Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Jermichael Finley comeback
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
PACKRULE


Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 1628
Location: saskatoon
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gizmo2012 wrote:
I just did not notice a drop off in TE production after Finley got hurt. Quarless played extremely well at times and even Bostick made a few plays. I think 8 million per year can be spent more wisely.


This is probably the most honest and saddest statement. To be fair JF was playing really well this year prior to injury. But honestly we didn't seem to utilize him as often as we could have. We did not use him in the RZ like we could have and often ARod would look for the deeper route over the shorter route to JF.

When anyone can say we had no drop off from JF to Q that says more about how we've been using our TE's compared to the difference in players.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gizmo2012


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 2806
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PACKRULE wrote:
gizmo2012 wrote:
I just did not notice a drop off in TE production after Finley got hurt. Quarless played extremely well at times and even Bostick made a few plays. I think 8 million per year can be spent more wisely.


This is probably the most honest and saddest statement. To be fair JF was playing really well this year prior to injury. But honestly we didn't seem to utilize him as often as we could have. We did not use him in the RZ like we could have and often ARod would look for the deeper route over the shorter route to JF.

When anyone can say we had no drop off from JF to Q that says more about how we've been using our TE's compared to the difference in players.


Packer TE's caught 70 passes which is probably in the top half of the league I suspect. Finley averaged about 1 more catch per game than Quarless and you have to take into account who was playing QB when Quarless was the #1 TE. I also suspect Rodgers would go to the TE more often if we had one that was a real offensive weapon like a few teams have.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
{Family Ghost}


Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 1369
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the Packers should just part ways with Finley, unless he returns on a cheap one year deal with incentives. We need to cut some costs somewhere so we can really improve that defense .. this is one situation where I think the Packers can lower their payroll a bit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Arodsmightybelt


Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 2083
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pay Shields and Finley Raji's money. boom. done. problem solved.
_________________
Cutler Cutlering. Its so beautiful - Bears Are Legit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10506
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arodsmightybelt wrote:
pay Shields and Finley Raji's money. boom. done. problem solved.


Raji was making about 6/year on his rookie deal, so yes. Give that to Shields, with nothing left over for Finley. Save the 7.5/year Finley was making and put it somewhere that might actually pay off.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
.flash


Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 2977
Location: <- Coast
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is no way Finley will be making anywhere close to the 7.5 he made last year. That's a non factor. If cleared, we could get Finley at a very cheap rate compared to his solid production. There was an interview recently where the Steelers team neurosurgeon said he would give Finley a 99% shot of playing post surgery. And Finley's not the type of guy to leave football prematurely if you ask me.

If healthy and cleared, I can't see a way the Packers don't bring him back. Obviously if he's not cleared he won't be back but otherwise he's a very important piece of the puzzle on offense. Losing him would be a huge blow and Q is not the answer.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10506
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

.flash wrote:
There is no way Finley will be making anywhere close to the 7.5 he made last year. That's a non factor. If cleared, we could get Finley at a very cheap rate compared to his solid production. There was an interview recently where the Steelers team neurosurgeon said he would give Finley a 99% shot of playing post surgery. And Finley's not the type of guy to leave football prematurely if you ask me.

If healthy and cleared, I can't see a way the Packers don't bring him back. Obviously if he's not cleared he won't be back but otherwise he's a very important piece of the puzzle on offense. Losing him would be a huge blow and Q is not the answer.


If he's cleared and the Packers low ball him, he's going to go on the open market looking for a better deal. In that situation, players usually resent their old team and don't give them a chance to match, even if they get a fairly low offer. I can't see him not at least expecting enough to offset the insurance policy he would be forfeiting.

Even when he was playing well this year, Rodgers doesn't seem to trust Finley in crunch spots like 3rd down or the red zone. That lack of trust is something Finley has EARNED.

I just don't see him as being worth the investment. In 6 years all he's done is tease with potential. He just got a 2 year "prove it" deal that he didn't prove anything. I'm sick of being teased by the flashes. It's time to move on and find a TE that can be counted on. It goes back to McCarthy's mantra about "accountability and availability". That's not Finley.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 31678
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gizmo2012 wrote:
I just did not notice a drop off in TE production after Finley got hurt. Quarless played extremely well at times and even Bostick made a few plays. I think 8 million per year can be spent more wisely.


um...

Finley - 5 rec, 60 yds, 0.6 TD per game in his 5 games
Quarless - 2.8 rec, 28 yds, 0.2 TD per game when Finley was out

if you didn't notice a drop-off in production you're not very observant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 6495
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Siman08/OH wrote:
gbpacker40 wrote:
Siman08/OH wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
Siman08/OH wrote:
Before the injury, Finley was playing solid football. Similar to 2010 when he also got injured. We were on track for great things this year when Finley/Cobb/Rodgers were healthy. I think that gets lost in conversation.

Ive been a Finley supporter here, and if the price is right, i think we should bring him back. Not for 8-10 million/year though.

I also think we should draft the best available TE in the first round. Clinton-Dix wont be available, so that dream can be forgotten. Were going to lose James Jones IMO, so a 2 TE set with 2 above average (Not Bostick/Quarless) players is very appealing to me.
So if somehow CJ Fiedorowicz is the best TE left we should just grab him because? I love CJ as a prospect, I just think using a 1st on him is horrible value. I think drafting a TE in the 1st round ever is kind of poor value. I don't want Ebron or Amaro in the 1st.


