he'll do better for himself and the Packers can feel more comfortable giving it out.

[Scott Campbell]

How long did Denver let TD play at 6th round money?

[woodbuck27]

This can be a classic win-win situation and that's the approach in harmony both sides need to take.

As Packer fans I believe that's how we should view this now. Keep it simple. :)

GO PACKERS !

[rbaloha1]

Have faith in TT.

TT will find the right deal.

[Guiness]

Maybe I missed it, but when did Grant use the Javon Walker argument about risk of injury as his reason for wanting a better contract? He's not practicing now when he is not signed, but normally the team will not allow them to anyway, because of the injury risk.

I don't recall Grant being quoted as saying he wants a bigger contract because of the risk of injury, just that he believes he has earned a better offer than what he has been given.

You're quite right there Patler, and I guess we just all assumed he was concerned about injury...nothing else made a lot of sense. To me, anyways.

Yes, he certainly earned more, but if injury isn't the concern then I really do think he should just play football and let the money take care of itself. I just can't see the Pack - or any team, for that matter - wanting to be known as the team that pays their feature back peanuts. Remember the big deal made when Brad Johnson was going to be the Vikes starting QB for $1mil/year?

On the other side though, I do wonder why the Pack tendered him at the minimum. Because they could, I guess. I wonder what they said to him when it was offered?

I'm trying to put myself in TT's shoes...what he was thinking with the offer, and what would be going through his head now. Give the guy a minimum contract so he can get into camp immediately. The minimum because it's the simplest way to do it, and it's a signal that it's a temporary thing. Tell him we'll work on a reasonable deal. When Grant refused to sign, I can't help but think TT would've thought he was making a PITA out of himself, and being a little obstinate.

The comment others have made is accurate as well of course. He's not holding out, so you can't get too upset with him. He's just not under contract. I'm actually a little surprised the team is letting him work out - although I guess if he does hurt himself doing that, they're on the hook for pretty much nothing.

[RashanGary]

I don't know if a player has ever gotten a monster deal at this stage. It's pretty much status-quo what TT offered. When you uncover diamonds in the rough, you get to have them cheap for a couple years. This is very unusual that a guy is demanding more this early in the process (but grants situation is very unsusual so you never know how it might pan out).

[cpk1994]

I think Grant has more leverage than some of you are willing to acknowledge.


I agree. and I think he's going to get a lot of money too because the Packers also know he's really good. It'll be done before the year starts, and it will make jaws drop. How long did we let Brett play for 2nd round money?A lot longer than 8 games, that's for sure.

[Gunakor]

Lucrative deals are not warranted after 9 productive games. He has to show he can last a full season before a lucrative deal is warranted. What if he's just another guy, who happened to get lucky for half a season? Geez man, you make it sound so certain he's going to be our starter for the near future. What if he does turn out to be the next Eric Rhett?



Then how do you explain the deals given to rookies who have never played an NFL game? Should Grant continue to be "punished" just because he was overlooked in the draft?

I look forward to a new CBA worked out in the near future that includes a rookie salary cap. Rookies these days make waaaaaaaaaay to much money. Matt Ryan and Jamarcus Russell have Ben Rothlisberger type contracts coming out of the draft. Are you going to tell me that you are okay with this? Big Ben has won a Super Bowl! What have Ryan or Russell done?

Eric Rhett... Got his money after having one terrific season, just like Grant is trying to do now. Rhett fell of the face of the NFL immediately after. Bad investment. One would think GM's would learn from Tampa Bay's mistake. One season doesn't prove anything. Grant is still unproven, and should be paid as such.

I'm not saying he doesn't deserve more than the minimum tender he was offered, but for crying out loud sign the damn thing and get on the field for now. Tell your agent to continue negotiations, but get with the team and get ready for the season. I'm absolutely certain Thompson would work something out down the road.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think Grant has more leverage than some of you are willing to acknowledge.

I agree. and I think he's going to get a lot of money too because the Packers also know he's really good. It'll be done before the year starts, and it will make jaws drop. How long did we let Brett play for 2nd round money?

A lot longer than 8 games, that's for sure.

Favre got one after his third year. His second year with the Packers. (Grant has been in the NFL for three years--one with the Packers.) Favre had thrown 19 TDs and 24 interceptions that year. They signed him to a big deal based on his potential and not really on his production. Actually, there situations aren't that different. Each had one good year (neither of which was a full season). Both sat for a year. The only difference is that Favre started and played horrible in one of the three seasons--while Grant was on IR. Favre also had more leverage because he was going to be a RFA, and that's the reason Grant won't get the type of money Favre got (relative to the salaries back then).

[bobblehead]

A lot of good points made on this issue.

First, Bubba Franks was a similar situation....sort of. We transitioned him with a one year tender and had his rights. Difference is that Bubba put in 5 productive seasons with us and worked his ass off every offseason. Another point about that...Bubba signed a longer deal worth LESS than the one year tender. He gave something up for the longer deal. That is all I ask that RG be expected to do. Paying him more just cuz he played well with nothing in return to the franchise isn't a "fair" compromise.

Second, someone said "why should he be punished for being overlooked in the draft". He wasn't "overlooked", he couldn't even cut it as a full time starter for his college team. The situation was not "out of his control" as someone put it, it was very much in his control and he failed to excel.

Third, someone asked who has more potential, BJack or Grant. Truth is, I THINK grant, but honestly can't say. How about we give BJack 1 year on the practice squad and another 2 years to adjust to NFL speed then compare them on equal footing. The difference at this point is that BJack was contributing in his rookie year already, Grant never really contributed to an NFL team until week 8? last year. When BJack is 25 and has a few years under his belt we can compare them.

Last point was TD for denver. Denver has shown a propensity to pay guys way prematurely I admit and I don't want to follow their model. TD had 1100+ yards as a rookie in 14 games started and was given a 5 year 6.8Million contract before the next season....I have no clue how that compares to todays cap situation or his contract at the time or years til FA or anything, but they did give him a deal after one year so point taken.

MY point on all this goes as follows. RG can't even talk to another team until 2011 (3 seasons) and we are obligated to pay him ABOUT 2.2 Million in that time. Any deal we work out would have to be MINIMUM 5 years to be fair to the packers. Assuming (big assumption) that top Backs make about 6 million at that time with the new collective bargaining that would mean he deserves about 6+6+2.2 or 14.2 million for a 5 year deal.

He is a good citizen, hopefully talented as he looks. If I were GM I would offer him 15 Million for 5 years with about 3.5 garaunteed for this season. That would be a fair deal, and if TT offers that he will be ridiculed on this site mercilessly (people seem to think he should get a BIG deal) so his best course of action is probably to tell RG to pound sand. Anyway I hope it works out.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Eric Rhett... Got his money after having one terrific season, just like Grant is trying to do now. Rhett fell of the face of the NFL immediately after. Bad investment. One would think GM's would learn from Tampa Bay's mistake. One season doesn't prove anything. Grant is still unproven, and should be paid as such.

