Jordy Nelson signed to 3 yr extension

[mraynrand]

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.

Maybe, but I doubt it. We've seen the Packers without Finley. Last year's Superbowl run wasn't a sure thing at any point. Finley makes the Packers a whole lot more dangerous. Does the line fall apart without Wells? Who knows. I hope we don't find out. But here's a couple of scenarios for you - Do you worry more about Chicago in two years if they have Wells, or if they have Finley? Headlines around the football world: "Packers sign critical cog, center Scott Wells, over expendable Jermichael Finley." Have to think the knowledgeable football guys would be scratching their heads and licking their chops at a chance to sign Finley. LOL. It looks LOL ridiculous.

But, this is a hypothetical, because I don't think circumstances would ever make it come down to a direct choice between the two.

[MadScientist]

Don't see what you are complaining about with Finley's comments. He said basically that he likes catching the ball more than being a doubled teamed decoy. He wants to find formation adjustments so he is not double teamed constantly, because when things aren't rolling, he wants to be in a position to put the offense on his shoulders and carry the team. I like that attitude. I'd have more of a problem if he placidly accepted a decoy role.

Sign him before he gets so expensive that it will hurt the Packers chances of extending Rodgers and Mathews.

[mraynrand]

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.

Good post. When you start looking at a whole team structure, you're right. You have to make tough choices - especially when you're a Superbowl champ team, and other lesser GMs invariably overvalue your talent.

[mraynrand]

Don't see what you are complaining about with Finley's comments. He said basically that he likes catching the ball more than being a doubled teamed decoy. He wants to find formation adjustments so he is not double teamed constantly, because when things aren't rolling, he wants to be in a position to put the offense on his shoulders and carry the team. I like that attitude. I'd have more of a problem if he placidly accepted a decoy role.

Sign him before he gets so expensive that it will hurt the Packers chances of extending Rodgers and Mathews.

Or Raji. This time may be past.

[Patler]

Maybe, but I doubt it. We've seen the Packers without Finley. Last year's Superbowl run wasn't a sure thing at any point. Finley makes the Packers a whole lot more dangerous. Does the line fall apart without Wells? Who knows. I hope we don't find out. But here's a couple of scenarios for you - Do you worry more about Chicago in two years if they have Wells, or if they have Finley? Headlines around the football world: "Packers sign critical cog, center Scott Wells, over expendable Jermichael Finley." Have to think the knowledgeable football guys would be scratching their heads and licking their chops at a chance to sign Finley. LOL. It looks LOL ridiculous.

But, this is a hypothetical, because I don't think circumstances would ever make it come down to a direct choice between the two.

Given the current Packer roster, I'm not so sure that other GMs wouldn't opt for the combination of Wells + Qurraless and friends over the combination of Dietrich-Smith + Finley and friends. The offense doesn't go well without good line calls and performance from the center.

[HarveyWallbangers]

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.

This.

[mraynrand]

Given the current Packer roster, I'm not so sure that other GMs wouldn't opt for the combination of Wells + Qurraless and friends over the combination of Dietrich-Smith + Finley and friends. The offense doesn't go well without good line calls and performance from the center.

That's not really a fair comparison. Because if you get rid of either one, you may not stand pat with what you have. Like I said above, I suspect it is far easier to find someone who can play at 80%-100% of Scott Wells than 80-100% of Finley.

[Patler]

That's not really a fair comparison. Because if you get rid of either one, you may not stand pat with what you have. Like I said above, I suspect it is far easier to find someone who can play at 80%-100% of Scott Wells than 80-100% of Finley.

Ya, I assume TT will go out and sign that replacement FA first thing in the off-season!

[Patler]

That's not really a fair comparison. Because if you get rid of either one, you may not stand pat with what you have. Like I said above, I suspect it is far easier to find someone who can play at 80%-100% of Scott Wells than 80-100% of Finley.

Part of my argument is that if you lose Finley, you are OK with what you have. You were last year, and the existing options are better both at TE and at WR than they were last year.

If you lose Wells, are you content with Dietrich-Smith? I doubt it. Losing Wells would likely require further roster adjustments.

[RashanGary]

There are two other factors I thought of.

1. Do they see Finley as unstable, hard to handle?
2. Larry Fitzgerald makes 15 million per year. Top TE is 7. Finley has WR type effect at TE price.


The thing that kind if irks me about Finley. . . . He went off and lost weight, worked on being a WR, said he was going to stand up more. . . . Jennings has been playing the lone weakside wide receiver position for however many years he's been here for the most part. He's drawn doubles for a really long time. He's so detailed and in tune with Rodgers, he's been able to dominate with that type of attention paid to him. Finley gets tossed on the outside, exactly where he wants to be and now he's whining because he's getting double coverage and they're not throwing to him. One friggin game and he's whining. Talent or not, we won the SB without him. Jennings is a pro. He'll be around for a while. Nelson is turning into a hell-of-a WR. Cobb looks fantastic at first glance. We have a couple young TE's with high potential. If Finley is a diva, I don't know that he's worth the headache. Resign Clay Matthews with that money, then Extend Rodgers. If Finley is selfish, if he's not happy with 4-0, 73% completion percentage, record scoring. . . . . Maybe he's not the right guy here. When AR and MM were appeasing Finley last year, we were losing games, throwing picks into double coverage and stumbling on offense. Bah, he's great and all, but we have a lot of great players. It's not worth it if he fucks up hte offense with his selfish demands.

