And getting the deal done while the market didn't demand a bigger price tag.
"pack93z" wrote:
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.
"ILikeThePackers39" wrote:
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.
"MassPackersFan" wrote: