Packers weighing contract options for Grant

[The Leaper]

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

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

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

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

[vince]

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

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

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

See Willie Parker and Brian Westbrook.

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

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

[woodbuck27]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent POST Vince!