As for those other players you listed that we hypothetically "could" have signed with the $3 million saved by cutting Finley and replacing him with a cheaper option, I don't really buy that either. Based on Ted Thompson comments about teams spending "stupid money," etc., I don't believe Ted would have signed any of those guys regardless of anything to do with Finley. I can't prove that, but it's just the feeling I get from reading his comments. It's definitely not as simple as "If Finley was gone, the Packers could have signed X, Y, or Z." Even with Finley staying, if Ted really wanted one of those guys, I'm sure he would have made it work.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnWzc-PnvUE

In most of these highlights, Finley was the first read.

It's probably because defenses never accounted for him early on, but as anybody would tell you, at the beginning of the 2010 season -- the guy was unstoppable before the injury.

McCarthy adapted and went with the offense that didn't rely much on the tight end. With both Finley and Williams progressing and probably Quarless coming back, along with a deep TE draft, I really wouldn't mind McCarthy going with something similar to NE's offense.

Originally Posted by: blueleopard 

Wasn't it the year after that that we made him our featured receiver and he proved us that he's no Gronk, Graham, Davis or whatever we envisioned him to be?

I remember Rodgers catching a lot of flak for "forcing it to Finley".

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder