Let him walk

[Little Whiskey]

Also if anyone could figure out a way to retitle someone else's thread my money is on Patler.

I'd take that bet!

[denverYooper]

The QB likes him. He'll stay.

This is a solid point.

Part of Finley's "problem" right now seems to be an expanded role in the offense, in terms of how much he gets moved around. His game isn't thinking but they're making him do a lot of it these days. I feel like he'll settle down a lot once he internalizes the playbook and his catch rate will go up some. He's much better when he just has to react.

[Tarlam!]

Another young grasshopper just got Patlerized.

I never get enough credit around here, but I want it marked down in the annals of PR, that it was I, Tarlam!, that coined the phrase of being Patlerized. Otherwise, I'll have you all whacked!

[pbmax]

I never get enough credit around here, but I want it marked down in the annals of PR, that it was I, Tarlam!, that coined the phrase of being Patlerized. Otherwise, I'll have you all whacked!

Remember to get BOMNF! trademarked too.

[Zool]

You just posted that you thought there was a chance we would let go of Finley because of Quarless, that's like saying we don't need Greg Jennings because we have James Jones. I don't know why you just won't admit he's not one of your favorite guys on the Packers, but if Im wrong find me one post where you compliment the guy without it being back handed.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a direct quote from Patler about his feelings on any player. You'll normally get a comparison to an existing or past player as well as some contract details. Saying they might let Finley go because of Quarless has nothing to do with Patlers direct feeling on the subject only past Packer history of letting someone go if someone else can step in and play.

[swede]

POTWH never caught on.

[Patler]

Actually from your earlier response to me in this thread, as well as your comments to (and about) me in previous threads, I sincerely doubt that you do understand where I stand on Finley. I am also fairly certain that you never will understand where I stand on Finley.

You just posted that you thought there was a chance we would let go of Finley because of Quarless, that's like saying we don't need Greg Jennings because we have James Jones. I don't know why you just won't admit he's not one of your favorite guys on the Packers, but if Im wrong find me one post where you compliment the guy without it being back handed.

You just proved my point.

First, in answer to your last statement, most on here should remember that I gushed positively about the guy his second season. I took every opportunity to point out how much he had changed as a player and as an adult. I even referred to it as one of the more dramatic changes I had ever seen in a young player over one off season.

As to the remainder of your post, by now you should realize that my feelings about a long term, top-five contract for Finley have absolutely nothing to do with him personally. It has everything to do with the position he plays. You either fail to understand that, or just chose to ignore what I have clearly said time and time again.

I have routinely stated that, in my opinion, the offense will continue to be very, very good with a decent TE, it doesn't need a great TE to flourish. Is it better with a great TE? Absolutely. I have said that time and time again. I have readily and freely acknowledged that Finley is a much better receiver than any other TE on the roster; but in my opinion the balance in this offense would allow it to take a step down in talent at the TE position to save cap space for use at another more critical position on the team.

As for your analogy to Jennings, I disagree; again because of the relative impact of the positions, in my opinion. Over the years, the impression I have gained is that a very good passing offense can usually absorb the loss of TE better than it can its top WR. It might have to do with needing three of them at least. IF the WRs are mediocre, but the TE outstanding; obviously the loss of the TE could be crippling, but that is not the case on GB. You can be both creative and explosive without a TE on the field.

There is a young corp of very strong performers on this team, and eventually all will be on second or third contracts. At some point soon Rodgers will take a very large portion of the salary cap. When those things happen, at times the Packers will have to let a player or two leave who they really would like to keep. It happened under Wolf in the '90s; it will happen eventually under TT as well. I think Finley could be the first.

As for whether my praise for Finley is always backhanded, you are wrong. My praise is always straight forward, nothing backhanded about it at all. BUT my praise often is coupled with recognition that Finley is an enigma, and a fluctuating one at that. I chose to recognize what I see as the good, the bad and the relative significance about him and the position he plays. On the other hand, you seem to focus only on the good and discount or ignore all the rest.

[Patler]

Also if anyone could figure out a way to retitle someone else's thread my money is on Patler.

I'd take that bet!

Thanks Upnorth, but I think Little Whiskey understands the "depth" of my computer skills. I would take your bet too!!!

[MadtownPacker]

Actually, that whole exchange reminded me of when Lloyd Bentsen told Dan Quayle, "You're no Jack Kennedy, Senator".

Reminded me of the Walden situation. Guy getting accused of some shit he probably didnt do.

[Tarlam!]

Honest mistake, we all know where Patler stands when it comes to Finley.

Yeah. Patler KNOWS Finley is black.

[Smidgeon]

As for your analogy to Jennings, I disagree; again because of the relative impact of the positions, in my opinion. Over the years, the impression I have gained is that a very good passing offense can usually absorb the loss of TE better than it can its top WR. It might have to do with needing three of them at least. IF the WRs are mediocre, but the TE outstanding; obviously the loss of the TE could be crippling, but that is not the case on GB. You can be both creative and explosive without a TE on the field.

I actually read a pretty good argument by Waldo a while back stating that the return on a great TE over a good one is better than the return on a great WR on a good one. I don't remember the specifics since it was a while back (and I'm no longer on that forum), but the study he was referencing did comparative studies on WR replacements versus TE replacements. I don't know if the accuracy/truth is there or if it was incidental, but it was a fascinating concept nonetheless.

[mraynrand]

You just proved my point.....I chose to recognize what I see as the good, the bad and the relative significance about him and the position he plays. On the other hand, you seem to focus only on the good and discount or ignore all the rest.

[mission]

POTWH never caught on.

Disappointing indeed. I tried -- you tried -- but I'm not sure very many people can relate. Especially Pugger.

[mission]

How does Quarless have anything to do with Finley though? I'm lost. Guys aren't even in the same stratosphere, even accounting for the negatives of Finley (drops, talking etc).

Imagine D-coordinators rolling their coverages around Quarless. Not to mention #81 might not even play next season.

I like Patler, respect Patler, but you guys are real quick to throw out the Patlerized.

[mraynrand]

How does Quarless have anything to do with Finley though? I'm lost. Guys aren't even in the same stratosphere, even accounting for the negatives of Finley (drops, talking etc).

Imagine D-coordinators rolling their coverages around Quarless. Not to mention #81 might not even play next season.

I like Patler, respect Patler, but you guys are real quick to throw out the Patlerized.

The Patlerized was for Patler definitively demonstrating that Brandon misrepresented Patler's position. I am firmly in the Finley camp with Brandon and you. The original spat was whether to prioritize signing Wells or Finley, and I thought - and still think - it's absurd to favor Wells. In my estimation, it's much easier to replace Wells than Finley. That's my opinion. Misrepresent it and I will Paterlize you.