Let Finley become a Free Agent

I feel its in the best interest of the Franchise to let Finley test Free Agency. For 2 reasons

1. His demands are too high as progress is not being made on his contract according to media reports.

2. If tagged he will lobby to be tagged as a WR. This would make him extremely overpaid. Even being franchised as a TE would make him overpaid.

If TT keeps close contact with Finley and his agent they will get a chance to beat any offer that comes Finleys way. Most likely this will be much less than Jermichael expected. This is the golden era of TEs. Most teams have a decent TE and more than ever many teams have pro bowl level TEs.

At worst he walks, we won without him so I have no doubt we could do it again.

1. we do not know his demands so speculation on that being the reason Green Bay has not offered him a deal doesn't really hold any merit. Could that be the reason? Yes, but Finley himself has stated that he is waiting on the packers to move, not once did he mention that they balked at his first offer. They have plenty of time before free agency starts to get something done.

2. I do not know why people keep thinking he is going to lobby being tagged as a WR. He played way to many snaps next to the tackle for this to even be considered. Might his agent try and "shoot the moon" and ask for it? Sure, but I think the packers would likely chuckle that off. Also, I believe 5 million dollars would be the franchise tag for finley which is definitely not over-paying for someone of his caliber.

I get annoyed with him a lot, more than the majority of this board even. I think he needs to work harder and focus but he is a very important asset to this team and hope the packers do what they can to keep him (being fiscally reasonable).

He has extreme value whether or not his production is top notch. Aside from Gronkowski, Graham, and Vernon Davis I dont' think any other TE of playoff caliber teams have TE that warrant double teams. But I do agree let him go if he's asking too much.

All Finley's agent has to say in negotiations is "look at how much money you gave AJ Hawk...and he sucks".

It's been hinted that's what they plan to do:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/finley-waiting-patiently-for-contract-48429g0-138692564.html

B.S. Mike McCarthy has said on multiple occasions that he is one of the hardest workers on the team. He's often the last to leave the workout room.

In Vernon Davis and Idiot Gronkowski's cases, they're on teams where their QBs only have 2 or 3 legit options and in Graham's case he's playing with a QB who historically has a habit of picking a favorite receiver and going to him first all year (for all Bree's great qualities, ball distribution has never been one of them).

Not so, this year was an unusual year for brees, he never had a go to guy before graham, usually the receivers all took turns having big days, but were not the primary Target week in week out like graham was this year


sent from my rooted evo4g

He needs to "focus" on the ball.

As the article posted by Spart Chris said Finley isn't worried, I didn't see where he has made a contract demand that is too high(please post link to these media reports????) and the Packers typically proceed in this manner in such contract negoitiations.

If the team can keep Finley at a reasonable price, then keep him. If he wants a ton, let him go. Use Quarless more and spend the saved money on defensive help.

This is the most ridiculous nonsensical analogy I've heard in relation to Finley.

Look at our offense last year and then look at it this year. It's not even a comparison. And given how much *** our defense sucks, we need all the offensive firepower we can get. Because there is no guarantee that even with our focus this offseason directed solely towards improving the defense, that it will result in a defense that is championship caliber, especially if we don't have Nick Collins.

We did a lot of things during our superbowl run without a lot of key players, but that doesn't mean that the players we did it without, we don't need.

We won the Superbowl without Charles Woodson, Donald Driver. Would you say we don't need these guys either?

Matt Flynn hung 40 some points on the Lions and passed for 6 touchdowns. Clearly he's on Rodgers level. We should save ourselves some money and just cut Rodgers.

See how retarded that is?

Stop being idiots people. Go ahead and let him test Free Agency and watch him get scooped up in less than a week. A tight end who's only problems is inconsistent hands? Any team would be willing to take a chance on that especially a guy who can stretch the field and help their offense.

Yep, I have heard this a couple times.

We cannot let finley go, case closed.

IMO Finley is too young and too talented to give up on. I would prefer they sign him to a 3 or 4 year deal with incentives. But if they can't agree on a contract and if a tag and trade can't be done with Flynn, then tag Finley. Yes it's a guaranteed contract but only for one year. It would put pressure on him to perform, to focus.

If they let him hit the FA market, he's gone IMO. He and his agent would not be obligated to bring an offer back to Green Bay and if they can't agree on a contract before free agency, no way Thompson would match the kind of offer I'd expect him to receive. And let him and his agent challenge which tag applies to him, they'll lose that challenge.

Quarless is not as talented and he may never be the same after the injury he received.

Southpaw, you may regard ivo610's opinion as ridiculous but it's not an analogy. It's two statements of fact: "At worst he walks" and "we won without him", followed by an opinion that the Packers can again win without him. Look, I disagree completely with ivo610's opinion here - IMO they should tag him if he won't agree to a reasonable contract. I believe that because he's not even 25 years old - he was only 21 when drafted. If he were older and had trouble focusing enough to consistently catch the ball, I'd be advocating letting him walk. He is more important than his receiving numbers because opponents have to game plan for him. But if he continues dropping the ball, that'll stop. ivo610 apparently has the opinion that he won't improve in this area and he has the fact that Finley was on IR when the Packers made their incredible run to and through the playoffs in 2010 on his side. I disagree with him, but his opinion is not "idiotic".

