Packers don’t want to use franchise tag on Jermichael Finley

A12ROD903

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
568
Reaction score
21
Location
Upstate NY
Wow... the hatred for Finley is off the charts here. The second he gets released he will be signed and we wont hear or see the end of it, it may even bit us in the butt at some point. I hope they do re-sign him. Yes, I said it. I want Finley back.
 

Bagadeez04

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
452
Reaction score
52
Location
Rochester, NY
Flynn is a free agent unless he gets tagged. Why would another team bother working out a deal with TT and give up draft picks when they can just negotiate directly with Flynn's agent? Once Ted puts that tag on him, he's not obligated to take a penny less than that $14M if he doesn't want to.

I don't know man, I was one who thought no way this "tag and trade" of Flynn happens...but this "developement" has me intrigued. If indeed the Packers were to sign Finley, "if", there are only two logical reasons I can think of that they do so as opposed to franchising him (which would be the more prudent move).

One: they want to use the tag on Wells and keep him around another year. His franchise money wouldn't be bad. But he's only 31, so I would think he has a few good years left and would be a candidate for an extention.

Two: they want to get something for Flynn. I don't think there's any doubt that there are teams out there that would give up something to have exclusive negotiating rights with Flynn, before he hits the FA market. The question is what would teams give up for that? That, I think, is anyone's guess, but team's like the Seahawks (Shneider), Browns (Holmgen) and Dolphins (Philbin) (are there more I can't think of?) who have a need at QB and a connection to Green Bay seem like a possibility.

The thing here IMO is why would the Packers not make the most logical move here...which is to franchise Finley and give him another year to see if he can live up to expectations, and then make a decision on him long term. Whatever your opinion it's interesting stuff.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
1,576
Reaction score
377
Location
Charlotte
Please don't, just cut him. He don't deserve to be on this team when he came in second place for dropped passes in the regular season, and then goes on to drop 3 more in one playoff game, including a 3rd down and 5 that could have led to tying the game up. I know people say all this "he's so good, he is a great match up on defense blah blah blah" none of that matters when he drops passes that he could easily catch!
Even if he drops every pass, that still doesn't hide the fact that he takes the safety almost every time he is on the field. He is a huge threat to teams, even though he might not be a huge one for us (Yet)
 

Croak

Vincit qui patitur
Moderator
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
6,478
Reaction score
1,154
Location
New Cumberland, PA
I don't know man, I was one who thought no way this "tag and trade" of Flynn happens...but this "developement" has me intrigued. If indeed the Packers were to sign Finley, "if", there are only two logical reasons I can think of that they do so as opposed to franchising him (which would be the more prudent move).

One: they want to use the tag on Wells and keep him around another year. His franchise money wouldn't be bad. But he's only 31, so I would think he has a few good years left and would be a candidate for an extention.

Two: they want to get something for Flynn. I don't think there's any doubt that there are teams out there that would give up something to have exclusive negotiating rights with Flynn, before he hits the FA market. The question is what would teams give up for that? That, I think, is anyone's guess, but team's like the Seahawks (Shneider), Browns (Holmgen) and Dolphins (Philbin) (are there more I can't think of?) who have a need at QB and a connection to Green Bay seem like a possibility.

The thing here IMO is why would the Packers not make the most logical move here...which is to franchise Finley and give him another year to see if he can live up to expectations, and then make a decision on him long term. Whatever your opinion it's interesting stuff.

I could see the Jaguars going after him as well. Just something at the back of my mind.
 

Wood Chipper

Fantasy Football Guru
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
4,180
Reaction score
1,028
Location
Virginia
Does anyone remember James jones dropping passes like crazy last year? This year he made a big step up. I can't recall him dropping anything.
 

Darth Garfunkel

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
563
Reaction score
228
Location
denver
Yeah, Finley got a huge case of the butter fingers this year but he's young and has been unstoppable in the past so I say sign him. Hopefully TT can hold the drops over his head for a better deal.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,110
Reaction score
1,589
Location
Land 'O Lakes
The Flynn franchise tag talk is ridiculous. Even if it wasn't a huge risk, think about who the GM is for this team. He's not a gambler or a spender. TT won't take risks, he'll take a good deal over a great deal with high risks any day.

Secondly, TT was ready to let Finley walk, that's why he drafted THREE tight ends in the past two seasons, plus signed Crabtree as an UFA, making it four TEs brought on in the past two seasons. Why did he do this? To have a viable TE once Finley left. However, all of that changed when Quarless was lost for not just the 2011 season but a good portion of 2012. Now the Packers are left with a trio of TEs (Taylor, Williams, and Crabtree) who totaled a combined 9 receptions in 2011 for whopping 55 yards. Will TT let Rodgers go into the 2012 season without a legitimate TE? Maybe.

TT could sign Finley to a long-term deal if he doesn't see the growth in any of his current tight ends. Finley is still an elite receiver who had a non-elite contract season (that could work in our favor). If he doesn't see Finley as the answer and/or believes that his crop of tight ends will develop, TT would either slap the franchise tag on Finley to bridge the gap until Quarless comes back in 2013 or just let Finley walk.

My guess is that TT won't use the tag on anyone, as it doesn't fit his style. Finley will walk, everyone will complain, in 2012 or 2013 one of those tight ends will have a break-out season, and we will all forget about Jer-whats-his-name Finley.
 

A12ROD903

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
568
Reaction score
21
Location
Upstate NY
Everyone laughs and made a big deal that there were no off season workouts... maybe in this case, it really did hurt JMike. Please dont forget all of the turmoil during the preseason. Sure maybe the majority of players didnt need workouts, but there is still that hand full that did.
 

Croak

Vincit qui patitur
Moderator
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
6,478
Reaction score
1,154
Location
New Cumberland, PA
The latest issue of the Packer report has a good article with a debate between the writers regarding Finley. In the end it was the writers' consensus that we won't see Finley in a Packer uniform next year. (And that article was probably written before the Giants fiasco.)
 

JacobInFlorida

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
139
Reaction score
13
Location
Denver, CO
I think this report from Finley's agent is just a ploy to make it look like he really wants to stay with the Packers. I still say he gets the franchise tag. I'm hoping for that any way.
 

GreenBlood

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Messages
1,705
Reaction score
251
The thing here IMO is why would the Packers not make the most logical move here...which is to franchise Finley and give him another year to see if he can live up to expectations, and then make a decision on him long term. Whatever your opinion it's interesting stuff.

I think you have to sign Fin long term this off-season if you can. If we franchise him and he blows up this year, he's going to be gone because someone will pay him more than Thompson would likely want to. If we sign him up long term, even if he flops (which I don't see happening) he's still very trade-able. But I think something will get worked out sooner rather than later. I'd like to see him on at least a 5 year contract.
 

GreenBlood

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Messages
1,705
Reaction score
251
The latest issue of the Packer report has a good article with a debate between the writers regarding Finley. In the end it was the writers' consensus that we won't see Finley in a Packer uniform next year. (And that article was probably written before the Giants fiasco.)

I'll take that bet.
 

GreenBlood

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Messages
1,705
Reaction score
251
Secondly, TT was ready to let Finley walk,

Where did you read this? I've never heard this anywhere else.

that's why he drafted THREE tight ends in the past two seasons, plus signed Crabtree as an UFA, making it four TEs brought on in the past two seasons. Why did he do this? To have a viable TE once Finley left.

I don't think that's why. I think TT wants that dual receiving threat at TE, which is one of the toughest things to defend. So he got a couple guys who could be that guy (Quarless, Williams). Finley also isn't a blocking TE, so you have to get a guy who can do that (Crabtree). Taylor seems to be a guy who has a chance to be both. I don't think any of those guys were ever intended to replace Finley.

My guess is that TT won't use the tag on anyone, as it doesn't fit his style. Finley will walk, everyone will complain, in 2012 or 2013 one of those tight ends will have a break-out season, and we will all forget about Jer-whats-his-name Finley.

My guess is that Finley will be here next year and beyond and TT will continue looking for and/or developing that second receiving threat ala Hernandez/Gronkowski.
 

Rnoeblbsyon16

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
23
Reaction score
10
As much as Finley pissed me off with those drops I still believe he can be the #1 TE in the league. He just needs to get his hands back.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,110
Reaction score
1,589
Location
Land 'O Lakes
I didn't read it anywhere. I believe that TT was going to let Finley walk and that's why he added four tight ends to the roster in the past two years. Finley has not been the type of player (attitude wise) that normally fits with the Packers. Plus TT doesn't like to pay blockbuster deals, which I'm sure is what Finley will want. He can keep Finley for one extra season with the franchise tag if he wants to keep a good TE for the 2012 season, but I think that TT would rather have two other tight ends forming the Chmura/Jackson combo (Hernandez/Gronkowski - eh, show your pride!).
 

GreenBlood

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Messages
1,705
Reaction score
251
I didn't read it anywhere. I believe that TT was going to let Finley walk and that's why he added four tight ends to the roster in the past two years. Finley has not been the type of player (attitude wise) that normally fits with the Packers.

The rap on Finley's attitude has been much ado about nothing. Finley is a kid who says what's on his mind and hasn't yet learned when to keep things to himself. But he's a good kid. He's not a chronic complainer or attention ***** like Terrell Owens or Chad 85. That's a gross misconception that has been perpetuated by a few.

Plus TT doesn't like to pay blockbuster deals, which I'm sure is what Finley will want.

TT will pay for his draftees. He's a strong believer in building from the draft and keeping the loyalty that comes with that. He'll pay Finley what he's worth and nothing more or less. I don't think TT would have any problem signing him to a top 5 deal.

He can keep Finley for one extra season with the franchise tag if he wants to keep a good TE for the 2012 season, but I think that TT would rather have two other tight ends forming the Chmura/Jackson combo

Who?

(Hernandez/Gronkowski - eh, show your pride!).

