Skip to main content

Green Bay Packers beat writer Paul Imig of FoxSportsWisconsin.com believes that free agent Jermichael Finley will be back with the Packers next year one way or another. The major question is whether the Packers sign Finley to a long-term deal or use the franchise tag to retain him, giving themselves another year to see if the 24-year-old drop-prone player can become more consistent before they dedicate major long-term bucks to him.

Franchising Finley got a little bit harder after Head Coach Mike McCarthy's year-ending press conference in which he acknowledged that Finley often plays wide receiver in the Packer offensive scheme. "He's a tight end, but he also plays the one-receiver situation and the No. 2 slot sometimes and plays in the one slot to the three-man side," McCarthy said. "Those are the type of things when playing in a multiple offense, we treat all the perimeter players the same because it's about matchups."

Finley's agent wants him to be tagged as a wide receiver rather than a tight end because the money difference is significant-as in $$$millions significant. McCarthy's comments would seem to add to Finley's leverage.

Using the franchise tag on Finley can still be done-but it won't be easy.

http://www.theredzone.org/Blog...ht-end-/Default.aspx
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I suggest it would be easy. MM stated he is a TE, but that he can be used in a number of different ways. He did not say he was not the TE.

The Packers could point to any number of instances where running backs are line up in the QB position or in the WR positions. What about Raji in the backfield, should that make him a running back now.

At the very least the Packers could state that he is a hybrid, part WR, part TE. I challenge his agent then to name the five top paid hybrid players.
Tight Ends are still Tight Ends whether there hand is on the ground or they're standing up. Receivers don't put their hand on the ground. He's a TE and if I'm GB, I wouldn't budge from classifying him as such.
quote:
Originally posted by Grave Digger:
Tight Ends are still Tight Ends whether there hand is on the ground or they're standing up. Receivers don't put their hand on the ground. He's a TE and if I'm GB, I wouldn't budge from classifying him as such.


Agreed. He's a tight end, and at least based on last season, a very average one at that. But I could see his agent making the argument and I could also see the two sides reaching a compromise at about $7.3M per.
I highly doubt clips from one PC from MM are going to be enough to dictate whether Finley is considered a TE or WR.

I also don't believe the NFL wants to open that can of worms either. Because if Finley is allowed to do it, you better believe any other TE who is utilized in any way remotely close to a WR will be balking that they need to be considered a WR too and therefore they want that $$$$ as well. These other TE's and their agents aren't that stupid. They would be knocking down their teams door to get paid.
I think this can of worms has already been opened. Terrell Suggs argued a few years ago that he should be tagged as a DE and not an OLB. I'm pretty sure the league intervened and split the difference.
Suggs had a pretty good case though I think, much better than Finley. Suggs was listed as an OLB in their 34, but spent the majority of his time on the line with his hand on the ground rushing the QB like a DE. Everything about Suggs role with the Ravens said DE except for how they listed him on the roster. Finley spends equal time with his hand on the ground, in the backfield as an H-Back, and split out as a receiver.
I think the argument should focus the other way. Not how often does he line up like a WR, but how often would a WR line up like a TE. Until I see Greg Jennings line up in a three-point stance next to Bulaga, Finley will be purely a TE.
If JMike wants to be paid like a WR, then the WR stats that p-boi posted should be a fine starting point

His production was positively average as a WR - maybe GB can use James Jones contract as a starting point - that'll shut em up real quick
quote:
Originally posted by Goldie: Finley's agent wants him to be tagged as a wide receiver rather than a tight end because the money difference is significant-as in $$$millions significant. McCarthy's comments would seem to add to Finley's leverage.


This surprises me. IMO, a good TE is more valuable than a good WR.
REALLY??? Not even close. Give me Megatron and Fitzgerald over Gronkowski and Graham anyday. The numbers say it too. History says it, incomes and cap figures say it. Why would you choose a top TE over a top WR? Why would you choose Tony Gonzales over Jerry Rice or even over Marvin Harrison?
I guess I would take say, Antonio Gates or Tong G in his prime over a Mega or Fitz in his prime. There are also fewer stud TEs than there are stud WRs. Finley's production at TE also translates to be more valuable than at WR.

His production (in a down year) was 55/767/8. Guys around there at WR include Collie, Laurant Robinson and Early Doucet. I wouldn't pay any of those guys big dough for that production at WR but would pay big dough for that at TE.

That is really my point...and I guess my opinion. If history says he will get paid more given a WR label, than I understand. I just don't agree.
The CBA is pretty clear that the position where a player lines up most often is the position that will be used for the tag. I can't remember where it was, but I thought I read something late in the season stating that Finley's snap count on the line as a "traditional" TE outweighed the number of snaps lined up in the slot/outside by a good margin.
quote:
Originally posted by chickenboy:
I guess I would take say, Antonio Gates or Tong G in his prime over a Mega or Fitz in his prime. There are also fewer stud TEs than there are stud WRs. Finley's production at TE also translates to be more valuable than at WR.

His production (in a down year) was 55/767/8. Guys around there at WR include Collie, Laurant Robinson and Early Doucet. I wouldn't pay any of those guys big dough for that production at WR but would pay big dough for that at TE.

That is really my point...and I guess my opinion. If history says he will get paid more given a WR label, than I understand. I just don't agree.


My friend, you are just being obtuse. Comparing Finley to early Doucet? The fact that he put up Early Ducet numbers should show you why GMs value WRs over TEs. Even the best ones put up rather pedestrian numbers compared to the best WRs.
Tong G was awesome.

Anyway, the point is why would JerMike want to be "classified" as a WR with his numbers and not as a TE? His value is his size and that he is a TE. What logic would allow him to make more "classified" as a WR? He isn't. I don't know the specifics about the Kuhn signing but did the fact he had so many carries at "HB" on 2010 make him the second highest paid FB in the league? The whole thing seems silly. He's a TE who has the athletic ability to spread out.

I will again comment on the Gate/Tong G/Mega/Fitz comparison. I personally believe it is much harder to find a game changing TE than WR. I agree with the TT philosophy of drafting WRs who fit into a system rather than the freaks (Mega, Moss, etc.). Is Mega an awesome talent? Of course. But say I had the choice of a stud TE vs. a Mega, I roll TE...
Tony Gonzalez's best totals

102 catches 1258 yards with 11 TD's.

He's only broke 1000 yards 4 times and only topped 10 TD's or more 3 times. In his 16 seasons he's only had over 90 catches 4 times.

Antonio Gates best totals

89 catches 1157 yards and 13 TD's. He's only had two seasons with 80 or more catches. Two seasons he's broke 1000 yards along with having 3 seasons with at least 10 TD's.

Fitz's best totals

103 catches 1531 yards 13 TD's

He's also had 4 other seasons with over 90 catches plus 3 other seasons over 1400 yards.

Megatron

96 catches 1681 yards and 16 TD's.

Chicken?
The stats have zero to do with my point. It's a position discussion and quantity of quality players who can play that position and be a game changer.

NOTE: YPC would but it doesn't pertain to this discussion.
Packers won't put up with any Finley is a wr garbage. He is a young, somewhat talented tight end who drops a lot of passes. He should be paid accordingly and if he thinks otherwise, I am guessing he is gone.
Pro Football Focus says Finley played 409 of 883 snaps at WR (46.3%)

When Suggs won his case - which was actually a compromise - he claimed he was playing more than 50% at DE. I don't see any way Finley gets the WR number with this stat, and splitting the difference even seems like a long shot at this point.

Suggs' situation was pretty rare at the time, and there's still not a ton of guys who split their time as evenly at OLB and DE as he does. But as has been mentioned, the TE-WR time share is becoming more the norm. I think the eventual ruling on Finley's tag will have much greater implications on future taggings than Suggs' did.
I have your solution:

He's playing 46.3% of the time at WR so he's entitled to 46.3% of the WR franchise tag ($9,521,000) which comes out to $4,408,223.

He's also playing 53.7% of the time at TE meaning he's entitled to that amount of the TE franchise tag number ($5,908,000) which comes out to $3,172,596.

Average those two together and you get $3,790,409...I'd say that's about fair for what he's contributed.
We won a superbowl with Woodson only playing half the game, so from now on we should sit him for the second half of all games.

None of this years rookies contributed to a Superbowl, so they should all be cut as well.
Huh?

Woodson played almost that entire season and played a vital role in the team making the Super Bowl. Finley barely contributed in 09-10.

We're talking about a player that has been in the league for four years now. Not a rookie Bong. Manzanas to naranjas.
now we are talking regular season?

The Pack had a much better regular season with Fin than without him.

I think the entire, "we won a superbowl without him" arguement is simple.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×