CUT THROAT CONTACTS.....COULD 4 of 6 REALLY BE GONE NEXT YEAR ?

[woodbuck27]

He has not. Medical staff found something else in his X-Ray.

That would explain it then.

[Fritz]

My feeling is that Woodson, Jennings, and Finley will be gone. I think that Hawk will stay, to the chagrin of many fans. I think Pickett will stay. I also have a strong suspicion that BJ Raji does not want to re-up in Green Bay. I think he'd like to be in a system that will give him more opportunities to get upfield.

[RashanGary]

Your point well taken. I've been thinking about this and wondering if MM just doesn't want to give the younger player a longer look...get them more experience as we still win and at the same time ensure that Charles Woodson is really healed. I feel we need Charles Woodson's leadership on the field not sidelines.

GO PACKERS !

I've thought about this too. Give MD Jennings and Hayward some long looks. . . . When Woodson does come back, there is actually a fairly big decision to make. Since we play more nickel than any other defense, the question is going to be whether to keep Woodson at safety and bring Hayward in as the slot corner or to move Woodson down to slot corner and bring MD Jennings off the bench.

IMO, the answer is pretty clear, leave Wood at safety. But I don't think that's what Woodson would really want. Also, I think the young guys are gelling together. They're more sure of their assignments. If you bring Woodson into the mix, he sort of free-lances, and I think that negatively affects the younger players who really need to know where their help is. . .

At the end of the day, I think Woodson is going to lose a lot of freedom out there. He's going to have to be accountable to his assignment so the defense can continue to grow and trust where each other are. He's going to have to stay at safety because Hayward is better than MD Jennings and it would be criminal to keep him off the field. . . .

I've wondered too, if the Packers want to keep growing this accountable, responsible defense so when Woodson does come back, they can sort of reign him in, and play within the defense. . .



That said, I doubt MM would do that. It would be very deceptive to Woodson. Coaches who start on that path of deceiving their players. . . . I think it loses a lot of respect and I don't think MM is that kind of guy. He wouldn't be where he is, with the success he has if he was that type of guy. Never know though. There are benefits to working it this way.

[Fritz]

Can't you have it both ways? Play Woodson at safety but bring him into the box the way some safeties do? Let Burnett stay back.

[Guiness]

Your point well taken. I've been thinking about this and wondering if MM just doesn't want to give the younger players a longer look...get them more experience as we still win and at the same time ensure that Charles Woodson is really healed. I feel we need Charles Woodson's leadership on the field not sidelines if he's truly medically cleared.

GO PACKERS !

Quite possibly he does. If so and he's the one holding Woodson out, I hope he brings him back this week, in a less meaningful game, and let him get some reps on the field. It's more critical with a WR who has to work on his timing, but any player who's been out that long needs to knock the rust off if he's going to play his best.

[Guiness]

No it was a question. You took it as a rhetorical question.

Fair enough and I responded to try to broaden my position of a mere query. I want him in pads.

I found it somewhat insulting to the type of player he is that you would even suggest it. By voicing it, you are encouraging others to give it thought. If I had thought it was a rhetorical question - one not needing an answer, and therefor assumed to be true, I'd have been even more pissed!

No worries though, eh?

[Pugger]

I doubt Finley or Jennings will be gone. We have other players who will not be missed in 2913.

Graham Harrell
DJ Smith
Brandon Saine
Jarrett Boykin
Donald Driver
Jordan Miller
Sean Richardson
Johnny White

If Woodson takes a pay cut he might be back.

[woodbuck27]

I found it somewhat insulting to the type of player he is that you would even suggest it. By voicing it, you are encouraging others to give it thought. If I had thought it was a rhetorical question - one not needing an answer, and therefor assumed to be true, I'd have been even more pissed!

No worries though, eh?

Guiness this whole question RE: Charles Woodson bothers me. This is a highly paid player that we have come to respect and need to see playing.

I'm not interested in any politics RE: this question. I simply would like to know exactly why he's still on our sideline. I certainly wouldn't intend any insult on the character of Charles Woodson. I'm way too far away to even reflect that could be the case. As an NFL fan I have nothing but respect for Charles Woodson.

[woodbuck27]

Quite possibly he does. If so and he's the one holding Woodson out, I hope he brings him back this week, in a less meaningful game, and let him get some reps on the field. It's more critical with a WR who has to work on his timing, but any player who's been out that long needs to knock the rust off if he's going to play his best.

Charles Woodson has been recognized as one of our main leaders in terms of reneumeration. If he's ready to go he should be playing not 'if that's even the case'; held out !

GO PACK GO !

[King Friday]

Let's just cut to the chase. The Packers WILL pay to keep Rodgers and Clay. Extending those two will likely cost an additional $12-14M per year going forward, and those extensions are both likely to take place this offseason. Raji is also very likely to be extended this offseason, which is probably another $3-4M per year. That is $15M-$18M extra cash we need to come up with.

Even if Jennings does wind up leaving, we are going to lose another key guy or two. The more I look at it, the more I see no reasonable way to keep Jennings...not with a roster already loaded at that position. It just doesn't make any sense to try to keep him and lose 2-3 other key players at positions that would have a far greater negative impact to the team. The emergence of Jones as a dynamic playmaker and development of Cobb (while Jennings has been stuck mostly on the bench this year anyway) makes Jennings expendable. It would be great to keep him, but this isn't MLB.

[KYPack]

That's about it, King.

GJ walks and Hawk gets cut and restructured.

The big 2? they gotta sign 'em.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

As much as it pains me to say it Jennings probably is gone. As he as even stated himself, the writing is on the wall. Jennings is probably my favorite player on the roster so it will be very tough to see him go.

Besides Jennings though, I don't see how Woodson can be back even with a pay cut. Look at the secondary. With his speed declining and the emergence of Hayward, Shields, and House, Woodson is the fifth best CB on the roster currently. Not only that, but Hayward seems perfect to replace Woodson as the Nickel CB. Between Burnett, Jennings, and McMillan at safety, is there really room for Woodson to play full time? Burnett has one spot locked up and between the draft and the other two guys when would Woodson play? I just can't see him coming back, esp at that price. Pay shields with some of that money, that guy can play.

As for Finley, I would attempt to trade him for a low round pick rather than just cutting him out right. He only has one year left so the team picking him up doesn't have to deal with a huge multiyear deal. If you are getting rid of Jennings and Woodson anyways, you might as well try to bait someone into a pick since we will have some room to keep him around for a while. If you can't find a trade partner then cut him. I'm not sure when he is due his roster bonus, but it would have to be before then. With Quarless coming back I really don't think we would be losing all that much. I was pretty high on Quarless before his injury. If you dump Finley early on, the tag and trade (or tag and keep) of Jennings might be more realistic.

I'm not sure of the details of Hawk's contract, but if we stand to clear a lot of cash by cutting him I would think about it. If you are talking about 1 or 2 mil in overall cap space, I would wait another year or two until the gain is more significant. That way if you are paying for him you might as well have him. Between Bishop and Hawk, we should be pretty decent at MLB next year.

So between Woodson, Finley, Jennings, and a few others like Driver, we probably clear 20+ mil. Plus we have about 7 mil in cap space going into next year anyways. That should be enough for Rodgers, Clay, and Raji. Plus doesn’t Raji already make 3-4 mil a year? He probably gets only another 3-4 mil added to that. He has been really good, but he hasn't been Ngata good. If they could somehow keep Greg and just lose Woodson and Finely that would be ideal. I would hate to lose both Jennings and Finley in the same year. That might have a greater impact then many want to let themselves believe.

[Pugger]

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/common/page.php?feed=2&id=5841&is_corp=1

[Patler]

Finley is one of those guys who spends far too much time talking about himself, explaining himself, trying to analyze himself for reporters. In and of itself, that does not make him any more or less valuable as a player; but for some fans (and I suspect some teammates as well) it gets tiring to listen to. Lack of maturity, self-confidence, or something.

It will be interesting to see his contributions Sunday and for however long their playoff run extends. I suspect the JS article was on the money as of a month ago, and the Packer brain trust was tending toward releasing him before paying the roster bonus in the off season. His recent turn-around of sorts might have them changing their minds. A long playoff run with significant contributions from Finley could be the icing on the cake for his return in 2013.

[pbmax]

Finley is one of those guys who spends far too much time talking about himself, explaining himself, trying to analyze himself for reporters. In and of itself, that does not make him any more or less valuable as a player; but for some fans (and I suspect some teammates as well) it gets tiring to listen to. Lack of maturity, self-confidence, or something.

It will be interesting to see his contributions Sunday and for however long their playoff run extends. I suspect the JS article was on the money as of a month ago, and the Packer brain trust was tending toward releasing him before paying the roster bonus in the off season. His recent turn-around of sorts might have them changing their minds. A long playoff run with significant contributions from Finley could be the icing on the cake for his return in 2013.

The ESPN Milwaukee article mentions self-confidence as well. I think Finley sometimes substitutes bravado for confidence and perseverance.