Not Saying This Isn't a Bad Loss, But.....

[Sunshinepacker]

That might be very difficult. I read recently that the 15 crop of draftable TE's is a weak class. My suspicion is that R. Rodgers will be counted on to make the jump to be that guy. I think it is safe to expect that he, Adams and Janis will be noticeably better players by the middle of next season than they are right now.

What the heck happened to Bostick? The guy was our best receiving and blocking TE last year and is valued around the league as threat to catch the ball. Somehow he managed to start games last season but then this year he suddenly doesn't know the offense? If the Packers have a realistic hope of adding a receiving threat at TE then that hope is Bostick earning playing next season.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I mentioned the way safety coverage is drawn from the outside using Cobb out of the slot. You don't have to run jump ball seam routes to do that. You'll note I did not say Cobb runs the same routes as Finley; actually I made a point of it. Please note Adams happens to be on the field. If what you're saying is it would be helpful having Finley out there in the 4 wide receiver sets that are run a few times per game, I wouldn't argue with you. Then again, if Boykin were a better player that would be helpful as well.

I think my main point, and I don't think I explained it very well, is that Finley forced the defense into keeping a linebacker on the field while Cobb allows the defense to put in an extra safety/corner. Finley was too big for a safety/corner to effectively cover and so it helped put the defense in bad positions. Cobb, while perhaps occupying the safety in the same fashion, doesn't force the defense to start the play at a disadvantage.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

What the heck happened to Bostick? The guy was our best receiving and blocking TE last year and is valued around the league as threat to catch the ball. Somehow he managed to start games last season but then this year he suddenly doesn't know the offense? If the Packers have a realistic hope of adding a receiving threat at TE then that hope is Bostick earning playing next season.

I really have no idea what happened to Bostick either as I expected him to be the primary target at the position. He hasn´t even played 30 snaps on offense this season though. After the way this season worked out I don´t expect him to have a bigger role next season.

 

[adambr2]

I would say it's pretty likely that Bostick just isn't who we hoped he would be. He'll be lucky to make the roster next year.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Packers ran a lot of three WR sets (Nelson, Cobb and Jones) with Finley lining up at TE last season before Finley got injured. IMO it´s pretty obvious the Packers are sorely missing a pass catching threat at the TE position, especially against good pass defenses capable of containing Nelson and Cobb. There´s no way a WR can effectively replace a guy like Finley. TE should be a priority next offseason for the Packers as well.

My comments were targeted at the following statement by brandon2348:

"Yeah but I think it's time to get honest with ourselves that we are missing a TE such as we had with J-Finley. These teams are focusing everything on taking away our outside weapons which would be a dream for a TE like Finley."

While Finley's "dream" is a speculation, it's proven fact for Cobb.

Besides the catch/yards/TD stats for Cobb running mostly out of the slot while double teams focus elsewhere, his ball control productivity is eye-popping when looked at along with the obvious numbers. As noted earlier, his first downs per target (now 56%) lead the league among the top 30 yardage guys by a wide margin. His first downs per catch are just silly (79%). Averaging 14.2 yards per catch on a 71% completion rate coupled with those first down numbers and total yards border on absurd.

In other words, you don't need a TE/WR hybrid like Finley to exploit the middle of the field on outside cover 2.

As to your comment, I'm well aware that when he was not splitting out on 50% of his snaps he was playing in-line TE on nearly all of the others. He was less of a threat from the in-line position and you had to live with his blocking liabilities when he played there.

To brandon's point, Finley was one of the outside/slot weapons. Nobody should ever confuse him with a Jimmy Graham-type possession TE and red zone threat. You'd have to go back to 2009 or 2010 to find one of those end zone back shoulders. And there's something else that needs to be said: Finley was never a great route runner.

Statistically, while there has been a drop off in TE productivity since Finley went down, it's not game changing. From a ball control standpoint, the pass game productivity has been better in 2014 than in 2012, Finley's and Rodgers' last full seasons:

2012: 213 first downs / 558 targets = 38.2%
2014: 191 first downs / 473 targets = 40.4%

The issues with the passing game against rush 4/drop 7 and cover 2/3 didn't start with Finley going down in week 6 of 2013. That should be clear. And if we think about that for just a moment, throwing downfield to 4 or 5 against 7 is never an easy proposition.

I was a Finley supporter when he was being lambasted for drops (which were exaggerated in my opinion even if Finley would never be confused with a great hands guy). It was particularly difficult because of his knuckleheaded comments in the press and and on Twitter, but I still supported bringing him back, though that 2 year contract seemed excessive (while illustrating the wisdom of no guarantees past 2012).

Having him as another weapon would be helpful, but hardly a cure for what is perceived to be ailing. This is a downfield passing offense; Cobb has dominated in the middle of the field in that scheme. Ball control is not high on the priority list, and Finley was not that guy either.

I would be shocked and amazed if the Packers spent an upper round pick on a TE. If they dig for a TE/WR hybrid, then what you're getting is, in essence, a 4th. WR, which would certainly be a plus given the question marks surrounding Boykin, Janis, et. al.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think my main point, and I don't think I explained it very well, is that Finley forced the defense into keeping a linebacker on the field while Cobb allows the defense to put in an extra safety/corner. Finley was too big for a safety/corner to effectively cover and so it helped put the defense in bad positions. Cobb, while perhaps occupying the safety in the same fashion, doesn't force the defense to start the play at a disadvantage.

I question that in theory and practice. A Finley-type tight end ...6'5", 4.65, some hops...poses a threat against garden variety LBs specifically because he can out-run and/or out-jump them. You counter athleticism with athleticism. Job #1 is to get the guy covered; tackling him comes next, and most safeties and nickel backs in this league can tackle.

Of course if you have a fast ILB like Willis or Wagner who handles all aspects of the game, it's a moot point...he's going to be out there regardless.

While I'm clearly no fan of Capers, I would point you to the New England game as an example. He went primarily with Hyde and Dix on Gronkowski. While Gronkowski had a decent day by any measure with the 98 yards, that was on 12 targets with no scores. Given he's the #1 weapon in this pass offense, it's fair to say he was well contained.

As you can tell, I come at the issue from a different angle.

The problem in attacking rush 4/drop 7 is not adding a TE running down field. It's running the ball, throwing underneath, attacking the edges. Control the ball and force the opponent to move guys up into the box to open up the intermediate and deep passes. Under that scenario, I'd rather see more of an old school TE out there...a competent blocker and a sure handed guy who can open up in the short routes and outlets.

That, of course, requires an offensive mindset to go to or adjust to that approach when the opponent dictates it. There seems to be a question of want-to on that score.

 

[Hincha]

I would say it's pretty likely that Bostick just isn't who we hoped he would be. He'll be lucky to make the roster next year.

He has struggled with injuries some this year, but I agree. I think it will be difficult for him to make roster next year unless something changes.

 

[PackerDNA]

I would say it's pretty likely that Bostick just isn't who we hoped he would be. He'll be lucky to make the roster next year.

What has Bostick actually done to make so many people think he's the next great thing at TE?

 

[HardRightEdge]

What has Bostick actually done to make so many people think he's the next great thing at TE?

He put up some very impressive Pro Day numbers. While about 1.5" shorter than Finley, he more than makes up for that with a 36" vertical vs. Finley's 28" at the Combine. Bostick is about the same weight (245 lbs) as Finley but probably a little faster...Bostick went low with a 4.49 at the Pro day.

In other words, he's been viewed by some as an athletic diamond in the rough, fitting the physical profile of the TE/WR hybrids that are so popular these days.

He had 35 catches for 439 yards and 7 TDs in 10 games in his senior season at Newberry College.

He played 19 games with 5 starts for the basketball team at Newberry, averaging 2.7 points.

The guy is/was a long shot project. He's been injured a lot. Time is running short for him.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

What has Bostick actually done to make so many people think he's the next great thing at TE?

People around the league liked him a lot (at least they did a couple years ago). I recall reading that the Packers promoted him from the practice squad because a bunch of other teams were going to poach him. He was also the best blocking TE on the roster last year (this from McCarthy) and last year when he played he was very good at catching those deep-middle passes.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I question that in theory and practice. A Finley-type tight end ...6'5", 4.65, some hops...poses a threat against garden variety LBs specifically because he can out-run and/or out-jump them. You counter athleticism with athleticism. Job #1 is to get the guy covered; tackling him comes next, and most safeties and nickel backs in this league can tackle.

Of course if you have a fast ILB like Willis or Wagner who handles all aspects of the game, it's a moot point...he's going to be out there regardless.

While I'm clearly no fan of Capers, I would point you to the New England game as an example. He went primarily with Hyde and Dix on Gronkowski. While Gronkowski had a decent day by any measure with the 98 yards, that was on 12 targets with no scores. Given he's the #1 weapon in this pass offense, it's fair to say he was well contained.

As you can tell, I come at the issue from a different angle.

The problem in attacking rush 4/drop 7 is not adding a TE running down field. It's running the ball, throwing underneath, attacking the edges. Control the ball and force the opponent to move guys up into the box to open up the intermediate and deep passes. Under that scenario, I'd rather see more of an old school TE out there...a competent blocker and a sure handed guy who can open up in the short routes and outlets.

That, of course, requires an offensive mindset to go to or adjust to that approach when the opponent dictates it. There seems to be a question of want-to on that score.

Ok, one of these days I'll learn to wait until I'm at a computer instead of my phone to reply to something because so far I haven't fully explained why I think the TE forces the defense into worse positions.

First, keeping the TE in the game makes the run game much more threatening. I don't care how poor a blocker a TE is, no defensive coach wants a 200 pound safety/corner going up against a 250 pound TE in the run game. So this means an extra linebacker is left on the field (at least for early downs). Second, the TE is much more likely to survive those middle-of-the-defense catches. There's only so many times as an offensive coach that you want to send Cobb into head-hunting land per game. Thirdly, having a corner in coverage isn't going to help if the guy is too small to tackle the TE, which is often the case when the TE outweighs the corner by 50 pounds. If you're going to need to help the guy covering the TE no matter what, then you might as well leave the LB in since the LB will be more physical underneath with the safety to help over the top. Finally, the offense in general is more balanced when you have a TE that can force one of the two-deep safeties to help a linebacker against the TE, leaving either Cobb or Nelson with no help over the top.

A good receiving TE is not going to be covered by a corner or safety one-on-one unless that guy is having a bad day or he has a poor QB. A 5'11", 190 pound corner is not going to be able to compete with a TE that's 5 inches taller and outweighs him by 50 pounds if the QB is capable of throwing a good pass.

You mention controlling the ball and forcing players to move up, that is most easily done with a dominant run game. Generally speaking, that's more easily done with a TE in the game and, if that TE is a receiving threat, suddenly the play-action opportunities to that TE are massive.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Ok, one of these days I'll learn to wait until I'm at a computer instead of my phone to reply to something because so far I haven't fully explained why I think the TE forces the defense into worse positions.

First, keeping the TE in the game makes the run game much more threatening. I don't care how poor a blocker a TE is, no defensive coach wants a 200 pound safety/corner going up against a 250 pound TE in the run game. So this means an extra linebacker is left on the field (at least for early downs). Second, the TE is much more likely to survive those middle-of-the-defense catches. There's only so many times as an offensive coach that you want to send Cobb into head-hunting land per game. Thirdly, having a corner in coverage isn't going to help if the guy is too small to tackle the TE, which is often the case when the TE outweighs the corner by 50 pounds. If you're going to need to help the guy covering the TE no matter what, then you might as well leave the LB in since the LB will be more physical underneath with the safety to help over the top. Finally, the offense in general is more balanced when you have a TE that can force one of the two-deep safeties to help a linebacker against the TE, leaving either Cobb or Nelson with no help over the top.

A good receiving TE is not going to be covered by a corner or safety one-on-one unless that guy is having a bad day or he has a poor QB. A 5'11", 190 pound corner is not going to be able to compete with a TE that's 5 inches taller and outweighs him by 50 pounds if the QB is capable of throwing a good pass.

You mention controlling the ball and forcing players to move up, that is most easily done with a dominant run game. Generally speaking, that's more easily done with a TE in the game and, if that TE is a receiving threat, suddenly the play-action opportunities to that TE are massive.

The question wasn't whether there should be a TE on the field. The question was whether Finley would cure what ails against cover 2 whereas Quarless/Rodgers have not.

The issue did not suddenly materialize in week 7 of 2013.

In the intermediate-to-deep passing game, I prefer my odds with Nelson/Adams wide and Cobb in the slot vs. Nelson/Cobb wide and Finley in the slot or Nelson/Finley wide and Cobb in the slot in the bread-and-butter 3-wide sets.

As far as in-line TEs go, I don't think we lose much with Quarless over Finley; Quarless is a somewhat better blocker and runs better routes; both have what I would call average TE hands.

In 4 wide sets, like I said before, Finley would be an asset because he'd be a better #4 wide threat than what we currently have on the bench, but I don't consider that a game-changer.

As far as attacking the middle with Finley in seam routes, the current iteration of the offense accomplishes the same thing with Cobb running crossers. If the defense chooses not to focus on that aspect of the offense then, as Rodgers recently commented, Cobb is potentially a 100 catch receiver.

The Rambo pick on the pass to Cobb illustrates the point. Cobb is crossing intermediate-to-deep and has separation on a backup safety with all of the other DB attention focused elsewhere. Unfortunately, Rodgers under threw the ball. If he makes a good throw there Cobb has a 140 yd. day or maybe Buffalo thinks to make an adjustment.

As far as wanting to throw to TEs in the middle of the field instead of smaller guys because of injury risk, I don't find that argument compelling. Leading anybody into a closing defender is a dangerous proposition. Throwing to a TE down the seam may be the most dangerous to life and limb with guys closing from all sides. Finley's injury history should speak for itself.

Edit: I think it's also instructive to look at the kind of TE that was drafted in the 3rd. round. A 4.8 runner who's not going to inspire fear down the field. A wide receiver in college, the Packers were looking to buy a hands guy/route runner with the size to play in-line. He was the starter in week 1...playing in-line...with preseason and camp comments from the insiders that he was a good blocker. The blocking did not exactly pan out, but there was a conscious decision to not go for a Finley-type.

 

[brandon2348]

The question wasn't whether there should be a TE on the field. The question was whether Finley would cure what ails against cover 2 whereas Quarless/Rodgers have not.

The issue did not suddenly materialize in week 7 of 2013.

In the intermediate-to-deep passing game, I prefer my odds with Nelson/Adams wide and Cobb in the slot vs. Nelson/Cobb wide and Finley in the slot or Nelson/Finley wide and Cobb in the slot in the bread-and-butter 3-wide sets.

As far as in-line TEs go, I don't think we lose much with Quarless over Finley; Quarless is a somewhat better blocker and runs better routes; both have what I would call average TE hands.

In 4 wide sets, like I said before, Finley would be an asset because he'd be a better #4 wide threat than what we currently have on the bench, but I don't consider that a game-changer.

As far as attacking the middle with Finley in seam routes, the current iteration of the offense accomplishes the same thing with Cobb running crossers. If the defense chooses not to focus on that aspect of the offense then, as Rodgers recently commented, Cobb is potentially a 100 catch receiver.

The Rambo pick on the pass to Cobb illustrates the point. Cobb is crossing intermediate-to-deep and has separation on a backup safety with all of the other DB attention focused elsewhere. Unfortunately, Rodgers under threw the ball. If he makes a good throw there Cobb has a 140 yd. day or maybe Buffalo thinks to make an adjustment.

As far as wanting to throw to TEs in the middle of the field instead of smaller guys because of injury risk, I don't find that argument compelling. Leading anybody into a closing defender is a dangerous proposition. Throwing to a TE down the seam may be the most dangerous to life and limb with guys closing from all sides. Finley's injury history should speak for itself.

All good points but you leave out the scenario where they put the TE out wide which can be used to attack cover 2 sets. Having Finley out there over Quarless or Rodgers is "night and day" IMO. Finley could create major miss-matches for himself and other receivers. I also would also prefer Finley over Lacey and Starks as drop off option in many situations.

I didn't want to admit it but Finley is the missing piece making this offense unstoppable.

It really doesn't matter west coast offense vs attacking offense down field. It comes down to destroying the cover 2 and creating match up problems that favor yourself.

 

[HardRightEdge]

All good points but you leave out the scenario where they put the TE out wide which can be used to attack cover 2 sets. Having Finley out there over Quarless or Rodgers is "night and day" IMO. Finley could create major miss-matches for himself and other receivers. I also would also prefer Finley over Lacey and Starks as drop off option in many situations.

I didn't want to admit it but Finley is the missing piece making this offense unstoppable.

I did address the points vis a vis Finley wide. I prefer Lacy over Finley in the outlet role. Lacy has better hands, probably better body control on the short throws, and he can certainly rumble once he has the ball.

 

[brandon2348]

I did address the points vis a vis Finley wide. I prefer Lacy over Finley in the outlet roll. Lacy has better hands, probably better body control on the short throws, and he can certainly rumble once he has the ball.

That's where we have the difference of opinion as Lacy isn't gonna beat anybody outside on a fade route. With Finley in there you have to account for that as a defense which opens things up more for other guys. If anything having Finley in there helps us stretch the defense more which is what you need to do to create space when these teams wanna drop 7 guys against us.

They can rave about Richard Rodgers hands but him and Quarless are slow.

 

[brandon2348]

So with all that said we simply don't have the personnel to stretch teams out of a rush 4 drop 7 cover two that have good defensive personnel and everybody knows it. What we will have to do moving forward is run them out of it and stick to the run if working.

I don't see what's so bad about pounding lacy if it's working.

This is something I find hard to understand. MM goes from a situation in Seattle where he plays a portion of the field to a situation in Buffalo where he forces the ball all over the field.

 

[HardRightEdge]

That's where we have the difference of opinion as Lacy isn't gonna beat anybody outside on a fade route. With Finley in there you have to account for that as a defense which opens things up more for other guys. If anything having Finley in there helps us stretch the defense more which is what you need to do to create space when these teams wanna drop 7 guys against us.

They can rave about Richard Rodgers hands but him and Quarless are slow.

A fade route is not an outlet route, which is what we were talking about with respect to Lacy. If Finley is running an outside fade route that means that Nelson or Adams is not. You stretch the defense with speed. Finley was not as fast as any of the WRs currently on the roster.

 

[brandon2348]

A fade route is not an outlet route, which is what we were talking about with respect to Lacy. If Finley is running an outside fade route that means that Nelson or Adams is not. You stretch the defense with speed. Finley was not as fast as any of the WRs currently on the roster.

Finley was a pretty good "size and speed" combo and he was really evolving into a fine TE. I know a lot of Packer fan are hot and cold on him and I had some issues with him as well early on. I am simply saying our offense is better and goes to another level with another weapon like J. Finley then it is now. There are ways he could be used to help break these defenses that have played us a certain way more then what are current options are.

I think that's pretty obvious.

 

[brandon2348]

A fade route is not an outlet route, which is what we were talking about with respect to Lacy. If Finley is running an outside fade route that means that Nelson or Adams is not. You stretch the defense with speed. Finley was not as fast as any of the WRs currently on the roster.

I can all but guarantee you that if you went up to MM and told him Finley is cleared to play and signed he would be all but "jumping up and down" with joy.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Finley was a pretty good "size and speed" combo and he was really evolving into a fine TE. I know a lot of Packer fan are hot and cold on him and I had some issues with him as well early on. I am simply saying our offense is better and goes to another level with another weapon like J. Finley then it is now. There are ways he could be used to help break these defenses that have played us a certain way more then what are current options are.

I think that's pretty obvious.

Finley was at his best in 2009. He was not quite the same after the knee injury.

While Finley would be an asset, as I said, it is far from obvious he would contribute to "breaking defenses". "Going to another level" is highly suspect.

Now, if one of the 3 WRs goes down to injury, Finley's absence would be regrettable and I'd be inclined to agree with most of your points given the alternatives off the bench. Otherwise, I don't see him as a game changer in this offense as currently constituted, just as he was not in 2012 or through week 6 of 2013.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I can all but guarantee you that if you went up to MM and told him Finley is cleared to play and signed he would be all but "jumping up and down" with joy.

I question that guarantee.

Edit: Or perhaps the better way to put it is McCarthy would perhaps jump for joy in consideration of the offense he'd like to run when viewed abstractly. But since McCarthy has acquiesced to Rodgers' default preference for the down field attack, he might acknowledge that 3 bona fide WRs on the field is a better fit than having a TE/WR hybrid split out. As noted, the Packers drafted Rodgers who is not the kind of player you'd consider a Finley proxy.

Would he be good to have around? Sure. Game changer? I have a hard time seeing that.

 

[brandon2348]

I question that guarantee.

I don't think your evaluation of him is accurate. He was basically rated a top five TE in the league last year before his injury on pace to have a career year. If he didn't get hurt last year and continued the way he was playing he was getting ready to get paid. Even A-Rodge was praising him after an earlier tiss. He was an athletic freak that ran 4.5-4.6 forty at an imposing size. He also looked to have corrected his dropsy problem.

MM would have at least 2o more plays he could confidently call on top of some formation stuff that we could better effectively do.

Quarless and RR are doing the best they can but there not even close to Finley.

I miss not seeing Finley split out to the slot and hitting that quick slant. He can even take it deeper to the safety if needed. I also miss seeing him split out and running a fade jumping over a smaller db for a TD. I can post the highlights. Please don't tell me I am seeing things I am not. I haven't seen our TE's really do any of that this year.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I miss not seeing Finley split out to the slot and hitting that quick slant.

Finley didn't run many quick slants, and when he did Rodgers usually passed him over. After the knee injury, I don't think Finley ever cracked 4.6-type field speed.

Like many, I think you're confusing the idea of Finley, the potential of Finley, with the reality on the ground.

As far as getting paid, his previous deal was for something like $7 mil per year over 2 years with light guarantees. Finley was all about the money; if he'd stayed healthy through that 2 year deal and somebody was going to give him a top 5 contract, I'm fairly certain it would not have been the Packers.

The situation is similar to that of Raji...the idea of him exceeds what he's provided, or likely to provide, play-in and play-out.

 

[brandon2348]

Finley didn't run many quick slants, and when he did Rodgers usually passed him over. After the knee injury, I don't think Finley ever cracked 4.6-type field speed.

Like many, I think you're confusing the idea of Finley, the potential of Finley, with the reality on the ground.

As far as getting paid, his previous deal was for something like $7 mil per year over 2 years with light guarantees. Finley was all about the money; if he'd stayed healthy through that 2 year deal and somebody was going to give him a top 5 contract, I'm fairly certain it would not have been the Packers.

The situation is similar to that of Raji...the idea of him exceeds what he's provided, or likely to provide, play-in and play-out.

He did run a few slants lined up way outside. From the inside it was more of a quick release off line hot route so maybe not a true slant and I didn't type it out correctly. Last year it seemed to be Rodgers wasn't passing him over at all. In fact, it appeared he was looking for him often as he was targeted highly. It doesn't matter.

I get it. You don't like Jermichael Finley and that's understandable. This offense would be better this year with him and maybe unstoppable with the match up problems he would create IMO. He also would help out when playing these teams that rush four and like to play physical outside and drop in coverage.

I mean the drop off from JJ to Devante is small to almost a push arguably. The drop off from Finley to Rodgers/Quarless is gigantic. For me it was hard to get honest with myself that we miss Finley and I am hear to tell you we clearly do.

 

[brandon2348]

Finley didn't run many quick slants, and when he did Rodgers usually passed him over. After the knee injury, I don't think Finley ever cracked 4.6-type field speed.

Like many, I think you're confusing the idea of Finley, the potential of Finley, with the reality on the ground.

As far as getting paid, his previous deal was for something like $7 mil per year over 2 years with light guarantees. Finley was all about the money; if he'd stayed healthy through that 2 year deal and somebody was going to give him a top 5 contract, I'm fairly certain it would not have been the Packers.

The situation is similar to that of Raji...the idea of him exceeds what he's provided, or likely to provide, play-in and play-out.

My question for you is if he was so insignificant and they had no plans to retain him then why the choice words from MM, "That Jermichael will always be a Packer"? Why was his locker and jersey number reserved into camp while other injured players numbers were quickly given away?

Was that all just smoke and mirrors?

Doesn't look like words or actions that point toward the team feeling he wasn't an important part of what they were trying to accomplish offensively to me.