Let him walk

[Patler]

Don't worry about Patler, the dude worries too much. The guy thought that Crosby and Kuhn werent going to be resigned last season either evn though I said thu would be locks to be resigned....just like Finley.

Again you are demonstrating how little you understand my positions.

First, I worry about nothing when it comes to the Packers, because it is only of entertainment interest to me, with no impact on me beyond that. A loss bothers me not one bit after the game is done. My friends who are Bears fans could never understand why they couldn't goad me when Lovie Smith seemed to have the Packers number. It really does not bother me if they win or lose. I am one of the few who wasn't bummed out in the '70s and '80s, because I found the performances of many individual players to be entertaining even when the losses mounted. Individually, I care little about who they keep or who they let sign elsewhere, because the individual players mean nothing to me. I don't know them. The few NFL players I have dealt with have all been after their playing days were done. (Its is different for me with NHL players, many of which I have known personally.) Besides, as many on here will attest, I enjoy the off season maneuvering as much as the on-field play. I certainly don't worry about any one off-season act, because they are all inter-related, and each one alone has little meaning until the final roster is set. Even that is not static.

I doubt that is me that you are referring to in your comment above. I don't recall ever thinking the Packers would let Crosby get away, although I may have mentioned that when a player hits free agency you run the risk of someone offering an absurd contract and losing the guy. That is sort of what happened with Rivera. I have never waivered in my belief that Crosby was a talented kicker worth hanging on to, even when many on here seemed in favor of letting him go. Unlike other skilled positions where you can compensate by scheming, there is no compensation for a bad kicker or punter, so when you have good ones you should keep them.

As for Kuhn, I always felt the packers should keep him as their FB because of his versatility, and I predicted they would let Hall go because he was limited to blocking and STs, but more importantly never seemed to play more than about 12 games a year because of injuries. Availability counts for a lot for marginal, nonimpact players. Again, once Kuhn hit free agency there was risk, because some teams go nuts for Super Bowl winners' players, but that never materialized this year. Had it been a normal year for free agency, Kuhn and Jones could very well have been playing elsewhere.

I have always enjoyed the transitory nature of NFL rosters.

[George Cumby]

The "can" is more in terms of whether the team and player can ever agree to terms. Even if the cap space is there, if a player wants to get the top contract for his position, and the team is willing to pay only in the range of the top 4 or 5 contracts, he can't be signed. I have no idea what Finley will expect for terms, but if he wants a record contract, I doubt the Packers would go there. Incidentally, I would not be shocked if Finley found a team willing to pay that to him, but I will be surprised if it is the Packers that agree to a record contract with him. I have no idea what Finley and his agent have in mind, but I could easily see an agent convincing Finley to go for a record contract. The Packers probably can use the franchise tag to leverage them off that position, at least in 2012.

The "can" does not refer to an ability to work a contract into the salary cap. I don't foresee a problem in that for at least a couple years, unless the Packers feel obligated to improve the contracts of some over-performers (Rodgers, Matthews, etc.) I think the Packers are in a decent cap situation, but not one that gives them total flexibility. After all, the Packers found merit in reworking Collins' contract before the start of the season to gain some cap space.

The "should" was applicable only to the long term impact to the salary cap of a top 5 contract for a TE. Even if it is manageable for 2012 or 2013, it will impact what they can do in any other year while it remains in effect. I refer back to Bob Harlan's comments about his own tenure as the Packers contract guy. He said the most difficult concept to accept and practice was that giving in even a little and paying a player more than you should can mushroom into problems later on, both in raising the expectations of players yet to be signed and in restricting the teams ability to sign players in the future even at a cost they thought was fair. It could occur that the Packers and Finley will agree that he deserves to have a contract in the top 3, but the Packers decide they shouldn't do it because there are more important places to spend their money.

Incidentally, I totally agree with the comments made about the value of a TE in the passing game. I disagree that it needs to be a unique TE talent. While there will necessarily be a drop off, I think much of the advantages are there so long as you have a decent TE, with decent speed and decent hands. I also think many undervalue what a good blocking TE brings to an offense, especially if he is consistent. Bubba Franks was never a unique talent as a receiver, but in his younger years he was at least a decent receiver and a real force in the endzone going wherever he wanted to go. It became very predictable, in close throw it to Bubba, but it always seemed to work. As a blocker, for a while he was top notch. I don't remember if it was the OC or one of the assistants who one time remarked about the flexibility Franks gave them, because he was one of the few TEs that could be assigned to block a DE alone and would get the job done all the time.

Good stuff. Thanks for taking the time to clarify and expound on your position.

[pbmax]

Two other questions while I am at it:

1. Are ANY Packer contracts in the Top 5 at the position? Collins? Woodson maybe? Sitton was close but definitely outside the top 2 (Mankins and Evans I think). I am not sure Rodgers was at any time, he just eclipsed Romo when he signed. Jennings was high at the time but was quickly surpassed.

2. I actually don't like Rodger's throws on jump balls in the endzone, which is odd because he excels at a harder throw of dropping a ball into the middle of the field between LBs and safeties. He has one throw I like that is aimed at the sideline in the endzone. Jones, Driver and Nelson have done well with those.

But the jump ball never seems to go to the same spot as if he is adjusting on a per play basis. The best I have seen at this, Brian Sipe (completely underrated) and Dave Logan (6'4" former basketballer) always ran that route to the end pylon and Sipe simply sent the ball way into the air to that pylon like a basketball shot and it was Logan's job to get there and make the jump for it like an alley oop. Thrown like that, it was Logan's job to choose when to make a play on the ball as the DB was shadowing him and not watching the ball. If they put that DB in a zone it might be tougher, but Logan still had the advantage. They also had a version that was like a comeback where Logan would make for the pylon then pivot head to the center of the endzone along the backline and the ball would be there.

I think a jump ball thrown differently turn by turn is harder to throw well and it leads to closer coverage. Throw it to a spot and let the big guy out physical the DB to get it. The way that play developed, it was like Finley was not sure where the ball would be in relation to the DB or sideline.

[Patler]

BTW that INT had nothing to do with Finley weighting less, it was a under thrown ball by Rodgers in which the defender just got lucky as shit. Also during the offseason when you where complaining about him coming to camp lighter you were stating how it would hurt his blocking which seems not to be the case at all. He had one game where he struggled against the Giants in his route running, the main thing with Finley this season has been his drops.

I disagree. Finley needed to establish a better physical position on the interception. Basically, he allowed Mitchell to push him deeper. Even so, he still had the chance to catch the ball above the defender; he never did so. He never got two hands on the ball, but should have been able to. The Slo-mo video at NFL.com shows that pretty clearly.

In fairness to Finley, I think two penalties could have been called on Mitchell. First, there was pass interference (although slight) because Mitchell had his hands on Finley through out the play, even as the ball arrived and I believe Mitchell forced Finley a bit deeper because of it (even as Finley was in the air). The more blatant penalty was face guarding. With his back to the ball, Mitchell went up with his hands in front of Finley's face mask, but his hands did come down.

But all in all, It was not a very physical effort on Finley's part.

Finley has had isolated good blocks, but overall his blocking still leaves a lot to be desired.

I think this year he has played more like a big WR and less like a TE. He gets knocked off his routes more often than what we saw the beginning of last year, but maybe its because other teams have learned a little about what works and what doesn't.

I was never as concerned about the actual fact of his losing weight as I was with his motivation for doing it in spite of his own belief that the coaches wouldn't like it.

[pbmax]

I am almost sure face guarding is no longer a penalty.

[Patler]

Two other questions while I am at it:

1. Are ANY Packer contracts in the Top 5 at the position? Collins? Woodson maybe? Sitton was close but definitely outside the top 2 (Mankins and Evans I think). I am not sure Rodgers was at any time, he just eclipsed Romo when he signed. Jennings was high at the time but was quickly surpassed.

I think Collins was at the time he signed it.