You bring up Rhett, but the more similar situation is Ahman Green. Ahman sat for two years in Seattle. Then, he had a good 10 game stretch in his first year with the Packers (he took over as the starter when Dorsey got injured in 2000). Sounds VERY familiar, doesn't it? Packers gave him a long-term deal for $3M/year for 5 years. At the time, that was decent money for Ahman, but it ended up being a big bargain for the Packers. It's up to Thompson to evaluate Grant properly and give him an offer accordingly.

[Guiness]

As for bad things happen when you think of them...what a bunch of superstition. As if only thinking good things leads to good things. :roll:

I guess that isn't working out for grant..you don't think he was thinking positive last year when he accumulated those yards..and that it would lead to a lucrative offer?

Maybe not superstition, but there's something to be said for hearing footsteps. You're tense, and yes, shit does happen then.

I'm sending you positive energy now, Mr. Bigguns. Channeling through a pyrite for Health and Wellbeing. Can you feel the difference?

[Guiness]

Eric Rhett... Got his money after having one terrific season, just like Grant is trying to do now. Rhett fell of the face of the NFL immediately after. Bad investment. One would think GM's would learn from Tampa Bay's mistake. One season doesn't prove anything. Grant is still unproven, and should be paid as such.


He actually wasn't so bad. He didn't fall off the face...he held out for half a year, and got his money. But Tampa drafted Warrick Dunn the following spring, and Mike Alsott the year after. Rhett wasn't getting carries, and was sent to Baltimore - where he only started for one season before being displaced by Priest Holmes!

[Guiness]

You bring up Rhett, but the more similar situation is Ahman Green. Ahman sat for two years in Seattle. Then, he had a good 10 game stretch in his first year with the Packers (he took over as the starter when Dorsey got injured in 2000). Sounds VERY familiar, doesn't it? Packers gave him a long-term deal for $3M/year for 5 years. At the time, that was decent money for Ahman, but it ended up being a big bargain for the Packers. It's up to Thompson to evaluate Grant properly and give him an offer accordingly.

Is it similar though? Didn't Green have two accrued seasons in Seattle, so 3 after his year with the Packers? Grant has one...

I like Bobblehead's comment on the 'overlooked in the draft', and what BJack will look like in a few years. Grant wasn't overlooked. His first 2 years, and going into his 3rd were about right for a 6th rounder...one year on the PS, a year on IR, 4th string or so in the Giants TC.

I know RB's are more in an 'instant gratification' position, but having all that time on a roster to gain strength, and learn the game couldn't have hurt him!

[RashanGary]

I'd say 5 years, 20 million would be about what Grant can fetch at this point. Only about 4 of it should be up front.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Maybe I missed it, but when did Grant use the Javon Walker argument about risk of injury as his reason for wanting a better contract? He's not practicing now when he is not signed, but normally the team will not allow them to anyway, because of the injury risk.

I don't recall Grant being quoted as saying he wants a bigger contract because of the risk of injury, just that he believes he has earned a better offer than what he has been given.Facts are not always your friend Sir Patler.

He may not say it but I am willing to bet he is thinking it. I went overboard with the walker comparison but usually when you fear bad things is when they happen in my experience.

I highly doubt he is even aware of Jwalk as he wasn't on the pack when walker was here.

As for bad things happen when you think of them...what a bunch of superstition. As if only thinking good things leads to good things. :roll:

I guess that isn't working out for grant..you don't think he was thinking positive last year when he accumulated those yards..and that it would lead to a lucrative offer?


Lucrative deals are not warranted after 9 productive games. He has to show he can last a full season before a lucrative deal is warranted. What if he's just another guy, who happened to get lucky for half a season? Geez man, you make it sound so certain he's going to be our starter for the near future. What if he does turn out to be the next Eric Rhett?



I think Grant has more leverage than some of you are willing to acknowledge. Yes his performance was for less than a year, but it was consistent enough against enough different teams, it was very, very good, not just adequate and it was done without a stellar line; which indicate it was not a fluke. TT and MM know they need Grant this year. He made a big difference last year.

I am of the belief that Brett Favre aided in Ryan Grant's production tremendously just by being #4 under center. We'll see whether it was a fluke or not this year. Defenses won't be gameplanning the same way against us. Not until AR proves himself anyway. RG will probably be the main focus of alot of DC's when coming up with gameplans against us, something that he didn't have to deal with even once last year. The situation is not the same, so no, we don't know whether last year was a fluke or not.

Whatcha talkin bout willis? When did I EVER suggest he warranted a lucrative deal (btw, lucrative is quite subjective).

I suggested that is WHAT HE WAS THINKING.

Try and follow along.

BTW, i would stop with the Rhett analogy...actually works against you. Rhett had over 1000 his second year..so I and the rest of us would be happy if Grant did that.

He did hold out after that season, but STILL led the team in rushing that year and he only played 9 games.

And, he played in 7 total seasons in the NFL. That is a nice career in the NFL..especially at the RB position.

[bobblehead]

I think the rhett analogy is right on, he tried to hold his team hostage, didn't get a new deal!!! when he finally reported to the team, and finally faded away with little accolade with a different team later. His career was somewhat promising, but he tried to get tough and actually lost out on a much better payday if he had just played full seasons in his prime.

I like RG, I hope he gets a long term deal that is beneficial to BOTH parties, but if he wants bigtime money with virtually no leverage....well, I hope he ends up following the rhett path.

edit: I found this from a buccanear website and it sums up eric rhett well
==================================================

As for the Rhett question, I really doubt I’m the only one who could answer it, but it’s nice of you to say so. Many die-hard Buc fans would probably notice a few small inaccuracies in your question, in fact. Let’s get to those first. Number one, Rhett’s first name was actually spelled Errict, although he pronounced it Eric. Number two, Rhett was a second-round pick of the Buccaneers in 1994, the 34th player taken overall, out of Florida. And number three, it’s definitely too harsh of an assessment to say Rhett never panned out.

Rhett, in fact, is the sixth-leading rusher in franchise history, just 204 yards back of Ricky Bell.

Rhett’s 1,207-yard campaign in 1995 ranks as the fourth-best rushing season in team annals, and his 11 rushing touchdowns that year are second best to the 13 James Wilder scored in 1984. Rhett also had 1,011 rushing yards in his rookie season, most of it in the last seven games of the year. That makes him one of just three players in team history to have two 1,000-yard seasons (also Wilder and Warrick Dunn).

Probably the defining moment of Rhett’s career, however, was when he chose to hold out for the first seven games of 1996 in search of a reworked contract. He didn’t get it, and when he returned to the Bucs, he never really regained a full foothold on the job. He did finish the 1996 season as the team’s leading rusher, but Tampa Bay drafted Mike Alstott in 1996 and Warrick Dunn in 1997 and never looked back.

Rhett spent three more seasons in the league and eventually finished with 4,143 career rushing yards, 89 catches for 552 yards and 32 total touchdowns. His best post-Buc season came with Baltimore in 1999, when he rushed for 852 yards on 236 carries. (Backing up Rhett that season: Priest Holmes.) So, in all, Rhett played seven years and 86 games in the league. That may not sound like a long time, but the average career for an NFL running back is notoriously short. The Answer Man always found Rhett to be a nice guy, as well, which is perhaps why we’re taking the time to defend him here.
================================================== ==

This is basically what I'm saying...the guy thought he was god's gift, got tough with no leverage and never had 1,000 yards again. Again, I hope RG gets a deal fair to him AND the packers, but if we move on he might become eric rhett the second.