Great post. I DO think if he hits free agency, he's gone. But I don't feel that it would be because GB wouldn't match his open market offer. I actually think Finley would be disappointed in the offers he'd actually get. If he hits FA, like I said, I think he's gone. But I think it's stubborn pride that motivates him to move on. And I'm not faulting him for that. I think that's a natural reaction. I think his age and maturity level are the factors at play. A vet may be able to swallow his pride and stay. I'm not convinced Finley would be able to do that.

Even when he was bad he still caught balls and tds. He was god awful in the Cheifs game yet was the leading receiver wasn't he?

It really is. Our success in the playoffs had more to do with the fact that we actually had a defense that was worth a damn, not the fact that we didn't have receiving threat at the tight end position on our active roster.

There were a ton of players on IR last year and that we lost in the superbowl that we still won without. Are you honestly telling me we won without Woodson so we can do it again without him?

We also compiled the best record in the leauge and in franchise history with no defense and no Nick Collins. Do we not need that either?

The Giants won the Superbowl without Phil Simms, would you trade Simms for Hostetler?

As I mentioned before, the Packer Report writers printed a thoughtful analysis and debate on Finley. Something one of them said stuck out to me; Finley wants to be the focal point of an offense and he may want to go somewhere that will let him do that. Also this quote was good; "...I'm with you on Finley's importance to the team. In an ideal world, they find a way to keep him because his value to the offense can't be measured just by the numbers he puts up. He absolutely benefits the guys around him. He's a rare guy, like I said. And it's a big drop-off to Andrew Quarless, who isn't bad, but isn't Finley despite similarities in size. I just don't know if they keep him. I look at the Saints and think Finely would love to be like Jimmy Graham. In other words, not just a contributor on a talented, high-octane offense, but the focal point. And what tight end wouldn't? Or you've got Rob Gronkowski tearing up the record books for New England. Is Finley as good as those? I think he could be. So it comes down to cash and philosophy. Do you pay for what you think he can be? Do you pay him for intrinsic value to the offense? Green Bay likes to spread the ball around. They have play makers in their lineup. And you know Randall Cobb will be a bigger part of the offense next year. I don't think the Packers compete with a team that gets enamored with Finley and wants to break the bank. That's not their style. And I definitely think there will be some teams out there that look at at Graham and Gronk and envision Finley doing that for them.

I'm well aware that Ted doesn't roll that way, but couldn't an argument be made that we could use the money saved by not signing Finley to sign a proven pass rusher, such as Mario Williams et. al? It's a very distant pipe dream, but it definitely won't happen if we resign Finley and Wells due to cap restraints. Sure, I'd like to keep Finley at a reasonable price. But I'd like that balance on defense you refer to MUCH more. The defense isn't that far away either. One more proven/solid pass rusher and improved communication in the secondary and we could be right back where we were during the Super Bowl run.

I am so annoyed with him. I remember he was in Indy doing a interview saying crap about our defense. " If our defensed showed to play, we probably would have won" or something like that. I believe he was talking about the Giants game. Umm hello... When did he really show up to play this year?

I'll take the sure thing over an unknown entity.

Right now we have a lights out offense. There is no unknown there and Finley is vital part of the success.

Mario Williams will cost us 2 maybe 3x as much as Finley and he's coming off a pretty severe injury.

He had 3 touchdowns against the Bears. I don't think any of our receivers had that kind of day receiving. Finley still despite having a lot of untimely drops has flashes of sheer brilliance on the field.

It's not like what is wrong with him can't be fixed.

I think there will be a better market for him than a lot believe. There will be some stupid GM that says "look at all these hybrid TEs tearing up the league, we need one" and offers him way more than he's worth. That said, I really hope we're able to keep him.

Mario Williams definitely isn't an unknown entity when it comes to pass rushing. He tore his pectoral muscle. There is no reason to believe he won't make a full recovery from that, similar to how Cullen Jenkins recovered from his torn bicep I think it was a couple seasons ago. As good as Clay is in coverage, Mario could become the main pass rusher and clay be the hybrid rusher/zone blitz dropper, etc. Our offense was absolutely elite during last years super bowl run without Finley, and that's without Randall Cobb. Does Finley help and make the offense even better? Sure. However, I have no doubt that our offense would have still been almost as incredible without him this season, just like it was in the playoffs (minus the Bears game, of course). The much bigger concern is the defense. Even with this incredible offense, we still weren't able to do much against the Giants. I expect that to happen again. We need defensive improvements. I'm not trying to suggest that keeping Finley doesn't mean we can't make those defensive improvements. But if for some reason signing a proven pass rusher was negated due to Finley's new contract, I wouldn't be in favor of that.

As mentioned above, we need both offensive and defensive balance. The incredible offense and pathetic defensive formula wasn't the answer this season and won't be next either. It goes without saying that hopefully we can keep Finley and become an elite defense again. Unfortunately, cuts have to be made somewhere, and I certainly wouldn't cry about losing Finley, that's for sure.

"1. His demands are too high as progress is not being made on his contract according to media reports. "

I have a problem with the above statement. I haven't seen anything to this effect. Where is the solid information to back it up? Need link.

I read that same article but like they said, it would have to go to arbitration and he played too many snaps on the line for this to be considered. Also, they state "it's likely" never once have they asked Finley's agent, Finley, or the packers if thats what is happening. Take what the press says with a grain of salt.