Andrew Quarless

[MadtownPacker]

Happy to have Quarless as the TE. He seems to be getting trusted more and more and he's stepping up.

There it is! He is working his way up. Unlike Finley, the box of chocolates, cuz you never know what you're gonna get.

[woodbuck27]

Happy to have Quarless as the TE. He seems to be getting trusted more and more and he's stepping up.

For sure that's right.

He's obviously working hard of Aaron Rodgers would ignore him.

[bobblehead]

Q is not one who will stretch the field like the top TEs do today. He is a great #2.

No, he is not. But he will block for Lacy better than any of the field stretching TE's and thus a strong running game enhances play action thus stretching the field by freezing the pass rush and coverage LB's.

[bobblehead]

Quarless has done some nice things lately, but he also makes mistakes. I don't think Arod's 1st INT was intended for Boykin. I think it was intended for Quarless, but he cut off his route. I like him as a #2, but he's a below average #1.

He was occupying the spot in the zone he was supposed to. It was not his job to continue his route to the sideline where Boykin already was. Lets not go all brett favre and blame a receiver for the interceptions. ARod made a throw, and the DB made a good read to abandon his coverage and make a pick. All there was too it.

[red]

quarless probably shouldn't even be on the roster next year. whats he done in his time in green bay. two "monster" games of 66 yards

we still need a Real #1 TE, and not just another one that has "potential"

[bobblehead]

quarless probably shouldn't even be on the roster next year. whats he done in his time in green bay. two "monster" games of 66 yards

we still need a Real #1 TE, and not just another one that has "potential"

Here is the problem. Quarless is not great, but is proving serviceable. The problem with losing him would be this. He knows the offense. Has multiple years in it. He has been hurt. Anyone we bring in now has exactly one offseason to learn from scratch. Quarless needs to be retained...for a modest contract obviously, but he is better to have at this point than to not have.

[woodbuck27]

He was occupying the spot in the zone he was supposed to. It was not his job to continue his route to the sideline where Boykin already was. Lets not go all brett favre and blame a receiver for the interceptions. ARod made a throw, and the DB made a good read to abandon his coverage and make a pick. All there was too it.

A pick his mother could have made.

[red]

Here is the problem. Quarless is not great, but is proving serviceable. The problem with losing him would be this. He knows the offense. Has multiple years in it. He has been hurt. Anyone we bring in now has exactly one offseason to learn from scratch. Quarless needs to be retained...for a modest contract obviously, but he is better to have at this point than to not have.

the problem is that he's on his rookie deal, making the bare minimum, and to me, thats exactly what he's worth

i don't know if he's worth a million a year, or 4 million a year if TT goes the same route with Q as the last guy i thought was worth the bare minimum (brad jones)

in a perfect world, he would be, at best, a #2 and to me #2 TE should be up and coming guys, not guys who have never been

[bobblehead]

the problem is that he's on his rookie deal, making the bare minimum, and to me, thats exactly what he's worth

i don't know if he's worth a million a year, or 4 million a year if TT goes the same route with Q as the last guy i thought was worth the bare minimum (brad jones)

in a perfect world, he would be, at best, a #2 and to me #2 TE should be up and coming guys, not guys who have never been

I get that. But he has some useful talent. He is solid as a blocker and so far below average as a pass catcher, but showing signs of life now that he is being used that way. Because Finley was always on the field in passing situations we never got to see much of Quarless. Yes, I would be upset if we gave him 4 million a year, but say 2.5 I would rather have him than random rookie, or some other teams cast off.

[pbmax]

I think he gets a deal, especially if Finley is viewed as gone. So its possible he has to wait if he wants the max the Packers will spend on him.

Starter, part-time contributor on ST, he's get Bush money or perhaps a little more. He is a starter but his numbers are modest compared to others. If there is no Finley, there will be some budget room for a low-mid priced vet at TE.

[Bossman641]

Q is a good #2 TE, would prefer a better #1.

[Bretsky]

I thought Quarless was junk and I admit I was wrong
I think he can be a serviceable starter with a strong group of WR's now

best of luck to Finley

[Patler]

Actually, I think Finley would make a good #2 if his career continues. Too inconsistent and unreliable for the #1 spot in both blocking and receiving. I think Q can be reliable in both, though less flashy as a receiver than Finley.

Even if he is allowed to play, I fear that this injury may change Finley for ever. I have said since 2011 that his knee injury changed him. He became more guarded, less physical. That injury was virtually nothing on the panic scale in comparison to his neck injury. I'm not sure how well he will get past it mentally if he is allowed to play. That's not meant as a criticism in any way, shape or form, because if I was him, I would thank the sport for all it had given me, thank God for the blessing of a complete recovery and walk away to my family, leaving the sport behind.

[mraynrand]

perhaps people are getting too hung up on #1 and #2 designations (no jokes please), but that's to be expected because money is involved. Finley - he's not a 1 or 2 so much as he is an offensive weapon that can do things Q can't but he can't (or won't) block as well as other TEs who are themselves limited physically in the passing game. Some are done with Finley. But at a reasonable price, I'd love to have him back (no pun intended).

[Patler]

perhaps people are getting too hung up on #1 and #2 designations (no jokes please), but that's to be expected because money is involved. Finley - he's not a 1 or 2 so much as he is an offensive weapon that can do things Q can't but he can't (or won't) block as well as other TEs who are themselves limited physically in the passing game. Some are done with Finley. But at a reasonable price, I'd love to have him back (no pun intended).

I agree, to some extent. The #1 & #2 references for WRs never made a lot of sense for me, because both are on the field all the time anyway, and many teams use them somewhat interchangeably. For TEs I think it makes some sense, because the #2 TE is the guy who comes in for specific formations, but likely will play a lot fewer snaps than the #1 TE.

I agree with your description of Finley, and I think he could be a real asset due to his versatility.