MintBaconDrivel
11 years ago

Packers tight end Jermichael Finley said last week that he wouldn't take a pay cut from the Packers, but his agent says that's not quite the truth. Blake Baratz walked back some of what Finley said about not being "the guy who's just going to sign anything and let anything pass.' The Packers haven't approached

ProFootballTalk  wrote:


wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
11 years ago
If he wants a longer term deal with GB he will prob have to take less money per year.
UserPostedImage
play2win
11 years ago
I would think there is little wiggle room for him in GB. Either take a pay cut, or he might be cut.

He is an interesting case. Lots of unrealized potential. That has been the crux. The Packers have been trying to tap that for years now. They might be done, especially at his current pay scale. Do we want him playing against us for a division rival? I think many of us don't want to see that. Maybe Ted can trade him, but finding a taker in that trade could prove difficult. Would it be in our interests to take less in trade for him to insure he didn't go to a division rival or an NFC team? Maybe.

I get the sense his schtick has worn thin with Rodgers, even though Rodgers gave it the college try by meeting with him the night before games the last half of last season. If he is too much work to deal with, and he can't be counted on to run the right routes with precision, block when needed to, make the important drive sustaining catch, why keep him around, as the #6 paid TE in the NFL? His production, from what I've read, ranks him around #22...

He probably wants to go to the Bears, but thankfully, they may not be able to afford him.
nerdmann
11 years ago

I would think there is little wiggle room for him in GB. Either take a pay cut, or he might be cut.

He is an interesting case. Lots of unrealized potential. That has been the crux. The Packers have been trying to tap that for years now. They might be done, especially at his current pay scale. Do we want him playing against us for a division rival? I think many of us don't want to see that. Maybe Ted can trade him, but finding a taker in that trade could prove difficult. Would it be in our interests to take less in trade for him to insure he didn't go to a division rival or an NFC team? Maybe.

I get the sense his schtick has worn thin with Rodgers, even though Rodgers gave it the college try by meeting with him the night before games the last half of last season. If he is too much work to deal with, and he can't be counted on to run the right routes with precision, block when needed to, make the important drive sustaining catch, why keep him around, as the #6 paid TE in the NFL? His production, from what I've read, ranks him around #22...

He probably wants to go to the Bears, but thankfully, they may not be able to afford him.

Originally Posted by: play2win 



Why cut him? Dude's only 25, he's still got untapped potential. At least get something for him.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
play2win
11 years ago

Why cut him? Dude's only 25, he's still got untapped potential. At least get something for him.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



We all like to think he's tradable. Maybe he's not. Who would take on that contract? If you can't get someone to trade with you for him, what are your options? Continue to pay him #6 TE money for #22 TE performance, or cut your losses and go with Quarless, Taylor, Crabtree and Williams. Maybe draft another TE.

Finley has now jumped to #2 on our pay scale behind Rodgers. $8.75M for Finley. Releasing him would save $8.25 on the cap, unlike Hawk, who counts $7.2M, but releasing him would only save $2.25M on our cap because of accelerated signing bonus money.

I think they are planning to cut Finley, and that is why his agent is walking back his statements on not taking a pay cut. They know it.

The Packers either fish or cut bait with Finley this offseason. We'll know soon enough, as FA officially begins 3/12, and he is due a $3.5M roster bonus 15 days after the start of FA (3/27).
nerdmann
11 years ago

We all like to think he's tradable. Maybe he's not. Who would take on that contract? If you can't get someone to trade with you for him, what are your options? Continue to pay him #6 TE money for #22 TE performance, or cut your losses and go with Quarless, Taylor, Crabtree and Williams. Maybe draft another TE.

Finley has now jumped to #2 on our pay scale behind Rodgers. $8.75M for Finley. Releasing him would save $8.25 on the cap, unlike Hawk, who counts $7.2M, but releasing him would only save $2.25M on our cap because of accelerated signing bonus money.

I think they are planning to cut Finley, and that is why his agent is walking back his statements on not taking a pay cut. They know it.

The Packers either fish or cut bait with Finley this offseason. We'll know soon enough, as FA officially begins 3/12, and he is due a $3.5M roster bonus 15 days after the start of FA (3/27).

Originally Posted by: play2win 



I think there are teams who would take on that contract. Like I said, dude is only 25. It all depends on the compensation of course.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Yerko
11 years ago

We all like to think he's tradable. Maybe he's not. Who would take on that contract? If you can't get someone to trade with you for him, what are your options? Continue to pay him #6 TE money for #22 TE performance, or cut your losses and go with Quarless, Taylor, Crabtree and Williams. Maybe draft another TE.

Finley has now jumped to #2 on our pay scale behind Rodgers. $8.75M for Finley. Releasing him would save $8.25 on the cap, unlike Hawk, who counts $7.2M, but releasing him would only save $2.25M on our cap because of accelerated signing bonus money.

I think they are planning to cut Finley, and that is why his agent is walking back his statements on not taking a pay cut. They know it.

The Packers either fish or cut bait with Finley this offseason. We'll know soon enough, as FA officially begins 3/12, and he is due a $3.5M roster bonus 15 days after the start of FA (3/27).

Originally Posted by: play2win 



This offense doesn't succeed without Jennings AND Finley. Jennings is old talk so I won't even touch on it. Finley is untapped potential year after year. He can be a threat, but he isn't. Now he is just getting to be too expensive to just be "that guy" who draws double coverage or opens lanes for other receivers. Personally, I wouldn't care if Finley goes to an NFC North team...if he didn't progress or excel with Rodgers, is he really going to do any better with the other quarterbacks in this conference? Can the other NFC North teams even afford him?

If they do happen to cut Finley the Packers better have a plan to draft a top tight end of sign a free agent. The best free agent would probably be Jared Cook, but like Finley...he hasn't reached his potential. Well, he also doesn't have a quarterback that can pass him a ball. There are good tight ends in this draft. Three can potentially make an instant impact, but I don't know if the Packers can afford to use a high draft pick on a tight end.

Decisions, decisions.
UserPostedImage
play2win
11 years ago
Yerko, I wouldn't even worry about it. Quarless is good. Williams might advance. Crabtree too. Those three alone should only improve with more opportunities, and Finley post knee injury is not the same guy who stretches the field in any remarkable ways. Of course he's good. Who knows what Ryan Taylor could do? Somehow, I think Rodgers could make a lot of lesser talents look just as good. If some of those guys could block and catch better, be more dependable route runners... hell, why not?

And, yes, we can always draft another. If they ditched Finley and drafted a TE R1, I wouldn't mind, as much as I want them to draft D. If they feel there is one that is that good to warrant the selection, that could be great for our team.
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (2h) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago
beast (3h) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years
Zero2Cool (9h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.
packerfanoutwest (9h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it
beast (10h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done
Zero2Cool (17h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.
Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!
beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.