A big +1. I think all the "too soon" people are stuck in some era prior to the current FA era, because teams that drag their heels in cases like this end up with disgruntled players who they end up paying more when they finally realize they do need the guy.

---

The "too soon" part for me, is that 8 or so games into his tenure a starting QB was a risk by Ted. He still had a year and a half left on his deal at a decent salary, performance to that point was limited to x amount of games. Is it really that big of deal, no it worked out in the end, Rodgers had a decent second half to late part of the season. But at that point.. yes it was a risk.

What strikes me funny is some of the same people stirred because you mention the Rodgers deal as premature, are some of the same ones arguing the Grant and Williams shouldn't be allowed to get paid properly because they are caught in a loophole of the CBA. (Not pointed at anyone in particular, just a general statement of opinion in the Williams thread.)

Rodgers had time left on his deal, yet these kids that made it through the grinds of the UDFA pool shouldn't be allowed to bargain or ask to be paid fairly, even though they have proven themselves upon the field.

All I am saying with the Rodgers deal, at the point it was struck, it was a bigger risk for the Packers because of the small sector of games he played in.

But your market analogy is fair... no arguing that, and hence why I don't have issue with either Grant or Williams getting paid fairly even when the system is rigged against them.

---

Is that true? He only had a year and a half left? I don't know why I was thinking 2 and a half... probably because of all the "too soon" talk. I know it's the Packers' policy to try to re-up contracts when there is a year left on them, so this was only a few months early I guess.

---

By simple logic wouldn't some be for not giving the No. 9 pick big money. GB is going to pay whomever they choose a lot of money and they're unproven. I think anyone thinking that giving Rodgers a big deal was a mistake should probably be for moving down come draft day. It's all about the money in the end.

Rodgers has more experience than any draft pick. I said it before, but my point remains that signing Rodgers long term is the equivalent of signing a top five draft pick long term. Rodgers is worth the money from the standpoint that he is the starter going forward. Not giving him a new contract would be a huge mistake. Not only does it put another name on the soon to be free agents list for the 2010 off season, but it also leaves you being a follower in the market.

Matt Cassel and soon Jay Cutler will receive new deals probably based off of the one Rodgers got. They'll probably get more money. Had Cutler or Cassel set the market, then Rodgers probably would of been paid more money. Rodgers set the market instead of taking advantage of it. Probably not a good call on his part, but good on the Packers' part.

---

IMO those that feel the Rodgers deal was to soon, read this piece by Porky..

It makes perfect sense

It was too soon. Look at how some QB's fizzle out the second half of the season. It was a risk and a risk I'm NOW happy that Ted took.

---

You only thought it was too soon because for you 8 games were the equivalent of 4 games, viewing-wise.

"Hey Zero, is the stream up yet?"

"Hey Zero, what's the password?"

"Hey Zero, my volume doesn't work right!"

"Hey Zero, my stream is choppy"

"Hey Zero, I can't get back onto the chat."

"Hey, Zero, throw this a##shole out of here, He's a friggin' [insert either Ted Thompson or Brett Favre here] lover, and he's spoilin' it for the rest of us!"

:thumbleft:

hah ... it wasn't too bad. I think we nailed our procedure down towards the end of the season and things were pretty smooth.

---

I think a lot of people miss out on the fact that Rodgers got that deal when he did because Ted HAD to spend that cap money on somebody. So why not lock up your most expensive contract with the 20+ million that is just sitting there? I think the plan was to use it for Rodgers and Jennings but Jennings wanted to wait until the season was over.

---

I fail to see how Rodgers was thrown into an "ideal situation." Yes, he had three years to sit behind a legend -- a legend, I might add, who stated publicly it wasn't his job to teach his successor the ropes -- but he was thrown into a situation in which a) a sizable contingent of fans, rather than giving him a fair shot, chose instead to openly ridicule and revile him; and b) he had to play with a defense which, despite the offense putting the team into position to win, time and time again collapsed late in the games, setting his spectacular efforts at naught.

Rodgers' predecessor came in with zero expectations. Rodgers came in with the world on his shoulders. I don't think he gets enough credit for that.

---