[RashanGary]

I'm kind of with you, bobblehead. I like Ryan Grant. I want him to play in GB for the next 5 years. I want him to get paid. I don't know if the timing is just right though. Another half a year and I think the timing would be right. Now, I think it's just a little early.

[Patler]

I like Bobblehead's comment on the 'overlooked in the draft', and what BJack will look like in a few years. Grant wasn't overlooked. His first 2 years, and going into his 3rd were about right for a 6th rounder...one year on the PS, a year on IR, 4th string or so in the Giants TC.


I don't get your point. Grant was not drafted. He was an undrafted free agent, never signed a drafted rookie's contract, which even for low draft choices often have some type of bonus(es), possible escalators etc. The year to year minimum, and his unfortunate, offseason lacerated forearm that caused him to miss an entire season without gaining a year's service are what have put him in this unusual situation.

[Patler]

I think the rhett analogy is right on, he tried to hold his team hostage, didn't get a new deal!!!

edit: I found this from a buccanear website and it sums up eric rhett well
==================================================

Probably the defining moment of Rhett’s career, however, was when he chose to hold out for the first seven games of 1996 in search of a reworked contract.

================================================== ==

This is basically what I'm saying...the guy thought he was god's gift, got tough with no leverage and never had 1,000 yards again. Again, I hope RG gets a deal fair to him AND the packers, but if we move on he might become eric rhett the second.

The situation with Rhett is completely different. He was drafted in the second round, 34th player taken according to the story. Presumably he got a signing bonus and/or other bonuses, a salary more than the minimum,etc; and he was still under contract and held out.

Grant is not under contract, and is just negotiating what contract he is willing to sign with the Packers, just like Rhett did before his rookie season; just like every other drafted player has. Grant has never had the opportunity to negotiate, he has had to take what was offered. This is his first opportunity to get more than the absolute minimum contract required.

Who knows what Grant would settle for. Maybe he would like a nice 3 year contract, with a modest bonus and escalator clauses for performance. Maybe he is just trying to say to the Packers, "I have as much potential over the next three seasons as Brandon Jackson. Pay me what you are paying him."

[texaspackerbacker]

Some of you guys are looking at this all wrong.

Who would you rather pay big money to? Adrian Peterson after one injury curtailed season, or Emmitt Smith after 7 or 8 or whatever it was when Dallas rewarded him with his big contract?

I hope nobody fails to have the good sense to say Peterson.

Experience means nothing and lack of mileage means everything when you are talking about running backs. The ideal would be signing Grant for about 5-7 years right now for something like $4-6 million a season. We would have him through his prime years, and after that contract, we do like Ahman Green, bid him a fond farewell and good luck finding somebody to waste money on his declining years.

The ONLY justification for not doing that is if somebody does NOT believe that Grant is a unique super high quality runner. I certainly believe he is every bit of that.

Comparisons to Bubba? Come on! Bubba was a first round pick who was a perpetual disappointment. Grant we got for a sixth round pick, and he played like an all pro. Comparisons to Jackson--or Wynn or Morency, etc.? Did we see even a fraction of the burst--the rare combination of speed and power from those guys we saw from Grant? No way.

[bobblehead]

I think the rhett analogy is right on, he tried to hold his team hostage, didn't get a new deal!!!

edit: I found this from a buccanear website and it sums up eric rhett well
==================================================

Probably the defining moment of Rhett’s career, however, was when he chose to hold out for the first seven games of 1996 in search of a reworked contract.

================================================== ==

This is basically what I'm saying...the guy thought he was god's gift, got tough with no leverage and never had 1,000 yards again. Again, I hope RG gets a deal fair to him AND the packers, but if we move on he might become eric rhett the second.

The situation with Rhett is completely different. He was drafted in the second round, 34th player taken according to the story. Presumably he got a signing bonus and/or other bonuses, a salary more than the minimum,etc; and he was still under contract and held out.

Grant is not under contract, and is just negotiating what contract he is willing to sign with the Packers, just like Rhett did before his rookie season; just like every other drafted player has. Grant has never had the opportunity to negotiate, he has had to take what was offered. This is his first opportunity to get more than the absolute minimum contract required.

Who knows what Grant would settle for. Maybe he would like a nice 3 year contract, with a modest bonus and escalator clauses for performance. Maybe he is just trying to say to the Packers, "I have as much potential over the next three seasons as Brandon Jackson. Pay me what you are paying him."

He doesn't really have the opportunity to get more than the minimum, he lost that opportunity when he couldn't put together a good enough college career to be drafted. Grant is effectively under contract, the year 3 minimum tender contract of an undrafted FA. And finally I'm sure he would like a nice 3 year contract with a modest bonus ect, since he isn't a FA for 3 seasons that would work out nice for him, packers pay now when they don't have to and he still hits FA on queue. Again, he has to GIVE something as well, like 2 years worth of his FA time.

In regards to him not being like rhett....yes he is in this way. Young guy who has done very little (rhett did more) who can't afford to throw away the starters job and piss off the franchise cuz they might just move on without you and you never will get your payday and you will find out you really weren't that great (rhett never got 1000 with baltimore).

Now that being said I believe RG is the real deal, but again, he has to put in another 10 games or so THIS season before he starts asking for things, or else we might just move on and his career will basically be cut WAY short since he can't go anywhere else yet.

[RashanGary]

Patler,

I don't remember one player EVER trying to negotiate after 1 accrued NFL season. I understand that it doesn't seem fair that other players were drafted and he wasn't. It doesn't seem fair that he lost a year to a night club incident, but that is where he is at. Anything the Packers do to help Grant is completely out of the ordinary and done very much in good will (not out of any power or right to negotiate that Grant has). Show me one undrafted player that did this after one accrued season. I don't think it's ever happeend.

Atari Bigby should be doing the same.

[vince]

Some of you guys are looking at this all wrong.

Who would you rather pay big money to? Adrian Peterson after one injury curtailed season, or Emmitt Smith after 7 or 8 or whatever it was when Dallas rewarded him with his big contract?

I hope nobody fails to have the good sense to say Peterson.

Experience means nothing and lack of mileage means everything when you are talking about running backs. The ideal would be signing Grant for about 5-7 years right now for something like $4-6 million a season. We would have him through his prime years, and after that contract, we do like Ahman Green, bid him a fond farewell and good luck finding somebody to waste money on his declining years.

The ONLY justification for not doing that is if somebody does NOT believe that Grant is a unique super high quality runner. I certainly believe he is every bit of that.

Comparisons to Bubba? Come on! Bubba was a first round pick who was a perpetual disappointment. Grant we got for a sixth round pick, and he played like an all pro. Comparisons to Jackson--or Wynn or Morency, etc.? Did we see even a fraction of the burst--the rare combination of speed and power from those guys we saw from Grant? No way.
I'm with Tex on this, although I see the more ideal situation being an incentive-laden 4-5 year deal worth $15-20 mil. I think Grant would take that, and it puts him under contract until he's basically 30, when he will have worked through his peak production years for a running back.

