Jordy Nelson signed to 3 yr extension

[denverYooper]

Yea let's resign a center first over maybe the best TE in the league. You probably think we should resigned Fylnn over Rodgers too.

Did you see what happened to the Jets last night without their starting center?

I want them to get Finley done but I sure hope to hell they get Wells done. I don't give a hoot what order they do it in but everything indicates they're going to see if Finley gets a fair number of starts under the belt this year first.

[bobblehead]

Do Scotty Wells first. He's earned it. Finley has to prove he can stay healthy and keep his mouth shut. I hope his contract has a "don't be a jackass" clause.

OMG...I have to give Partial positive rep for this post. I agree that Wells is the cosumate pro. Extend him. Let Finley sweat it a bit and then offer him what he has earned.

[rbaloha1]

Did you see what happened to the Jets last night without their starting center?

I want them to get Finley done but I sure hope to hell they get Wells done. I don't give a hoot what order they do it in but everything indicates they're going to see if Finley gets a fair number of starts under the belt this year first.

Good point. While everyone is in a good mood lets get contracts done.

[bobblehead]

Yea let's resign a center first over maybe the best TE in the league. You probably think we should resigned Fylnn over Rodgers too.

This could also read "resign a professional exceptional teammate over someone who still needs to mature a bit".

[mraynrand]

If the choice is between signing Wells or Finley straight up, I'm laughing out loud at anyone picking Wells. LOL. Seriously: LOL

[Patler]

If the choice is between signing Wells or Finley straight up, I'm laughing out loud at anyone picking Wells. LOL. Seriously: LOL

Considering they don't have a decent center to replace Wells, and they did just fine without Finley last year and have even better receiving options now than in 2010, I would opt for signing Wells over Finley very easily.

I don't know if that is what you consider "straight up" or not, but it is the reality of the Packers situation.

[mraynrand]

I don't know if that is what you consider "straight up" or not, but it is the reality of the Packers situation.

Pick one or the other - straight up. LOL

[rbaloha1]

Considering they don't have a decent center to replace Wells, and they did just fine without Finley last year and have even better receiving options now than in 2010, I would opt for signing Wells over Finley very easily.

I don't know if that is what you consider "straight up" or not, but it is the reality of the Packers situation.

This is not a zero-sum game. Plenty of cap room and strategy to sign both. IMO Finley is not Hunt.

[Patler]

Pick one or the other - straight up. LOL

Well, if I was the GM right now and I could take one and only one of Wells and Finley, I would take Wells for the reasons I gave in my previous post. The TE position this year without Finley is better than it was last year without Finley, and with Cobb at WR that position is better than last year, too. Finley is even more of a luxury this year than last.

[mraynrand]

This is not a zero-sum game. Plenty of cap room and strategy to sign both. IMO Finley is not Hunt.

Of course you're right. And Wells will likely be a lot cheaper - specifically because he is a center, and you can typically find a center to play close to his level easier than you can find a TE close to Finley - who draws double coverage throughout a game opening up your entire receiveing corps - and if not double-teamed, scores three TDs. Wells is a very good center right now, but IMO not anywhere near as good as Finley at his position.

Given ONLY the choice of Wells or Finley, I'd take Finley.

But I get the point about Wells being uniquely valuable to the Packers.

Still, LOL!

[vince]

Sign Finley first I think, although the franchise tag is tempting for a TE at $7 mil (for this year). He's going to need to be signed sooner or later if you want to keep him through his prime years and the sooner the better I think.

There'll be a market out there for an athletic game-changing 24-year-old TE who must be doubled and catches everything that's thrown to him.

There won't be much of a market out there for a 30+ year old undersized center even if he's a good one. You can likely sign Wells after this year at a decent price and carry more of it on next year's cap.

[channtheman]

I don't think it's as much of an "LOL" as you are making it out to be mraynrand. Continuity on the O-line can be a big deal. Extend Wells and we have Sherrod, Lang, Wells, Sitton, Bulaga for potentially the next 5 years. I like that. Finley is a great player but health and attitude concerns are still there. Obviously get both if you can, but I would sign Wells first as well.

[Patler]

This is not a zero-sum game. Plenty of cap room and strategy to sign both. IMO Finley is not Hunt.

Of course it is a zero-sum game. Over time there is no more to spend than the sum of the salary caps for each year. As Bob Harlan said in an interview when he retired, one of the hardest lessons he learned when he first came to GB and was in charge of contracts was that every dollar he gave to one player was a dollar he didn't have available for trying to keep another player at a later time, and that each extra dollar paid to one player upped the expectations for all later players to be signed. It's a zero-sum game, but just a little more complex than dividing a bag of cookies.

Before making Finley the highest paid TE in football, one has to consider that within another year Raji, Matthews, Rodgers and Jennings will all have to be signed again. I truly expect the Packers are entering a phase during which they will have to let a player or two go that they really would like to keep. It happens to all of the young, really good teams. It happened a lot to the Packers under Wolf. I think Finley is the least important of all the players mentioned, not because of his skill, but because of the position he plays.

[Deputy Nutz]

For the price I will sign Wells because it isn't gonna cost you but 3 million a year, Finley is looking at 5 to7 million a year, and has lost significant amount of time to injury. If you could only sign one, then I would sign Finley based on the fact that Wells is no spring chicken and is going to need replacing at some point.

[Patler]

Of course you're right. And Wells will likely be a lot cheaper - specifically because he is a center, and you can typically find a center to play close to his level easier than you can find a TE close to Finley - who draws double coverage throughout a game opening up your entire receiveing corps - and if not double-teamed, scores three TDs. Wells is a very good center right now, but IMO not anywhere near as good as Finley at his position.

Given ONLY the choice of Wells or Finley, I'd take Finley.

But I get the point about Wells being uniquely valuable to the Packers.

Still, LOL!

Is Finley a better TE than Wells is a center? Sure, not much question about that.
However, the Packers need Wells more than they need Finley.