and i thought this article was going to be of another tone, but i'll bring it up - team's pay for future so just because EJ was a top level guard 4 years ago doesn't mean he should be paid like one for the back half of his career, regardless of what position he wants. He's still a good LG but he isn't an all-pro or up for discussion as best in the league anymore (which is also a reason they figured signing Banks and moving EJ would be doable - they don't move the best LG in football if they thought he still was).

I support players getting all they can and deserve, but i fail to see how the analogies of "what if your boss told you that you don't need a raise" work - it is not the same because most people don't sign contracts for multiple years with their employers. I understand EJ's feelings, but it doesn't change that he is under contract. If he wanted to try and be paid top dollar every year, he should play on 1 year contracts. There's give and take with signing longer, he got the "take" by getting his money that covered him in event of injury/ending his career, etc. so now it's time for the "give" in which you have to show up for part of a contract he deems beneath him/his value.

If only we had another viable option at center or a youngster who looked like he was really ready to step up. Then we just move Jenks over to RG under this current contract and problem solved. If only I guess...

I agree with your premise, Greg. Teams that regularly pay for past performance or out of "loyalty" rapidly end up with an old, declining, and expensive roster and a cap loaded with dead money. We like to point to DBak in this case--the Packers were forced to take their chances on a guy they might not have extended because Jason Spriggs failed. I'll take a young roster and a forward-looking succession and roster-building plan any day. You paying attention Kwesi?

"What if a Pro Bowl wide receiver were asked to play running back by their team?"

I think this comparison is a bit of a stretch. I think G<-->C isn't nearly the reach that WR<-->RB is.

This is a fair argument but not very well thought out. I understand that a player wants to make as much as he can whether he is worth it or not. I do have issues with a player not honoring the contract he signed. In Jenkins' case he signed a contract to play for the Green Bay Packers. I do not believe the contract states he will play left guard or either guard position. I might be wrong on that. He is being paid decent guard salary to play center that puts him in the top five of centers.

The arguement about Banks does not cut it either. So if they signed a RG for the same amount of money as Banks or Banks was signed to play RG and they keep Jenkins' at LG that means it would be ok for Jenkins to hold out for more money even though he is playing guard. No Jenkins signed the contract and the team made financial plans expecting Jenkins to play out his contract so he needs to play. In the end Jenkins is getting paid good money to play a position in a childs game.

Lastly this argument as weak as it is depends on the idea that after the contract expires Jenkins only alternative is to sign as a center for the Packers or any other team. Yes the Packers could tag him and keep him at center but his salary for that year would be much higher as all lineman are considered the same so that would not happen. Jenkins best move is to show up, play well, and after his contract is over he will get paid by a team to play guard or center because he is a good lineman and every team needs linemen.

Its simple shut up and play or retire. Stick to the contract you agreed to.

How long does Jenkins actually have with the team, regardless of position? He's play will decline, and if the FO is thinking he's the guy for another 4 years, then there is a bigger problem than moving him to C because they're not sure if they have a good enough player to keep him at G. The OL needs help, and thinking Jenkins is the 4-year future as part of it is nuts. He's already overpaid for wherever he plays, and giving him more won't stop his decline or straighten out who plays where issue at hand. The FO seems to be one step away from hammering a square peg into a round hole, and not at one OL position.

You do pay for what they will do while they are under that contract. It is why I am OK with Tom's deal. It is a big one but it will be passed up before the 1st preseason game and will look cheap midway through it. The deals I worry about are the 3rd contract when the player is aging and more acceptable to injury. Makes perfect sense for EJ to want a new deal, he and his agent know that every year makes it harder to get demand that top dollar. He is changing positions and wants his current work to be his edge in negations. For the Packers EJ is 29 and probably past his prime. How many more years can he give the team worth that top dollar deal? Don't want to lose EJ but the Packers don't want a big cap hit on a player in his 30s.

Because the Packers felt Jenkins might be needed at left tackle, when he signed the contract in 2022, they overpaid him at left guard. He is now way overpaid at center. I don't see where Jenkins has any leverage for renegotiation. To be honest, I don't see why he should feel undervalued in any way. He's making elite center money and, given his last performance at center, is probably overpaid.

I think that the principle of Occam's Razor is in play with the Jenkins issue - i.e., - choosing the simplest explanation from all. That being greed - as Jenkins and his agent attempt to pressure the Packers into guaranteeing a portion of his last year - through a hold-in and by feining a hold-out. When it's definitely not in the Packers interest to do so. So in reply - I simply remind Jenkins (and his agent) about the legality of a binding contract.

I think Jenkins likes the Packers, and the Packers like Jenkins, and he's a good player for us. He'll be a good Center for us. Jenkins doesn't want to be a cap casualty after this season. I get the impression that some of the posters here think this is an adversarial situation, and I don't think it is. The Packers have Tom locked up for 4 years. Morgan, too, if they wish. Belton. Why not extend Jenkins a little? This is The Love Window. All in? Super Bowl or Bust? We should be finding ways to keep our good players around, and that would include Jenkins.

I'm 100% confident the Packers and Jenkins will work something out that benefits the team and Jenkins. He's the leader of the offensive line and the most veteran player we have on offense. And a pretty good player.

Word is he is not asking for a RAISE. He wants the remaining years guaranteed so that he will play out his contract. That doesn't seem unreasonable on his part with the move being asked of him- and i suspect there is a middle ground where they guarantee this next year and perhaps not the final year.

One aspects that seems to be flying under the radar is that nobody is panicking b/c the OL has options even if he doesnt sign - kudos to BG for investing in the line (perhaps under the radar from this group because it is a sign of a good job by BG instead of criticism...)

It's true that contracts are given based on future expectations rather than past performance. But that doesn't explain why Jenkins is looking for a new contract. On the contrary, it explains why the Packers don't want to give him one. They don't often give players third contracts because at that point in their career, their production is likely to decline, usually due to injuries.

While Jenkins has been better than Aaron Banks, Banks got the big contract because he is young and is viewed as an ascending player. Giving that kind of money to Jenkins at this point would be risky, at least if a lot of it is guaranteed after more than a couple years.

I was hoping the Jenkins holdout would lead to a new contract with a manageable cap hit in 2026, but the only way to make that palatable for Jenkins would be to give him significant guaranteed money at least through 2027 and maybe 2028. But that would be risky for the team, due to his age. So I just don't see any common ground here that could be the basis for a new contract.

I contend that (my) fandom is much more entertaining not concerning myself with cap hits or contracts. I've never seen the Packers unable to field a 53-man roster due to cap constraints. And conversely, I've never seen a player on the field who isn't getting paid.

Jenkins has a strong negotiating position. Who is going to play center if he doesn't? Monk isn't there yet. As we saw last year Rhyan isn't as good at center. The Packers should guarantee his money or risk having a gaping hole in the middle of their offense.