[RashanGary]

I could easily see the 5 year, 20 million dollar deal you just laid out, Vince. It helps the Packers by guaranteeing his prime for a good rate and for Grant it gets him paid 3 years early (taking away his monster injury risk). This is the one situation I see as a win/win for both parties. If Jackson really has made the strides they say he has, I think with the new QB that it would be great to have a 1/2 punch at RB that can get the job done and take a seasons pounding.

[Patler]

Patler,

I don't remember one player EVER trying to negotiate after 1 accrued NFL season. I understand that it doesn't seem fair that other players were drafted and he wasn't. It doesn't seem fair that he lost a year to a night club incident, but that is where he is at. Anything the Packers do to help Grant is completely out of the ordinary and done very much in good will (not out of any power or right to negotiate that Grant has). Show me one undrafted player that did this after one accrued season. I don't think it's ever happeend.

Atari Bigby should be doing the same.

That's EXACTLY the point. Grant's situation IS different. As his agent said, in 25 years of being a player's agent, he has never seen anyone in the same situation before, a combination of factors that make his situation unique.

Can you name a first year player, operating under an URFA contract, who had the impact that Grant did? (In the modern NFL, not the Willie Woods of the past!)

Coupled with the fact that he has three years of NFL training experience, but no accrued time?

At a position with the shortest career longevity of any?

[vince]

In the rankings of #1 running back deals, a 5/20 deal is NOT a "big payday" as many of those arguing against signing him long-term are saying he hasn't earned yet. That puts him toward the bottom of the payscale for #1 backs - and behind what many of this year's first round draft pick RBs will get - none of whom have stepped foot on an NFL field, much less proven to be a league-leading rusher at the NFL level with every opportunity given him - as Grant has.

Grant's college career is irrelevant ancient history. What matters is what his intelligence, work ethic, attitude, skills and production have put him in position to give the Packers team today. The best way for the Packers to ensure themselves of having a top-tier productive running back for the greatest possible value is to sign Ryan Grant to a 4-5 year deal now. The closer he gets to UFA, the more he'll cost to keep. A fair deal now for Ryan Grant is also the best deal for the team.

[RashanGary]

Kurt Warner, Antonio Gates, Adam Vinitiari, Rod Smith - just to name a few.

I aknowledge that it's a somewhat uniquely crummy situation for Grant (with his age and position). In a sense (relative to other NFL players) he certainly deserves an upgrade to his contract. However, there is a matter of leverage and a buisness aspect that promotes NFL GM's to find under the radar type players and develop them for cheap. The Packers have a lot of leverage (something you are not acknolwedging at all).

I'm all about locking Grant up to a 5 year, 20 or so million dollar deal but that is well below what he is worth. In his situation it might be the right decision though. He's really in a rough spot and just taking 4 mil up front on a 5 year deal might be the right thing to secure his future. IF that is what was offered, I'd probably take it knowing the very real injury threat at my position and how many years left until I hit UFA.

[RashanGary]

In the rankings of #1 running back deals, a 5/20 deal is NOT a "big payday" as many of those arguing against signing him long-term are saying he hasn't earned yet. That puts him toward the bottom of the payscale for #1 backs - and behind what many of this year's first round draft pick RBs will get - none of whom have stepped foot on an NFL field, much less proven to be a league-leading rusher at the NFL level with every opportunity given him - as Grant has.

Grant's college career is irrelevant ancient history. What matters is what his intelligence, work ethic, attitude and production have put him in position to give the Packers team today. The best way for the Packers to ensure themselves of having a top-tier productive running back for the greatest possible value is to sign Ryan Grant to a 4-5 year deal now. The closer he gets to UFA, the more he'll cost to keep. A fair deal now for Ryan Grant is also the best deal for the team.

Honestly, Vince, who cares if we have him for that last year of a 4 year deal. I'd be just as happy having him cheap for three years but that is not fair to Grant. The deal you suggest is very fair and very good for both sides. With the leverage the Packers have, it's a little Grant friendly, but with how unique his situation is, I think it's the right thing (not required or usual thing) for the Packers to give him some money now (even though they don't have to)

[Patler]

He doesn't really have the opportunity to get more than the minimum, he lost that opportunity when he couldn't put together a good enough college career to be drafted. Grant is effectively under contract, the year 3 minimum tender contract of an undrafted FA. And finally I'm sure he would like a nice 3 year contract with a modest bonus ect, since he isn't a FA for 3 seasons that would work out nice for him, packers pay now when they don't have to and he still hits FA on queue. Again, he has to GIVE something as well, like 2 years worth of his FA time.

In regards to him not being like rhett....yes he is in this way. Young guy who has done very little (rhett did more) who can't afford to throw away the starters job and piss off the franchise cuz they might just move on without you and you never will get your payday and you will find out you really weren't that great (rhett never got 1000 with baltimore).

Now that being said I believe RG is the real deal, but again, he has to put in another 10 games or so THIS season before he starts asking for things, or else we might just move on and his career will basically be cut WAY short since he can't go anywhere else yet.

What makes you think that a player, regardless of experience, who has no contract, is bound to play for whatever the team offers? Most undrafted free agents do, because they have not had an impact to bargain for more. Grant has had enough of an impact to bargain for SOMETHING more than the minimum, and should do it. As I wrote in another post, Grant has no bargaining power only if you think MM and TT don't care if he is on the team. If they are counting on him not only to make the team, but to be the starter, he has bargaining power.

Now I do NOT think he has the power to negotiate a long term contract with a lot of guaranteed money, but certainly he now has the ability to negotiate a contract similar to a higher draft choice. He has shown as much in 10 NFL games as Brandon Jackson did in college, who really had only one season of significance at Nebraska. Grant also had one of the best freshman years of any back ever at ND.

There is a huge difference in my opinion between a guy like Rhett (or Javon Walker) who signed a decent contract, was paid at a level for one who is expected to produce and is expected be a good player, who than refuses to honor his contract and holds out; and a guy like Grant, who has no contract and is offered the bare minimum that any player like him has to be offered. Rhett (and Walker) were paid good money. Grant has not been and has not been offered that.

Once Grant signs, he loses any bargaining power that he has. He is then completely at the mercy of the Packers as to any renegotiated contract. The only real bargaining power he has is when he is not under contract.

Why should Grant have to sign the same contract that Joe Toledo did? Grant has shown more potential than Joe Toledo

[MJZiggy]

I absolutely agree with Patler. There's no reason the Packers can't offer a contract with a low base salary and escalator clauses based on performance. If he performs as expected, he's paid like one of the better RBs in the league, but if he was a fluke then he doesn't see the cash. He gets what he wants and stays hungry.

[RashanGary]

I hope they get Grant done on a 5 year deal worth about 20 mil and having 4 or 5 of that up front. That's not what he would get if he was a UFA (not even close), but it guarantees Grant financial security for the rest of his life (if he makes even average choices and he seems like a guy that would). He gives up the shot at the real monster unless he defys odds and plays for a long time at a high level, but he does get some real security.

I see it as more Grant friendly that team friendly, but in a world where doing the right thing is sometimes better than doing the shewd thing, I think it's the right move for the Packers to hammer something out and show the rest of the team that the Packers will treat you right if you earn it (while at the same time maintaining a standard of lower end contracts in our lockerroom)

[RashanGary]

One thing I think is overlooked with what Thompson is doing, is HOW he's managing the cap.

Let's say Grant gets a 4 mil/yr deal. That's pretty cheap for a 1,000-1,200 yard per year back. Kampman has a lower end deal (5 mil per year) for what he does. Driver and Taush have lower end deals. Harris has a lower end deal. Woodson's is average. Barnett's is average. Wells is lower end. Clilftons is fair for what he does.


There really is no one curving the payscale and the way the Packers work, everyone is together for most of the year. Jennings probably won't notice that Barrian is getting 50 mil over 6 years as much as he notices Drivers modest contract. This year or next off season when he goes to hammer out a deal, there is a good chance he stays for a 6 year 40 million dollar deal (similar to Barnett's) instead of a 6 year 60 million dollar deal (what he should get if he's getting paid in relation to Barrian).

Jolly, Hawk, Spitz, Bigby, Jones, and whoever else steps up should all get locked up early and paid on the Pakcers (lower) scale instead of the UFA scale that throws lockerrooms out of whack and all but guarantees no chance at SB wins.

Locking Grant up to a deal ealry and cheap (20 mil over 5 years) fits in to what I see the Packers tryijng to do. Let's be real though, they don't have to do it. If they wanted to be pricks, Grant would either play or end hsi career with nothing. If they don't want to look like complete a-holes, they should rpobably do it and Grant deserves it so it's not like they're bending over backwards either. I would rather see it happen half way through the season but if it happens now, I think it has to be long term and has to be well below Grants UFA value.

[Patler]

Kurt Warner, Antonio Gates, Adam Vinitiari, Rod Smith - just to name a few.



Kurt Warner was a second year pro when he finally got in and played, and was given $2 million for the very next season.

Antonio Gates only had 24 receptions his first season, had his "breakout season" the second year, and was given $7 million the very next season in a signing bonus and salary.

Adam Vinatieri is a kicker (enough said! :lol: ); but in addition to that, was only a 77% FG kicker his first year and even missed 3 extra points.

Rod Smith, the Bronco??? Had 6 receptions his first season and 16 his second. Was in his third year of NFL seniority before he had a breakout season.

None have the same combination of factors as Grant. While Warner and Gates are close, having broken out in their second seasons, and Warner as an "oldie", each got a big contract the very next season. Both examples actually support Grants' position in this.

[RashanGary]

Getting a deal in your third season is different than after 1/2 season and I would rather see Grant wait 1/2 more season which would be more typical. I'm not saying don't pay him. I'm just saying do it more typical to how other gusy were done rather than pressing the issue. If it has to be done now because of age and injury risk, I'm OK iwth it, but it's going to ahve to be 5 years and not front loaded IMO.

[vince]

In the rankings of #1 running back deals, a 5/20 deal is NOT a "big payday" as many of those arguing against signing him long-term are saying he hasn't earned yet. That puts him toward the bottom of the payscale for #1 backs - and behind what many of this year's first round draft pick RBs will get - none of whom have stepped foot on an NFL field, much less proven to be a league-leading rusher at the NFL level with every opportunity given him - as Grant has.

Grant's college career is irrelevant ancient history. What matters is what his intelligence, work ethic, attitude and production have put him in position to give the Packers team today. The best way for the Packers to ensure themselves of having a top-tier productive running back for the greatest possible value is to sign Ryan Grant to a 4-5 year deal now. The closer he gets to UFA, the more he'll cost to keep. A fair deal now for Ryan Grant is also the best deal for the team.

Honestly, Vince, who cares if we have him for that last year of a 4 year deal. I'd be just as happy having him cheap for three years but that is not fair to Grant. The deal you suggest is very fair and very good for both sides. With the leverage the Packers have, it's a little Grant friendly, but with how unique his situation is, I think it's the right thing (not required or usual thing) for the Packers to give him some money now (even though they don't have to)
I'd care. I expect Grant to be productive until he's thirty. Why would you want to allow that productivity to be with another team and/or end his contract a year before he begins to decline, which then puts him in position for a huge contract that goes through his declining years.

Sign him now for a fair contract through his peak production years and let him go then - not before.

The fact that the Packers have all the leverage now is the very reason they should lock him up now for the period they believe he'll achieve maximum production. History says that for a running back, that's about age 30. Perhaps a year or two beyond that...

[RashanGary]

Let's put it this way, if something gets hammmered out, I'd bet it will be 5 years, not 4 because 1 extra year for the Packers is almost nothing for the additional 10 or 15 million dollars they are giving up.

I'm not even in a big disagreement with you or Patler. I just think you guys think there is some urgency for the team to get something done when I think 90% of the urgency comes from Grants side.

[Patler]

Let's put it this way, if something gets hammmered out, I'd bet it will be 5 years, not 4 because 1 extra year for the Packers is almost nothing for the additional 10 or 15 million dollars they are giving up.

I'm not even in a big disagreement with you or Patler. I just think you guys think there is some urgency for the team to get something done when I think 90% of the urgency comes from Grants side.

I don't think there is an urgency for the team to do it. But I think Grant is doing the smart thing for himself right now. I think the team wants him and will negotiate something better than the contract currently offered.

I don't think a big money, long term deal is in the cards. I don't think the Packers would do that now with Grant. With that in mind, I expect a 3, maybe 4 year deal (more likely 3). Grant can get enough in that to set himself up nicely for the rest of his life, if he is not a fool; and still position himself for a potential FA run in 3 years. A moderate signing bonus, and performance incentives not unlike what Ahman Green was given two years ago. I think that is an arrangement both will find benefits and disadvantages to. Accordingly, it is the type of compromise that could work here.

[bobblehead]

Let's put it this way, if something gets hammmered out, I'd bet it will be 5 years, not 4 because 1 extra year for the Packers is almost nothing for the additional 10 or 15 million dollars they are giving up.

I'm not even in a big disagreement with you or Patler. I just think you guys think there is some urgency for the team to get something done when I think 90% of the urgency comes from Grants side.

I don't think there is an urgency for the team to do it. But I think Grant is doing the smart thing for himself right now. I think the team wants him and will negotiate something better than the contract currently offered.

I don't think a big money, long term deal is in the cards. I don't think the Packers would do that now with Grant. With that in mind, I expect a 3, maybe 4 year deal (more likely 3). Grant can get enough in that to set himself up nicely for the rest of his life, if he is not a fool; and still position himself for a potential FA run in 3 years. A moderate signing bonus, and performance incentives not unlike what Ahman Green was given two years ago. I think that is an arrangement both will find benefits and disadvantages to. Accordingly, it is the type of compromise that could work here.

I agree with you to an extent as well, but again, 3 years is giving him money for no reason or compromise. We have to buy out at MINIMUM one year of FA and I would want 2. A 5 year 15 million deal is about right as I posted earlier. This factors in the money he deserves for said time frame based on where he will be in each year, it gives him security now and gives the packers 2 years of his FA and settles the issue. If you give him 5 years 20 million you are effectively giving him 9 million for each of his 2 years of FA he is giving up and that is too much.

One point we are all missing (sort of) is none of us know exactly what RG is actually asking for so we don't really know if he is being reasonable or not. I have said we shouldn't give him a big deal, but that doesn't mean I don't wanna give him anything....as far as him doing the "right" thing, I think he should have signed the deal and put in another good half season then asked for an extension, just my opinion. People say its different cuz he's not under contract, but I would counter that with its different for the team cuz they don't have to give him anything more than the minimum.

Despite how high most of us are on RG, he is NOT a sure thing to be an NFL stud, yes he looked good, but the road to bad contracts is laden with guys who looked good for 8 games.

My final point is that some are comparing him to 2nd round picks and their contracts and if your point is that we should give him the same 4 year contract that BJack got last year....well I agree fully. I think most of us are closer in our thoughts than it sounds like to be honest. Again, its not that I think we shouldn't try and lock him up, but to do so under the circumstances of what he has accomplished so far and the leverage he has....well, the team simply has to get something in return. 5 years 20 mill with 4 gauranteed is simply too much. 5 at 15 with 3 gauranteed is about right considering.

[texaspackerbacker]

This thread has taken a definite turn toward good sense lately. 4-5 years at $15-20 million is good. A little longer would be better. Somebody said they don't care about having Grant for the 4th year of a contract. I'm thinking Grant, barring serious injury, should have more great years than that in him. I'd say 5-7, and if we miss his 7th from now, no problem. You sign him for too little, and there is too much temptation to sign him for a second big contract, which by then would be a mistake.

[Rastak]

This thread has taken a definite turn toward good sense lately. 4-5 years at $15-20 million is good. A little longer would be better. Somebody said they don't care about having Grant for the 4th year of a contract. I'm thinking Grant, barring serious injury, should have more great years than that in him. I'd say 5-7, and if we miss his 7th from now, no problem. You sign him for too little, and there is too much temptation to sign him for a second big contract, which by then would be a mistake.


Maybe you could explain why he would in his right mind do a 7 year deal unless it was blockbuster in up front money?

[Gunakor]

This thread has taken a definite turn toward good sense lately. 4-5 years at $15-20 million is good. A little longer would be better. Somebody said they don't care about having Grant for the 4th year of a contract. I'm thinking Grant, barring serious injury, should have more great years than that in him. I'd say 5-7, and if we miss his 7th from now, no problem. You sign him for too little, and there is too much temptation to sign him for a second big contract, which by then would be a mistake.

Long term deals aren't always in the best interest of the players either. Sure it provides security, but then you have to deal with Brian Urlacher scenarios where the pay scale increases much faster than the escalators in the contract. Now you have holdouts because rookies coming out of the draft immediately make more money than the veteran who signed that long term deal.

Specifically as relates to RG's contract situation, I am worried about one of these scenarios if we were to sign him for 5+ years at a modest price and he outplays that contract in year 2. We all know TT's stance on negotiating new contracts with players that have multiple years on thier contract. I'd feel better with a shorter contract that he probably won't outplay, or at least he'd be happy with until the final year of the contract.

People whine about how much more money it would cost us at that time, and while I acknowledge that the price would be much higher, I still don't see the problem. We have more than enough money to offer RG a new contract in a 2 or 3 years, at whatever price he's worth at that time. Something I feel we'd have to do anyway should we sign him for 5+ years, but the chances of a holdout or other type of distraction are much less if we only sign him for 2 or 3.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Kurt Warner, Antonio Gates, Adam Vinitiari, Rod Smith - just to name a few.



C'mon, Justin. That is ludicrous. Patler's point was IMPACT.

Warner didn't have an immediate impact, he was a backup his first year with the Rams. And, if not for Green's injury doesn't play the following year.

Gates: 24 receptions his rookie year. That ain't much of an impact.

Rod Smith: 22 receptions combined for his first 2 years...that is an impact? Yikes.

Vinatieri: Um, he wasn't an impact player in 96 when he was a rookie. Not unless you wanna consider his impact on the Packers and desmond's return in the super bowl. :oops: He was about the same type of kicker as Dave Rayner.

[texaspackerbacker]

This thread has taken a definite turn toward good sense lately. 4-5 years at $15-20 million is good. A little longer would be better. Somebody said they don't care about having Grant for the 4th year of a contract. I'm thinking Grant, barring serious injury, should have more great years than that in him. I'd say 5-7, and if we miss his 7th from now, no problem. You sign him for too little, and there is too much temptation to sign him for a second big contract, which by then would be a mistake.


Maybe you could explain why he would in his right mind do a 7 year deal unless it was blockbuster in up front money?

First of all, security--from his point of view, in case he did end up a lot more mediocre than I'm thinking;

Secondly, I would assume there would be a large amount of guaranteed money if not actual bonus up front. With the Packers current cap surplus, some form other than a bonus might work better.

Sweeten the pot with big money up front. Then keep it low in the middle years, but sharply larger in the end.

Example: 7 years, $35 million: $10.5 million bonus ($7 million of it roster bonus or whatever that counts right away), $1.5 million the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years, $3.5 m 4th, $4.5 m 5th, $6 m 6th, $8 million 7th year. That would be $9 million against the cap the first year, $2 million each the 2nd and 3rd. $4 million the 4th, $5 million the 5th, $6.5 million the 6th, and $8.5 million the 7th.

That should be plenty of incentive for him to stay and play all 7 years, while still giving the Packers the ability to cut him before the 6th or 7th if he fades.

The last time I was dreaming up detailed deals like this was when Javon Walker wanted to get a deal a year early. Hopefully this will work out better than that did.

Signing him for just 2 or 3 years would mean we would have the horrible decision in 2 or 3 years of paying him way past his prime or losing him while he still had several good years left. 6 or 7 now is ideal.

[Guiness]

What makes you think that a player, regardless of experience, who has no contract, is bound to play for whatever the team offers? Most undrafted free agents do, because they have not had an impact to bargain for more. Grant has had enough of an impact to bargain for SOMETHING more than the minimum, and should do it. As I wrote in another post, Grant has no bargaining power only if you think MM and TT don't care if he is on the team. If they are counting on him not only to make the team, but to be the starter, he has bargaining power.

Now I do NOT think he has the power to negotiate a long term contract with a lot of guaranteed money, but certainly he now has the ability to negotiate a contract similar to a higher draft choice. He has shown as much in 10 NFL games as Brandon Jackson did in college, who really had only one season of significance at Nebraska. Grant also had one of the best freshman years of any back ever at ND.



I do like that spin Patler, and it makes a good point...I would have no problem if he were to get a deal similar to what BJack has. He has shown us at least that much, so I can't see the Pack having a problem with that.

Why is he bound to play for whatever the team offers? I guess those that are thinking a little more my way say he is bound because the alternative is to see if Safeway is hiring. When it comes right down to it, if the Pack, for whatever reason, won't budge, he has to sign if he wants to play in the NFL, doesn't he?

