Match Made In Heaven: McCarthy and Finley

[Patler]

You people are nuts. He's one of the best tight ends in football. He's not expendable. Just because there happen to BE other tight ends on the team, doesn't mean they have Finley's talent. And if we're overrating his talent level, or his blocking truly does suck, other teams know that and he won't get the payday he's looking for. Teams do scout players before signing them--at least I'd hope they do.

With all due respect, whether Finley is expendable or not does not depend at all on whether another TE on the roster has similar talent. It is clear that they do not. Finley's expendability depends entirely on TT and MM determining which is more valuable to overall team performance and long term projections:

The passing game options of Jennings, Nelson, Jones, Cobb, Starks, Driver or another WR and the remaining TEs plus $5-7 million to spend elsewhere on the team; or

The same passing game options plus Finley, and $5-7 million less to spend elsewhere on the team.

The passing game will change without Finley, for sure, but will any change in effectiveness be offset by benefits achieved from the use of that money elsewhere? It's a lot like money available for capital improvements without unlimited funds for all the improvements. Which is the greater need?

[Brandon494]

You keep talent around ARod, plain and simple. Driver is on his way out soon, whatever he's making will just be shipped towards Finley. We can pay Hawk 5M a year but now 7M for Finley is too much?

[Smidgeon]

I've been thinking about this lately, and I'm not sure I've seen much of it. Whatever happened to the end zone jump ball of two years ago? Is Rodgers just so good that he doesn't need to toss it up? Finley is the perfect target for those throws because of his body control/hands/height.

[Patler]

You keep talent around ARod, plain and simple. Driver is on his way out soon, whatever he's making will just be shipped towards Finley. We can pay Hawk 5M a year but now 7M for Finley is too much?

Theoretically, no it isn't. (I won't bore you with the arguments as to why Hawk is of more value to the team than Finley. ) But, there really are no good cap summaries out there right now like there were before the uncapped year. It is difficult for us as fans to project with any accuracy what their cap situation will look like in 2012, let alone in 2013 or 2014. Before the uncapped year, that was very easy information to find.

So, yes, maybe (notice I wrote "maybe") whereas they had $5M to spend on Hawk they won't have $7M to spend on Finley because they would rather have it for Jennings, or Rodgers, or Raji or Matthews, or to use part of it for several of Wells and/or Lang and/or Shields, and/or Masthay.

At some point in the not too distant future it is very likely that the Packers will have to let good and valuable players leave because they won't be able to pay them all. They might have to decide within their roster makeup if the top TE has more value to the team than a starting guard and the punter, for example.

Letting Jenkins go was just the start of what might happen more frequently and with even younger players, those becoming FAs for the first time.

[Brandon494]

Thanks for not posting why you think Hawk is more vauable then Finley, I think my head would have exploded.

[Patler]

Thanks for not posting why you think Hawk is more vauable then Finley, I think my head would have exploded.

Well, if THAT'S what will happen....I will get right on it!

[HarveyWallbangers]

The passing game IS almost the sole reason we are 7-0. Run offense, run defense, pass defense, and special teams have all been right around average. Yet we are 7-0. Maybe Thompson knows that's where the wise money goes. We keep the passing game as is, and we try to hit some home runs in the draft in other areas.

[pbmax]

With all due respect, whether Finley is expendable or not does not depend at all on whether another TE on the roster has similar talent. It is clear that they do not. Finley's expendability depends entirely on TT and MM determining which is more valuable to overall team performance and long term projections:

The passing game options of Jennings, Nelson, Jones, Cobb, Starks, Driver or another WR and the remaining TEs plus $5-7 million to spend elsewhere on the team; or

The same passing game options plus Finley, and $5-7 million less to spend elsewhere on the team.

The passing game will change without Finley, for sure, but will any change in effectiveness be offset by benefits achieved from the use of that money elsewhere? It's a lot like money available for capital improvements without unlimited funds for all the improvements. Which is the greater need?

Actually, would greater need cover it or would Thompson's approach look more like he valued a higher return on his investment?

In my opinion, its clear now, with the drafting of Raji over Crabtree and the trade back into the first round for Matthews (maybe even drafting of Harrell over Revis, wasn't it), that Thompson is capable of drafting for need over BPA. So I doubt his decision-making is as one dimensional as his media coverage often makes it out to be.

But I think he would want a decent ROI rather than the more cash, though that is not to say the budget on Finley is unlimited.

[denverYooper]

From Demovsky's Tweets:

#Packers TE @JermichaelF88 on his future: "I want to stay here no doubt. This is a town, a team, organization, you couldn’t ask for more."

Finley said he doesn't know where contract talks stand with the #Packers but hopes something gets done.

Finley on the possibility the #Packers tag him: "If they do that, I'm down with that. I ain't going to be pissed off. I just love the game."

[Smidgeon]

Actually, would greater need cover it or would Thompson's approach look more like he valued a higher return on his investment?

In my opinion, its clear now, with the drafting of Raji over Crabtree and the trade back into the first round for Matthews (maybe even drafting of Harrell over Revis, wasn't it), that Thompson is capable of drafting for need over BPA. So I doubt his decision-making is as one dimensional as his media coverage often makes it out to be.

But I think he would want a decent ROI rather than the more cash, though that is not to say the budget on Finley is unlimited.

Revis was drafted 14th and Harrell 16th.

[denverYooper]

"Finley Wants to Stay a Packer for Life"

http://www.foxsportswisconsin.com/10/31/11/Finley-wants-to-stay-a-Packer-for-life/landing_packers.html?blockID=593580&feedID=5196

[Brandon494]

"Finley Wants to Stay a Packer for Life"

http://www.foxsportswisconsin.com/10...80&feedID=5196

Good find, after reading that I think its a lock hes not going anywhere. Like most players who come to play for the Pack the town of Green Bay has seemed to grow on him.

[pbmax]

Revis was drafted 14th and Harrell 16th.

Quite right, and now reminded, I do remember the story that the Packers needed to do something else once he left the board. So that may not have been the best example. But as his rebuilding project has moved along, I have become convinced that Ted is not married unalterably to BPA and think the defense drafted for Dom in 2009's first two picks demonstrates that.

[mission]

Good find, after reading that I think its a lock hes not going anywhere. Like most players who come to play for the Pack the town of Green Bay has seemed to grow on him.

Quite the opposite of what so many people have been saying about 88, like they know him. "He's going to break the bank"... I think it's really up to the Packers and there's no way he's not back next year. Rodgers has to have a lot to do with it too. Finley wants to win.

They aren't in a rush to sign him... maybe even keeping his production down a bit to make him affordable, but something will happen. :tinfoilhat:

[Brandon494]

The guy isn't the smartest and doesn't really know how to handle the media so fans misunderstand him for being a "me first" player. Hes also matured a lot since being drafted by Green Bay, remember he was only a RS sophomore when he came out.