Why the Packers risk repeating the Davante Adams error by stalling on a Tucker Kraft extension

# The situation in one paragraph Packers general manager Brian Gutekunst wanted Tucker Kraft's extension done before the regular season. According to ESPN's Jeremy Fowler, talks hit a "bit of a standoff." Tom Silverstein added the sides would need a "significant change in positions" to get a deal done before the Week 1 game in Minnesota. That impasse has prompted comparisons to how Green Bay handled Davante Adams' contract talks in 2022.

# What went wrong with Davante Adams Adams reportedly told the Packers he would set aside uncertainty about Aaron Rodgers if the team secured a long-term extension before the 2022 season. The Packers' offer was far short of Adams' expectations. Negotiations broke off, Adams played the final year of his deal, posted 1,553 receiving yards and 11 touchdowns, then requested a trade to the Las Vegas Raiders. The teams' breakdown soured relations and led to Adams' departure the following offseason.

# What's happening with Tucker Kraft Kraft had a breakout trajectory before suffering a torn ACL last season. In eight games prior to the injury he caught 32 passes for 489 yards and six touchdowns—production an All-Pro season would support. Reports now say he's back and healthy, not even on the Week 1 injury report, and aiming to play a full snap load without a pitch count. Despite that, contract talks stalled.

# Why the comparison matters The comparison is not about identical outcomes but about patterns. In both cases, a high-value pass-catcher for Green Bay had strong leverage: proven production and clear starting roles. With Kraft healthy and performing, delaying a deal risks creating frustration. The Adams episode shows how stalled talks can damage relationships and ultimately cost the team a top playmaker.

# Concrete dynamics in play

# What the Packers face next If the Packers want to avoid a repeat of the Adams scenario, the practical choices are straightforward: either accelerate negotiations with meaningful movement on terms or accept the risks of letting Kraft play a contract year. The latter could preserve cap flexibility short-term but may erode trust and invite a contract-year performance that ends with the player testing the market or requesting a move.

# Bottom line The Packers are again balancing roster continuity against contract costs. The Adams precedent is a cautionary example: stalled talks with a top pass-catcher can end with the player leaving and the team losing both production and control. With Kraft healthy and established, the team's posture at the bargaining table will largely determine whether this becomes a repeat or a lesson learned.