Seahawks, receiver Bobby Engram need to settle contract dispute

KIRKLAND — On the typical NFL priority list, the contract demands of a 35-year-old wide receiver rank somewhere between the punter's new helmet demands and the quality-control coach's new whistle demands.

Thirty-five isn't old for a receiver. It's fossilized. Those guys belong encased in a museum. So conventional logic says the Seahawks should ignore Bobby Engram's protests until he realizes that a holdout will only make his hair turn gray.

The problem is, there's nothing conventional about what Engram means to the Seahawks. So in the cold world of NFL business, we've arrived at a dilemma.

Who needs whom more?

The answer to this question usually determines who will win. In this case, however, there is no clear favorite.

Engram needs the Seahawks. He can't catch 94 passes anywhere else, in any other offense, with any other quarterback. He and Matt Hasselbeck share a rare chemistry, spurred by their mastery of Mike Holmgren's offense. Engram shouldn't ignore those facts.

And yet, the Seahawks need Engram. They cannot find his stabilizing influence anywhere else, even if Deion Branch heals faster than expected. Hasselbeck wouldn't be the same without Engram, and for a team still searching for its running game, it can't lose a fixture at receiver. The Seahawks shouldn't ignore those facts.

It figures that Engram and the Seahawks, who have enjoyed seven fruitful seasons together, would engage in a cumbersome dispute. They've never really disappointed each other.

For Holmgren's last dance to be joyous, Engram must be on this team. Right now, he's trying to leverage the Seahawks into a contract extension by skipping some critical organized workouts. He has missed two voluntary camps. Next up is training camp in late July, and he's threatening to sit that one out, too.

Before last season, Engram received a generous two-year contract from the Seahawks. After being limited to seven games with a thyroid condition in 2006, Seattle offered him more security than most teams would have with a $3.4 million deal. No doubt, Engram was rewarded for a history of professionalism and dependability.

Then he took the field in 2007 and outperformed his contract. For $1.7 million, the Seahawks got 94 receptions, 1,147 yards and six touchdowns from Engram. He rescued the team when Branch and D.J. Hackett couldn't stay healthy. He proved he wasn't just another aging wideout.

Some would say that Engram is now being discourteous to a team that showed him loyalty after his lost 2006 season. But if Engram had struggled through injuries again last year, the Seahawks would've already cut him, and no one would be outraged.

An NFL contract is a binding agreement until the team finds reason to undo it. Ask Shaun Alexander. Ask any player who fails to perform or whose salary doesn't fit neatly into the books anymore. It's just a part of the volatile world of football. Contracts aren't fully guaranteed because of the high likelihood of injury. We frown at the salaries of NBA and MLB players, but at least in the NFL, a player must produce every year to keep collecting that fat paycheck.

Since that's how this game works, Engram has a right to do the same to the Seahawks. This is a harsh, harsh business with a small window to make as much money as you can. And Engram is about to see the checkered flag waved on his career.

He can probably play two more seasons at a high level, and in this upcoming year, the Seahawks need him more than ever. Branch is recovering from major knee surgery. Without Engram, Nate Burleson and a slew of inexperienced receivers are Hasselbeck's targets. That spells trouble. And it's no coincidence that Hasselbeck's worst quarterback rating in six seasons came two years ago, when Engram was ill. Last season, with Engram playing his best, Hasselbeck was able to carry the offense.

The Seahawks' position is understandable, too. They can't overpay a guy under contract. It's bad NFL business. They can't reward a player who tries to negotiate by disappearing, either. It sends the wrong message to a locker room full of players who would like to have better contracts.

All football players are replaceable. They must be. Otherwise, the game will succumb to the inevitable injuries. But while the Seahawks could cobble something together without Engram, they wouldn't be as good. And while Engram could force the Seahawks to let him go to another team, he wouldn't be as good without a quarterback and coach who clearly understand how to use his talents.

So over the next seven weeks, before training camp starts, let's hope both sides make some concessions. Engram needs to come to camp on time, ready to give Holmgren the proper send-off. And if Engram shows that kind of faith, the Seahawks need to reward him with some extra cash.

Their relationship has been too good, for too long, to fracture now. Engram, drop your pride. Seahawks, drop your calculator. Fix this — or falter.

Jerry Brewer: 206-464-2277 or jbrewer@seattletimes.com. For his Extra Points blog, visit seattletimes.com/sports.