RB Ryan Grant optimistic about new contract

[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]

Re: RG

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! ); 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.