Hernandez is a good guy. Gronkowski is a moron. His career will by shortened by syphilis as soon as he gronks the wrong skanky **** *****. Nasty.
 

13 Times Champs

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
3,924
Reaction score
424
Location
Virginia
Well I also am fed up with the drops and I think I said to let him go after the Giants loss. That was due to the frustration with the loss. Finley was only one of a bunch of stumblebums as I reflect. I think we will sign him and it seems he wants to stay with the Pack. Thompson very seldom lets a young guy he has drafted get away. I want to see him back.
 

ARod

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
26
Reaction score
2
I would like to see him back myself. He didn't have a good year this year, but before he got hurt last year and the year before that he was very good. I think he can get back to that point, but you have to remember he did go a loooong time not playing any football. Sign him to a 3 year deal, pour some glue on his hands, and throw him back out on the field.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
You can infer Thompson acquired Quarless, Crabtree, Taylor and DJ Williams because he was going to let Finley walk. Or you could infer Thompson was preparing for the day when, after franchising him they couldn’t afford to keep Finley because he performed so well. Or you could infer those players were acquired to upgrade STs, as I believe was explicitly stated when Ryan Taylor was drafted. Or you could infer McCarthy has been leaning toward using TEs in the backfield in a FB-like role. Or that it was a combination of the above. But when you post Finley hasn’t been the type of player attitude wise that normally fits with the Packers IMO you have to reconcile that opinion with what McCarthy has said about his attitude, don’t you?
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,110
Reaction score
1,589
Location
Land 'O Lakes
But when you post Finley hasn’t been the type of player attitude wise that normally fits with the Packers IMO you have to reconcile that opinion with what McCarthy has said about his attitude, don’t you?
You're right, it's all about inferring. None of us are in the locker room or the GM's office.

However, I stand by what I said about Finley. I didn't call him a murderer or anything. I just stated that his attitude hasn't been consistent with what the Packers usually keep on their roster. He was very discontent, calling out the Packer coaching staff in his rookie season for not using him the right way. He was right, but I think that most would agree that he went about affecting the change the wrong way. Last year he griped several times about not getting the ball enough, similar to James Jones. I'm not saying these acts are treason, just that the Packers don't typically keep players around that are vocal and take things to the media instead of bringing it to the team. Barnett was let go, partly for his drop in play and the rise of Bishop, but also because he tweeted his discontent about the whole SB team picture thing last year.
 

GreenBlood

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Messages
1,705
Reaction score
251
I just stated that his attitude hasn't been consistent with what the Packers usually keep on their roster.

I'm not one to split hairs, so I'll simply say I think you're wrong on this. Finley's propensity for voicing his opinions were well known before he was ever drafted.

He was very discontent, calling out the Packer coaching staff in his rookie season for not using him the right way. He was right, but I think that most would agree that he went about affecting the change the wrong way.

That was more than 3 years ago. If that was to serve as proof that his attitude isn't consistent with what Thompson wants, he would have cut him a long time ago.

Last year he griped several times about not getting the ball enough, similar to James Jones.

Several? I'm only aware of one instance where he said that and he clarified later that he understood it might be due to something he needs to do better and he never said another word about it.

I'm not saying these acts are treason, just that the Packers don't typically keep players around that are vocal and take things to the media instead of bringing it to the team. Barnett was let go, partly for his drop in play and the rise of Bishop, but also because he tweeted his discontent about the whole SB team picture thing last year.

Barnett and Finley were absolutely right to be upset about being left out of the team photo. That's not why Barnett was waived. He was waived because was a 30 year old veteran who wouldn't have been happy to be demoted to the bench and he was allowed to pursue a starting job elsewhere. You stated earlier that TT isn't a gambler. Well, he's not petty either. He's not going to make a decision regarding personnel because a guy Twittered that he felt he should be in the SB team photo.

Sorry, but Finley is no T.O. or Chad 85 no matter how bad some people might want to portray him that way.
 

PackersFan28

Cheesehead
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
71
Reaction score
5
Sorry, but Finley is no T.O. or Chad 85 no matter how bad some people might want to portray him that way.

I don't think any of us are in the locker room to make such a concrete statement. By the way, I'm pretty sure Chad 85 hasn't been too disruptive to the Patriots locker room this season even though he hasn't made too much of an impact on the field.
 

GreenBlood

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2008
Messages
1,705
Reaction score
251
I don't think any of us are in the locker room to make such a concrete statement. By the way, I'm pretty sure Chad 85 hasn't been too disruptive to the Patriots locker room this season even though he hasn't made too much of an impact on the field.

I'm not talking about the locker room. I'm talking about the spotlight ****** that they are. And the only reason 85 hasn't been hear from is because he sucks so bad he can barely get on the field, so at least he's a step above T.O.

BTW, if he was a problem in the locker room, you would see it in discontent among the players and it's simply not there. Rodgers wants him back. McCarthy wants him back. The evidence that he's a "problem" simply isn't there. It's utter nonsense.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top