Type to search

Packers Are Trying to Extend Sam Shields

Sam Shields

The Green Bay Packers have some decisions to make on several guys with contracts that expire after the season. It now looks like their top priority is cornerback Sam Shields.

The Packers have been negotiating with Shields’ agent in hopes of getting a contract extension done before the season ends, according to Pete Dougherty.

However, it appears nothing is imminent.

“Yeah, they have (been negotiating) a little bit,” Shields said. “But something we’re not agreeing with. Things happen like that. There’s still some negotiation going on.”

Shields signed a one-year restricted free agent tender before the season. He was pretty unhappy with it at the time because he was seeking a long-term deal.

He went out and let his play do the talking, though. Shields has emerged as the Packers clear-cut No. 1 corner this season. He’s often been matched up on the opposition’s top receiver and he’s responded well.

He leads the team in passes defended with 21 and is tied for the team lead in picks with three.

And at 26, he’s got plenty of good football left in him. That means the Packers are going to have pay him some bank — our guess is in the $7 million per year range.

The situation is somewhat complicated, unfortunately. Tramon Williams is set to earn $7.5 million next season in the final year of his contract. That is, providing the Packers don’t ax him in the offseason.

Then there are the other guys set to become free agents. Most notable are James Jones, B.J. Raji, Ryan Pickett and Evan Dietrich-Smith.

And to think, the Packers probably could have gotten away with paying Shields $4 million or so per season had they given him the extension he wanted before the season.

Monty McMahon

Monty McMahon is one of the founders of Total Packers. He is probably the most famous graduate of UW-Oshkosh next to Jim Gantner.



  1. Rodgers December 20, 2013

    There’s no way the packers were going to get shields for 4 mil/yr. At best, that’s probably what they were offering, and shields wanted more.

    As much as i love Tramon, the man’s going to be 31 next year, and they might just eat the 2 million dollar hit to get off the hook for paying him a 7 million base on top of that.

    The only way i see him still on the team is if he restructures his contract, but shields should get paid.

  2. Phatgzus December 20, 2013

    We don’t know how much Shields and his agent wanted in the previous negotiations, the price has likely increased, but I think they’ll re-sign him as they have a big chunk o’ change added to their cap with all these FAs and it seems pretty likely Rajer ain’t coming back.

    All I gotta say is pay the man.

    1. PF4L December 21, 2013


      If they already knew they were gonna commit him long term. It would have been cheaper to sign him last year. Right now Shields has all the leverage. They don’t want to keep over paying Tramon. The good thing to me, is when they sign Shields, and they will, Tramon is finally gone, unless he restructures.

      Ted should have seen that coming. Plain and simple.

      As far as Jones, Raji, Pickett and EDS, I’d like them to resign Jones, but the rest are expandable. If TT can replace EDS, and IF TT can find a replacement for him. Which, when talking about the O line…is a huge gray area for Mr Thompson.

      1. Iltarion December 21, 2013

        Unless the Packers could get Shields at a bargain (highly doubtful), they made the exact right call by going with the one year tender.

        Casey Hayward was huge the year before. Tramon is making huge money, which you can’t shake free of until next season. Those two could have ended up as your starting corners if things had gone differently in camp.

        If the Packers had acted recklessly and given Shields a big contract, he could have pulled a 2011 and played like crap this season. You’d have Shields and Tramon making big bucks and underachieving, with Hayward possibly deserving their position.

  3. James December 20, 2013

    I like Sheilds but the Packers should not overpay for an undersized corner.

    1. Savage57 December 21, 2013

      Granted, his height is under-sized, but his make-up speed is over-sized.

  4. the real russ letlow December 20, 2013

    not the best agent to deal with, Packers-wise anyway. lets hope something gets done, would love to see him back, but I think Rosenhaus is going top dollar, which ain’t gonna happen with Teddy.

    1. Savage57 December 21, 2013

      Have to agree with you. Hose ’em haus is going to counsel SS to test the FA waters unless the Packers make an offer that’s so rich he stands pat.

      TT checked in the off-season, and maybe he think’s the hand he’s got is worth going all in for now.

  5. Buster Bluth December 20, 2013

    Boykin could replace Jones.
    Center is important but not a budget buster.

    The D is a mini disaster. Lets hope they improve that side
    of the ball. Bottom line…Shields is the most important name
    on that list.

    1. Phatgzus December 20, 2013

      Straight up, take whatever dough you were gonna give to the doughboy and give it to the Aegis if necessary; hopefully we can keep Jones qnd his circus catches, but if not Boykin may be one of the greatest consolation prizes ever.

  6. Iltarion December 21, 2013

    Against the Cowboys, Shields stayed on the right side of the defense while Tramon stayed on the left side. Exclusively. That does NOT signify either as a #1 corner.

    Shields is the Packers best corner, but his leverage is still mitigated by the fact that Casey Hayward was a stand out last season while Micah Hyde has played well this season.

    Considering the depth at that position, the Packers could let Shields go if the price goes too high. What I am saying is that you don’t overpay for his services. He is a good player, but you need more than good corners to make a good defense. Just ask the Tampa Bay Bucs.

    1. Phatgzus December 21, 2013

      True, but Heyward and Hyde have yet to prove themselves as Shields has done. You also can’t have a good D without good CBs, ask the Denver Broncos.