We haven't heard anything about his demands. I hope he's not looking for top flight money :?

I do, however, think those that are saying if we offer him a deal, it should be for 5 yrs, to offer some tangeable benefit to the team...like the Ahman deal did.

[Patler]

Why is he bound to play for whatever the team offers? I guess those that are thinking a little more my way say he is bound because the alternative is to see if Safeway is hiring. When it comes right down to it, if the Pack, for whatever reason, won't budge, he has to sign if he wants to play in the NFL, doesn't he?


The same can be said for any player who is not an URFA, yet time and time again we see players who refuse to sign the contracts tendered. Even tagged players refuse to sign, as Bubba did. The have no alternative either. Now in the end, often the tagged players sign their tenders just before the start of the season; and if the Packers were not to budge, Grant might have to too.

What Grant is banking on, and I think he is correct about, is that the Packers want him enough to pay him more than a minimum wage contract. Why wouldn't they? The only question is can the two sides find a common ground?

[woodbuck27]

A lot of good points made on this issue.

First, Bubba Franks was a similar situation....sort of. We transitioned him with a one year tender and had his rights. Difference is that Bubba put in 5 productive seasons with us and worked his ass off every offseason. Another point about that...Bubba signed a longer deal worth LESS than the one year tender. He gave something up for the longer deal. That is all I ask that RG be expected to do. Paying him more just cuz he played well with nothing in return to the franchise isn't a "fair" compromise.

Second, someone said "why should he be punished for being overlooked in the draft". He wasn't "overlooked", he couldn't even cut it as a full time starter for his college team. The situation was not "out of his control" as someone put it, it was very much in his control and he failed to excel.

Third, someone asked who has more potential, BJack or Grant. Truth is, I THINK grant, but honestly can't say. How about we give BJack 1 year on the practice squad and another 2 years to adjust to NFL speed then compare them on equal footing. The difference at this point is that BJack was contributing in his rookie year already, Grant never really contributed to an NFL team until week 8? last year. When BJack is 25 and has a few years under his belt we can compare them.

Last point was TD for denver. Denver has shown a propensity to pay guys way prematurely I admit and I don't want to follow their model. TD had 1100+ yards as a rookie in 14 games started and was given a 5 year 6.8Million contract before the next season....I have no clue how that compares to todays cap situation or his contract at the time or years til FA or anything, but they did give him a deal after one year so point taken.

MY point on all this goes as follows. RG can't even talk to another team until 2011 (3 seasons) and we are obligated to pay him ABOUT 2.2 Million in that time. Any deal we work out would have to be MINIMUM 5 years to be fair to the packers. Assuming (big assumption) that top Backs make about 6 million at that time with the new collective bargaining that would mean he deserves about 6+6+2.$2 or 14.2 million for a 5 year deal.

He is a good citizen, hopefully talented as he looks. If I were GM I would offer him 15 Million for 5 years with about 3.5 garaunteed for this season. That would be a fair deal, and if TT offers that he think he should get a BIG deal) so his best course of action is probably to tell RG to pound sand. Anyway I hope it works out.

Excellent proposal but would RG's agent recommend 5 Yr's?

From TT's perspective. I'd go with $2 M - $2.5 tops and the gurantees now on a two year deal.

TT should not be seeing this as a situation that straps him in for the future. Rather this as something he'll treat as unique or ''that was then and this is now''.

[bobblehead]

He doesn't really have the opportunity to get more than the minimum, he lost that opportunity when he couldn't put together a good enough college career to be drafted. Grant is effectively under contract, the year 3 minimum tender contract of an undrafted FA. And finally I'm sure he would like a nice 3 year contract with a modest bonus ect, since he isn't a FA for 3 seasons that would work out nice for him, packers pay now when they don't have to and he still hits FA on queue. Again, he has to GIVE something as well, like 2 years worth of his FA time.

In regards to him not being like rhett....yes he is in this way. Young guy who has done very little (rhett did more) who can't afford to throw away the starters job and piss off the franchise cuz they might just move on without you and you never will get your payday and you will find out you really weren't that great (rhett never got 1000 with baltimore).

Now that being said I believe RG is the real deal, but again, he has to put in another 10 games or so THIS season before he starts asking for things, or else we might just move on and his career will basically be cut WAY short since he can't go anywhere else yet.

What makes you think that a player, regardless of experience, who has no contract, is bound to play for whatever the team offers? Most undrafted free agents do, because they have not had an impact to bargain for more. Grant has had enough of an impact to bargain for SOMETHING more than the minimum, and should do it. As I wrote in another post, Grant has no bargaining power only if you think MM and TT don't care if he is on the team. If they are counting on him not only to make the team, but to be the starter, he has bargaining power.

Now I do NOT think he has the power to negotiate a long term contract with a lot of guaranteed money, but certainly he now has the ability to negotiate a contract similar to a higher draft choice. He has shown as much in 10 NFL games as Brandon Jackson did in college, who really had only one season of significance at Nebraska. Grant also had one of the best freshman years of any back ever at ND.

There is a huge difference in my opinion between a guy like Rhett (or Javon Walker) who signed a decent contract, was paid at a level for one who is expected to produce and is expected be a good player, who than refuses to honor his contract and holds out; and a guy like Grant, who has no contract and is offered the bare minimum that any player like him has to be offered. Rhett (and Walker) were paid good money. Grant has not been and has not been offered that.

Once Grant signs, he loses any bargaining power that he has. He is then completely at the mercy of the Packers as to any renegotiated contract. The only real bargaining power he has is when he is not under contract.

Why should Grant have to sign the same contract that Joe Toledo did? Grant has shown more potential than Joe Toledo

Here is the problem with your logic. No player is EVER under obligation to play. Even a signed contract doesn't obligate a player to play by your logic, it simply means he can't play for another team. When Sterling Sharpe held out the night before the season opener he had every "right" to sit home and pay a fine instead of play. (although I believe any player who holds out should immediately forfeit any signing bonus recieved on said contract he is holding out on) They are all in the exact same situation as Grant in that their options are to get a job at McD's or play. side note: Favre is under contract, did he not have the right to not play this season?


The NFL's contracts aren't "garaunteed", they can be waived at any time and a player may quit at any time. Again, by your logic if ARod stopped showing up he would be justified since his contract isn't garaunteed and his negotiating power would be that the packers believe in him, need him ect.

The big difference in our viewpoints is that you think a player signs a contract and even if he outplays it he should play it out. I only believe that in regards to a signing bonus.

I believe that when RG decided to pursue an NFL career and didn't get drafted and the packers got his rights he is effectively "under contract" for 5 years of service, the team is developing him and investing in him under the assumption he will play out the 5 years at the prescribed contracts an undrafted FA gets to remain exclusive rights.

Now, all that being said, I agree with you 100% that he has every right to not sign, just as any player has every right to walk away, not play, hold out ect (except where signing bonuses are concerned, they are given under the assumption that you play out the contract and if the team waives the contract you get to keep it, if the player stops playing he should have to repay it.), but you still don't have the right to negotiate or play for another NFL team.

