1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Big Announcement Coming for 2015 Football Season!!

    Be on the look out for a big Packer Forum announcement when the schedule is released. Full details coming soon... Update: Announcement to be released on MONDAY!

Johnny Jolly Avoids Jail Time...Could Play in 2011

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Rodgers_Forever, Apr 21, 2011.

  1. Ausnadian

    Ausnadian Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    218
    Ratings:
    +40
    In the first game Jennings went for nearly 100 yrds.. Finley was playing.

    Yeah no doubt, less targets to hit means more ball for others, simple as that. It does not mean that the offense is better.

    I agree with hoping he does slot right back in and compliment the offense, and I believe he will.
     
  2. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,048
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    correct jennings went for 82 yards in the first game, and I took that into account when averaging the numbers. The other 4 games were 36,18, 25, and 22.

    Im not using Jennings numbers to say our offense was better without Finley, im using the difference in yards per game in the passing game to say that. 40 yards is alot. And I didnt even take out the lions game or the pats game.

    Is there anything you can point to that shows that the offense was worse when finley got hurt?
     
  3. Ausnadian

    Ausnadian Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    218
    Ratings:
    +40
    If I say it once, I will say it a thousand times (now I am sounding like my old man) not one single stat can tell you that the offense is better, maybe many stats all put next to each other taking into account everything that would effect the offense.

    How many throwing plays were called in each game?
    Fumbles, INTs?
    Type of throws? (lots of small slants might = more catches yet less yards)
    How many drops?
    Injuries on the OL?
    average time to throw the ball?

    I could go on, but essentially my point is that stats can be viewed in many ways, they don't tell the story of the game on their own.

    Who knows, maybe the fact that the Packers, knowing they had a few injuries already, decided to play a tighter playbook, less things to remember or think about, more time practicing those particular plays, hence they improved. I am not saying that is my belief, I haven't thought about it enough to make a judgement on why there is a better yards per game, but more a different point of view.
     
  4. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,048
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    Fact, the offense was better in 2010 when Finley was injured. You can claim other things directly contributed but it still doesnt change the facts. Unless of course, like I said before, you have something to prove the offense was better with Finley in 2010.

    I would really like to see something of substance other than you just trying to pick at the stats you dont like.
     
  5. Ausnadian

    Ausnadian Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    218
    Ratings:
    +40
    Like the stat you have shown is substance. I don't need stats to back me up, because as I have said, stats on their own are USELESS when arguing the whole offense. One hot day doesn't make global warm.

    I am not saying the offense wasn't more productive in the second half of the season, I AM saying that it wasn't better because Finley wasn't there. You ARE saying that.

    Ask the SB winning QB if he wants Finley in his offense or not. He wont need stats to tell you.
     
  6. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,048
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    1 in 365 is not the same as 1 in 3.

    Ok so no stats to back up your argument. People seem to like to attack stats when they cant provide anything of substance for their argument.

    as for what the QB wants involving player personnel I have no idea, nor do I care. Catering to the QB is something that favre and his minions like to dwell on.
     
  7. Ausnadian

    Ausnadian Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    218
    Ratings:
    +40
    I already told you that you have proved nothing, so why do you require me to prove anything?
     
  8. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,048
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    cant prove anything to someone who refuses to accept something.

    I think you proved enough with your 1 in 365 = 1 in 3

    So unless you have something of substance to add I think I am done.
     
  9. Ausnadian

    Ausnadian Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    218
    Ratings:
    +40
    ok fine, here is a stat that means nothing but might prove his worth.

    Green Bay Packers Tight End 2010 season
    ............ GP Rec __ Yrd _ Tds __1st _ Fumb
    Quarless 13__21___238____1 ____13_____1
    .......Lee 16__11____73 ____3 ____6 _____1
    crabtree 16 __4_____61____0_____2 _____0
    ....Total 35 _ 36___372____4___21 ____2 at an avg of 10.33 yards per catch.

    ..Finley _ 5 __ 21 __ 301 ___1 __12 ____ 0 at an avg of 14.33 yards per catch

    So for the rest of the season all TE combined barely got more yards and had a much worse avg yards per catch. Finley had 12 - 1st downs in 4 games (he played 2 snaps of the 5th game but lets use that against him anyway), the rest of the TE couldn't even double that number all season. Until the last two games against NYG and the Bears, all other TE only had 2 TDs on the season, Lee picked up one in each of those last two games, he also only had a grand total of 3 receptions for 5 yards in those games. Finley didn't fumble once this year.

    I hope this satisfies your need for useless stats, and proof that we were worse off without him.

    BTW I made this stat table from NFL.com stats, so I can't link to a specific page as it was from multiple player pages.
     
  10. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,824
    Ratings:
    +2,927
    Interesting, if somewhat contentious, discussion about Finley. I think he's a unique talent and much more important than what I think, it looks to me like McCarthy loves Finley. IMO the offense is much more dynamic with Finley than without. With his combination of size and speed he creates mismatches that Ds have to account for. And if the Packers lose Jones, Finley's presence will be all the more important.

    In march, McGinn did a story on jsonline which included the following:
    "'Through four games, Finley had played more snaps (196) than any of the wide receivers: Greg Jennings (171), Donald Driver (167), James Jones (110) and Jordy Nelson (84). From the start of training camp, McCarthy appeared to feature Finley more than anyone else in the receiving corps. In those four games, Finley played more snaps (89) either as the only receiver to a side or from the slot than he did from the conventional end-of-line position (67).

    Finley had been the target of 25 passes compared with 27 for Greg Jennings, 26 for Donald Driver, 16 for James Jones and nine for Jordy Nelson.

    Finley was the leading receiver with 21 catches for 301 yards. He was followed by Driver (21-218 ), Jennings (12-161), Jones (11-112) and Nelson (6-53). The only tight end with more receiving yards was San Diego's Antonio Gates."

    It's worth noting that according to this article, Jennings was targeted 27 times and had 12 catches, while Finley was targeted 25 times and caught 21 passes, even though passes to him were no doubt shorter/more catchable. Also interesting that even with McCarthy's "focus" on Finley, Driver and Jennings were targeted more and among those listed, Finley was targeted 25 times out of 103 passes thrown. It looks to me like he played more snaps in part because of his value in attracting coverage - opening opportunities for others to be in single coverage. (BTW, Finley got hurt on his second snap vs. Washington in week five, so he basically played 1/4th of the regular season.)

    We will find out this season how Thompson views Finley. Thompson's MO has been to extend core players he's interested in the season before they become UFAs. That’s 2011 for Finley. Even Finley's biggest fan couldn't reasonably argue for extending him at any price so if Jermichael wants the moon, he's gone. But Thompson believes in building through the draft and then keeping the core players he finds there. He struck gold with the 91st pick in the 2008 draft. Finley is only 24-years old. It would be a shame to see another team benefit from that pick.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    Ivo, lemme just say this, you are the first person I've seen that thinks our offense is better without Finley.

    Everyone else, all the national pundits, the local media guys, and other fans, think that he's a tremenduous weapon and makes our offense better. He was voted in the top 10 TEs by ESPN.com, He was listed as a top 10 Ted Thompson draft pick by Wilde, Rodgers himself said he has the best hands in the team and is the best weapon...

    I think you're the only one that wants to trade him, and certainly the only one that thinks the offense is better without him...
     
  12. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,048
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    Whoa talk about cherry picking. Funny you stopped your quotes just short of this little tid bit.
    "As exceptional as Finley was, however, the offense ranked 19th through four weeks. It finished ninth."

    Thats what I have been saying the whole time! the offense was better without finley. reguardless of whatever production finley himself had the offense as a whole was much better after he went down.
     
  13. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    Yes, the offense was better, but as I, Ausnadian and ThxJackVainisi are saying, it's too small of a sample size 5 games, and there are many more factors into it then just Finley being present or not.
     
  14. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,048
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    Not really a fan of being a sheep or a follower. Bottom line is the offense in 2010 was better without Finley. Sorry its so shocking that I think TT could turn the draft picks acquired in a trade for something of more benefit.

    Imagine if someone suggested the Packers trade favre in 2002, I bet they would be met with similar opposition.
     
  15. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,048
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    yet interesting that he stopped oh so short of posting that.

    Your free to disagree and jump on me for disagreeing with ESPN logic but unless you have something solid I dont see the point of arguing this. I have proven that the offense was better without him in 2010 and you have agreed with me.
     
  16. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,048
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    if I am reading your post correctly its not proof of the argument. It proves the TE production went down. But does nothing to show the offense as a whole decreased.
     
  17. TheGiftedApe

    TheGiftedApe TheGiftedApe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Messages:
    572
    Ratings:
    +77
    So what exactly is this thread about now???? lol
     
  18. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    You have, indeed, proven that it was better in the last 11 games than it was in the first 5.
    That much I agreed with.

    You weren't, however, nowhere near to prove that it was because Finley wasn't on the lineup.

    In fact, game 5 was the game that Bulaga started.
    With the same logic, I say that it was Bulaga the reason for the increase in productivity, not Finley.
     
  19. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
  20. TheGiftedApe

    TheGiftedApe TheGiftedApe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Messages:
    572
    Ratings:
    +77
  21. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,048
    Ratings:
    +4,048
    didnt someone else already try and argue that the reason the production was low in the first 5 games was because Bulaga was learning the offense?

    I believe MM altered the offense so it wasnt force feeding the TE. As I have said before I hope Finley becomes a compliment to the offense we have and not a hinderance.

    And Finleys popularity around here seems to depend on what he has said on twitter recently. I get the feeling he will be a hold out, but thats down the road and this isnt the first time I have mentioned it. Who knows, maybe we have an uncapped year and give him a ton of up front cash in exchange for a few years.
     
  22. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,048
    Ratings:
    +4,048
  23. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,824
    Ratings:
    +2,927
    ivo610,

    I didn't include that part because you had already made that point but no one posted the stats included in that article that I did post. And, of course, I provided the link.

    BTW, I do find it interesting that you propose a trade of Finley in which you say "1 and a 2 would be pretty enticing" and allege that kind of compensation would be available for a player you don't think makes the Packers better.

    And again, Finley played the first FOUR games and got hurt right away vs. Washington.
     
  24. Ausnadian

    Ausnadian Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    218
    Ratings:
    +40
    So you actually believe something that we have disproved with stats? Jennings and driver were seeing just as much, actually slightly more ball than Finley. That is not force feeding the TE. but you know what you say

     
  25. Ausnadian

    Ausnadian Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    218
    Ratings:
    +40
    oh and for good measure :sFun_DeadHorse:
     

Share This Page