To be quite honest, the couple snaps Cobb had inside, he looked as (or more) dangerous than Finley. Maybe Finley can go up and get it, but Cobb looks like he's going to be a Jennings-esque route runner so he doesn't need to fight for the ball. Great route runners get open, the way Jennings does. And I like Cobbs chances at breaking a long TD better than Finley. I love Finley's talent, I'm just sick of hearing him talk. I don't want him here with that attitude.

[rbaloha1]

There are two other factors I thought of.

1. Do they see Finley as unstable, hard to handle?
2. Larry Fitzgerald makes 15 million per year. Top TE is 7. Finley has WR type effect at TE price.


The thing that kind if irks me about Finley. . . . He went off and lost weight, worked on being a WR, said he was going to stand up more. . . . Jennings has been playing the lone weakside wide receiver position for however many years he's been here for the most part. He's drawn doubles for a really long time. He's so detailed and in tune with Rodgers, he's been able to dominate with that type of attention paid to him. Finley gets tossed on the outside, exactly where he wants to be and now he's whining because he's getting double coverage and they're not throwing to him. One friggin game and he's whining. Talent or not, we won the SB without him. Jennings is a pro. He'll be around for a while. Nelson is turning into a hell-of-a WR. Cobb looks fantastic at first glance. We have a couple young TE's with high potential. If Finley is a diva, I don't know that he's worth the headache. Resign Clay Matthews with that money, then Extend Rodgers. If Finley is selfish, if he's not happy with 4-0, 73% completion percentage, record scoring. . . . . Maybe he's not the right guy here. When AR and MM were appeasing Finley last year, we were losing games, throwing picks into double coverage and stumbling on offense. Bah, he's great and all, but we have a lot of great players. It's not worth it if he fucks up hte offense with his selfish demands.

To be quite honest, the couple snaps Cobb had inside, he looked as (or more) dangerous than Finley. Maybe Finley can go up and get it, but Cobb looks like he's going to be a Jennings-esque route runner so he doesn't need to fight for the ball. Great route runners get open, the way Jennings does. And I like Cobbs chances at breaking a long TD better than Finley. I love Finley's talent, I'm just sick of hearing him talk. I don't want him here with that attitude.

plus finley is a great decoy as we found out against the broncos.

[Guiness]

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.

Well put, and to get back to the original topic, Nelson's signing, this is something that bothers me a bit. With this and Jones' contract, we're essentially paying $3mil/year for our #3 and #4 receivers. That seems like a lot in a league where the average salary is about $1.5mil/year (maybe more importantly, the median salary is still under $1million, I believe). Non-starting receivers don't generally make double the average. I know with the offense we run, these guys are closer to starters, the same as our nickle DB. When you put it in the light of a zero-sum game, what does it mean that two guys that are closer to the bottom of the roster than the top are making that money?

[Patler]

Well put, and to get back to the original topic, Nelson's signing, this is something that bothers me a bit. With this and Jones' contract, we're essentially paying $3mil/year for our #3 and #4 receivers. That seems like a lot in a league where the average salary is about $1.5mil/year (maybe more importantly, the median salary is still under $1million, I believe). Non-starting receivers don't generally make double the average. I know with the offense we run, these guys are closer to starters, the same as our nickle DB. When you put it in the light of a zero-sum game, what does it mean that two guys that are closer to the bottom of the roster than the top are making that money?

I'm not too concerned about it. I expect that next year they will be the #2 and #3 receivers, and Driver will be gone. Besides, these are short term contracts (3 years) with not a lot of bonus money. Anytime there is a viable cheaper alternative than the current salary, they can simply release the player with little impact to the salary cap. It would also make them relatively easy to trade, signed to a lower cost, short term contract. For example, if Cobb develops well as a receiver, Jones could be a good trade value since a team getting him would have him for two years but at a not outrageous cost.

[pbmax]

I think both Jones and Finley are nods to the eventual release of Driver. So that is one WR at premium dollars, plus two slightly above mid-priced vets who are great complements. Something I am curious about, and hope never to find out, is whether Jones and Nelson could be #1 and 2 successfully on their own. Though Cobb in the slot with those two might give me hope.

Its hard to argue that the team couldn't be successful without Finley, but last year was a struggle at a lot of times without him. Part of that was the running game and Tauscher plus four games where it seems Rodgers was affected by a concussion (Redksins, Dolphins, Lions, Pats). But a lot of the time it was a lack of a sure thing on 3rd down.

I think it would be a matter of time to replace Wells and line calls. It might take someone harder to find to reach block as well as he does, but again, the Packers don't do anything in the run game that is unheard of elsewhere.

Short term losing Wells probably makes the Packers look like the Jets last night. But longer term, the offense has to morph again without Finley and that puts more pressure on Rodgers.

[smuggler]

You have to remember that our 3/4 WRs see the field a lot more than other teams' 3/4 WRs. In terms of dollar/production, maybe you have a point, but dollar/ability, these are bargain signings, honestly.