Now, where we disagree(I think) is on what the team should offer. I am ok with giving him the same deal Brandon Jackson got, or even a 5 year 15 with 3 garaunteed. I probably MIGHT even stretch it to 5 at 20 with 2 garaunteed (i'm not up on other RB contracts and factors that might make me go beyond what I think is "fair" for both sides)

The problem with giving him too much is its unfair to guys like Bigby who also had a great run at the end and outplayed that minimum offer, but still signed it. It sets a precedent that withholding service works. What if he signs a big deal, gets banged up and Wynn puts in 8 great games this year, do we then give him a bigger deal? Do we stop developing guys because we might as well just pay the FA price for developed talent since we are gonna pay that price the minute they develope anyway? (Hell, before we are sure he is developed in my opinion).

Again, I believe he is the real deal, but to cave here with him having an 8 game run sends a horrible message to everyone. Alert, put in 8 good games, get a huge payday. Rouse had 3 good games last year. Poppinga has WAY outplayed his rookie deal. Crosby is one of the lowest paid kickers in the league. And don't tell me they are under contract, they have absolutely NO obligation to play in the NFL, and neither did Jevon Walker.

[RashanGary]

I think you make very solid points, bobblehead. I think 1/2 more year would be best, but if Grant wants something now, I think it should be discounted and eliminating his chance of ever making it to UFA below the age of 30.

[bobblehead]

He doesn't really have the opportunity to get more than the minimum, he lost that opportunity when he couldn't put together a good enough college career to be drafted. Grant is effectively under contract, the year 3 minimum tender contract of an undrafted FA. And finally I'm sure he would like a nice 3 year contract with a modest bonus ect, since he isn't a FA for 3 seasons that would work out nice for him, packers pay now when they don't have to and he still hits FA on queue. Again, he has to GIVE something as well, like 2 years worth of his FA time.

In regards to him not being like rhett....yes he is in this way. Young guy who has done very little (rhett did more) who can't afford to throw away the starters job and piss off the franchise cuz they might just move on without you and you never will get your payday and you will find out you really weren't that great (rhett never got 1000 with baltimore).

Now that being said I believe RG is the real deal, but again, he has to put in another 10 games or so THIS season before he starts asking for things, or else we might just move on and his career will basically be cut WAY short since he can't go anywhere else yet.

What makes you think that a player, regardless of experience, who has no contract, is bound to play for whatever the team offers? Most undrafted free agents do, because they have not had an impact to bargain for more. Grant has had enough of an impact to bargain for SOMETHING more than the minimum, and should do it. As I wrote in another post, Grant has no bargaining power only if you think MM and TT don't care if he is on the team. If they are counting on him not only to make the team, but to be the starter, he has bargaining power.

Now I do NOT think he has the power to negotiate a long term contract with a lot of guaranteed money, but certainly he now has the ability to negotiate a contract similar to a higher draft choice. He has shown as much in 10 NFL games as Brandon Jackson did in college, who really had only one season of significance at Nebraska. Grant also had one of the best freshman years of any back ever at ND.

There is a huge difference in my opinion between a guy like Rhett (or Javon Walker) who signed a decent contract, was paid at a level for one who is expected to produce and is expected be a good player, who than refuses to honor his contract and holds out; and a guy like Grant, who has no contract and is offered the bare minimum that any player like him has to be offered. Rhett (and Walker) were paid good money. Grant has not been and has not been offered that.

Once Grant signs, he loses any bargaining power that he has. He is then completely at the mercy of the Packers as to any renegotiated contract. The only real bargaining power he has is when he is not under contract.

Why should Grant have to sign the same contract that Joe Toledo did? Grant has shown more potential than Joe Toledo

You know I wrote a nice long response to this that didn't go thru about an hour ago...oh well. Let me sum it up this way in short fashion. No player is BOUND to play wether under contract or not, retiring, sitting out ect are always options (see brett favre).

Ryan Grant by virtue of not producing til now is EFFECTIVELY under contract to the packers for 470k. He can choose not to sign it and stay home, so can any player who has signed a contract be it BJack or anyone else. BJack got his contract based on being a second round pick and signed the "slotted" contract, its a cookie cutter deal pretty much. If he outplays that contract you are actually rewarding guys like Grant by saying they aren't under contract because they never impressed anyone enough to get a contract (until now). So RG gets to "hold out" but BJack won't get to if he is a stud?

If every street FA gets to sign a big deal cuz they put together 8 good games teams lose all incentive to develope a player, what is the point, if you work to develope grant then pay him like a FA, might as well skip the developement and sign the FA.

The NFL system is set up the way it is, Grant has NO LEVERAGE that sterling sharpe didn't have before the season opener in '97 ?? The difference is that sterling played a lot more than 8 games, but also outplayed his contract. Jevon Walker greatly outplayed his contract. Ryan Grant has outplayed his year 3 tender. Big deal, he is still exclusive to the Packers for $470k Just like BJackson is exclusive to the packers for who knows how much. Whether or not they actually signed said deal is irrelavent, the choices are, play for the packers or go work at McDonald's.

Is it fair?? I don't know, is it fair to hold the team that rescued you off the scrap heap hostage? Again, I'm not against signing him to a long term deal, but the Packers MUST get something in return like 2 years of his Free Agency bought out. If they don't then there is no point to give him more than the minimum....its called negotiating in good faith. I would like my boss to pay me more than he has to as well, but guess what....

Another problem with this situation is that now you have a guy who does hold his team hostage, do you really wanna give him a longer deal with anything up front? Who is to say he doesn't play out 3 years of it, now he is financially secure so he really has "leverage" and he decides he is 28 and has one last shot at a big contract so he with holds his services again (see Uhrlacher). Now you paid him more than you had to for 3 years and the only thing you got in return was his value and demands went up.

I wouldn't be shocked if TT is shopping him right now, and if our backs in camp impress I wouldn't be surprised to see this get ugly.

The flip side is that if Grant is being reasonable and not asking for too much we could see a longer deal get done, problem is we just don't know what he is asking for at this point, but I would bet anything its a whole lot more than any running back after the first 16 picks got.

[Lurker64]

The way I see it is that the Packer and Grant both want Ryan Grant to play for the Green Bay Packers this year. Grant has very little leverage, but what he can do is offer years of service that would extend into the years where he would ordinarily become a free agent. Assuming Grant is happy here and wants to stay here, and given Thompson's history of giving fair extensions to players who outplay their contracts this is relatively low risk for Grant.

So Grant wants money and the Packers want years, both Grant and the Packers want him to play. I'm pretty sure something will get done.

[mission]

The way I see it is that the Packer and Grant both want Ryan Grant to play for the Green Bay Packers this year. Grant has very little leverage, but what he can do is offer years of service that would extend into the years where he would ordinarily become a free agent. Assuming Grant is happy here and wants to stay here, and given Thompson's history of giving fair extensions to players who outplay their contracts this is relatively low risk for Grant.

So Grant wants money and the Packers want years, both Grant and the Packers want him to play. I'm pretty sure something will get done.

/thread.