See, i want Ebron or Amaro. We dominate with solid TE play. Are we going to beat San Fran or Seattle with Quarless? No. Two solid TE's and Cobb/Nelson? Yes...yes we do.


We arent beating SF period if we don't improve our defense.


So that first pick is the KEY?

Im on team experience. We need to draft some more defensive guys yes, but the key to beating those two teams is adding experience. Young players are not going to get us over the San Fran hump. Being healthy and experienced will.

JMHO.


You don't need experience, you need good players, how old they are doesn't matter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
{Family Ghost}


Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 1369
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

.flash wrote:
There is no way Finley will be making anywhere close to the 7.5 he made last year. That's a non factor. If cleared, we could get Finley at a very cheap rate compared to his solid production. There was an interview recently where the Steelers team neurosurgeon said he would give Finley a 99% shot of playing post surgery. And Finley's not the type of guy to leave football prematurely if you ask me.

If healthy and cleared, I can't see a way the Packers don't bring him back. Obviously if he's not cleared he won't be back but otherwise he's a very important piece of the puzzle on offense. Losing him would be a huge blow and Q is not the answer.


I don't think losing Finley is that big of a blow now that the running game has been ramped up. That's a facet we haven't had in a good long while, and the need for Finley has now been minimized. Sure, I take him back on a friendly deal, but if he's expecting to hit the jackpot I'd tell him to feel free to look around.

I'd roll with Quarless, and also draft another TE. Bostick also might be able to take the next step as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mattwaukee


Joined: 22 Jan 2009
Posts: 4003
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hell yea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AtariB20


Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 3729
Location: The Real Titletown, USA
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If Finley is cleared to be in the NFL, it better be for the Packers. If we let him go to a different team, the numbers probably won't be anything huge where Packers fans regret the decision, but the impact on the Packers offense will be huge. I am a huge supporter of the Fin and want him back on anything less than 4 year and less than 6 mil per year. He is a difference maker, and he is just growing into what he can be. The guy will be great if he is with the Packers. With a different team, who knows... but with us, he will be great
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10506
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AtariB20 wrote:
If Finley is cleared to be in the NFL, it better be for the Packers. If we let him go to a different team, the numbers probably won't be anything huge where Packers fans regret the decision, but the impact on the Packers offense will be huge. I am a huge supporter of the Fin and want him back on anything less than 4 year and less than 6 mil per year. He is a difference maker, and he is just growing into what he can be. The guy will be great if he is with the Packers. With a different team, who knows... but with us, he will be great


Do you actually trust he'd try hard if you gave him 4 years 20 mil? He got that 2 year/15 mil deal and mailed it the 2012 season. Other than part of this year, when has he EVER been worth 5-6 mil/year? I just don't see it. I wouldn't want to see him back for anything more than 3 years 10 mil, either in number of years or money.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 3769
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

spilltray wrote:
AtariB20 wrote:
If Finley is cleared to be in the NFL, it better be for the Packers. If we let him go to a different team, the numbers probably won't be anything huge where Packers fans regret the decision, but the impact on the Packers offense will be huge. I am a huge supporter of the Fin and want him back on anything less than 4 year and less than 6 mil per year. He is a difference maker, and he is just growing into what he can be. The guy will be great if he is with the Packers. With a different team, who knows... but with us, he will be great


Do you actually trust he'd try hard if you gave him 4 years 20 mil? He got that 2 year/15 mil deal and mailed it the 2012 season. Other than part of this year, when has he EVER been worth 5-6 mil/year? I just don't see it. I wouldn't want to see him back for anything more than 3 years 10 mil, either in number of years or money.


This. I don't see how you can feel good about that contract. He's been gunshy after injuries already too. I feel like we're more likely to regret paying that than letting him walk. He's just so inconsistent anymore. I just think it's time to move on.

I don't think you can hand him that contract and feel good about it. But that's not at all to say he can't play well if he was given it or play well for someone else. But it feels like a big risk to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
mikemike778


Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 250
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

palmy50 wrote:
SDN40 wrote:
palmy50 wrote:
SDN40 wrote:
ECPackers wrote:
stop drinking the h8erade bros!


finley is a monster... assuming he's not afraid of contact, how could you NOT want him back?

we're probably losing james jones this offseason... so you ok with nelson, cobb and boykin? LOL, i love all 3 of them guys, but you know one of them'll get injured...we can't afford that... need some receiving depth.


You just can't risk 30 million dollars on a guy like that or you will lose Nelson and Cobb and be left with an underacheiving injury risk.


Only way I could see him getting a deal even close to that is if he pulls something like Revis did with no sure money. Finley has ten million in the bank waiting for him if he never plays another snap!


I agree wholeheartedly. I take the 10 million and run, but I'm just a lowly architectural designer. Finley may not see the value in 10 million. Sad to say, but these guys are usually the last to see the end. He still has his eyes set on a career that triples that number. Probably


That's ten million(none taxed) bills in the bank. All I'm sayin is that MUCH would need to go right for Finley to see that much money post injury.


Depends really ...

You forget because you think someone like Nelson is underpaid (in relation to other players) how such a huge amount of money even someone like Nelson earns.

Finlay picked up 14m last couple of years.

Unless he's been daft, really he should be set up for life and not need a single penny ever again. Now you might like more but you shouldn't need more.

If you've got more money than you are likely to ever need and you really want to play again - then the potential loss of 10m shouldn't be a deterrant. Health might be.

Really though no one can throw guaranteed money at him. If he comes back then it would probably have to be on a 1 year prove it deal or a Revis type no guarantees.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 3 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group