Sitton reportedly signed a six-year contract with a $6 M. signing bonus and $26.15 M paid in the first 3 years. The six year total is reportedly for $34.95 M ($5.825M/season), so the cash outlay the last 3 seasons is relatively low.

Supposedly, Mankins got a signing bonus of $20 M. with $30.5 M the first three years and $52.25 M. over six years. Sitton looks cheap in comparison.

Jari Evans is reported to have signed for $19M in the first year, $25.7 M the first 3 years, and $56.7M for seven years. Sitton looks cheap in comparison to this contract, too.


I'm not sure what other guards got big contracts recently to look at for comparison.

[mraynrand]

I am almost sure face guarding is no longer a penalty.

There is contact and no contact. Contact is the only thing that can draw a penalty, and it doesn't draw a penalty if you're playing the ball and not overtly impeding the ability of the receiver to catch the ball (you can be playing the ball and still interfere, it just has to be more obvious). Finley was being interfered with because the defender made contact without playing the ball.

[Patler]

I am almost sure face guarding is no longer a penalty.

Really? I quess I missed that one, if you are correct.

[jdrats]

Really? I quess I missed that one, if you are correct.

He is correct. Face guarding has been gone for quite a while.

[Tarlam!]

Was this in reference to the Bears game?

It may have been. It was early in the season and I don't recall all the details. just the wry Rodgers smile and the very clear expectation that Fin needs to study more film.

But the biggest indication is what he said after the SB "getting the best TE back" and his latest offering "one of the best TEs". Rodgers is as consistant at the podium as he is on the paddock. At least my interpretation is that Rodgers is sending Fin messages and they are now becoming public. I#d eat my Stock if he wasn't urging him on behind closed doors.

Keep watching the plays the way you have been PB, but watch the stare down when #88 goes back to the huddle after doing something "wrong" even on a successful play. It is noticable.

[pbmax]

It may have been. It was early in the season and I don't recall all the details. just the wry Rodgers smile and the very clear expectation that Fin needs to study more film.

But the biggest indication is what he said after the SB "getting the best TE back" and his latest offering "one of the best TEs". Rodgers is as consistant at the podium as he is on the paddock. At least my interpretation is that Rodgers is sending Fin messages and they are now becoming public. I#d eat my Stock if he wasn't urging him on behind closed doors.

Keep watching the plays the way you have been PB, but watch the stare down when #88 goes back to the huddle after doing something "wrong" even on a successful play. It is noticable.

Yes, after the Bears game he (Rodgers) mentioned some players needed more focus, but I am not sure that translates to more film study. Finley fessed up after that that Rodgers was referring, at least in part, to him. In fact, I think there is a Nutz thread about it.

And I would not doubt that if Rodgers has switched from best TE in the game to one of the bests, it could be a message. But remember, Rodgers was calling Finley that after he was injured, as in, look what we are doing after losing such a great player. So the slightly different message might be serving different purposes in each year.

One thing that I think is getting overlooked is that whatever offseason everyone else had working on their games, Finley had rehab. And with an ACL surgery (plus 2 more surgeries to clean infections) taking a minimum 9 months to completely return from, Finley did not get to work much on his game this year. If at all. So rust in camp was to be expected and some of that has carried over to the season. But I think its clear his QB still believes in him.

And that route that he ran wrong for Rodgers? He still turned in a TD with some nifty footwork from his QB.

[pbmax]

Finley has his QB's back.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/16/jermichael-finley-calls-tebow-coverage-kind-of-disturbing/

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/135758103.html

But in inimitable Finley style, he did it by calling out Tebow worship. I love where his heart is, but you would think he would get tired of the taste of his shoe.

[Brandon494]

I mean he is right.

[mraynrand]

The Tebow stuff is way over the top. I just hope they get his mom to voice over that "My Timmie, our Tebow" Brocos fans should have to suffer the same ultimate nausea that Packer fans suffered:

[Tony Oday]

We want to fly under the radar! Shut it JF. Though I am guessing he gets 5 tds in the playoffs.