Skip to main content

If Finley lives up to his mouth, he'll be a fan favorite in no time. Razzer

Seriously, everybody wants him to succeed and return to the form we saw a couple of years or so ago. The opportunities should be there for him, although I can't be sure how he fits into MM's offensive plans. But I am sure that if he catches 'em, they'll be throwing 'em.

Boris, your thoughts about Finley and Quarless makes me recall some comments from Chmura when the Packers finally landed Keith Jackson. It was along the lines of him being so skilled at TE, it allowed the team to run plays they had never been able to before, primarily passing plays from 2 TE sets, and how it really opened up the offense and allowed him even more opportunities with Jackson's arrival.
JMHO, but we haven't seen that before....or since. We have the QB that can do it; we just need another TE to step up to at least Finley's level.
I guess that's the part I am surprised with. Not that they're keeping Finley- but that they let Woodson go and re-negotiated Hawk's deal.

Based on recent history, what you say is exactly what the Packers did- kept guys under contract, even when they should have been cut. Not a lot of cap cuts from Thompson lately. But maybe he Rodgers/Matthews deals looking forced his hand.

But for the most part, the Packers are the one team that doesn't cap cut too much. Of course, they also don't sign guys with poison pill deals either...
quote:
Originally posted by Music City:
... but that they let Woodson go


My guess is that Woodson was let go for performance issues more than just money issues. Charles simply can't do what he used to do on the field and his release was more about that than how much he got paid. That's probably why there was no Hawk-like re-negotiation nor much interest from around the league

Onward
Finley turned 26 today. Hawk turned 29 in January. Woodson is going to be 37 in October. That is the direction (CBA) the league is going. Fewer players over 30 with contracts much more than vet minimum.


A couple weeks back.

@Gil_Brandt
Charles Woodson said he thought "there would be a little more interest" in free agency. Sad to say I saw that comingโ€

@NFLNetwork
Charles Woodson: "Looking back, this is my second time in free agency and Iโ€™ve kind of been shunned both times."
quote:
My guess is that Woodson was let go for performance issues more than just money issues. Charles simply can't do what he used to do on the field and his release was more about that than how much he got paid. That's probably why there was no Hawk-like re-negotiation nor much interest from around the league
...and by good fortune Hayward is the perfect replacement. His instincts are rare for a guy that plays around the line. If he can improve his tackling he's going to be something special.

This is pure speculation based on nothing but my own perception but I think Woodson was also one of the leaders of the defense avoiding the media after the playoff debacle. Either he lead that thing or he went along with it. Neither of those decisions are honorable, imo. Bishop stepped up that day. Earned a lot of respect with me for how he handled it.
quote:

I think if they had any long term interest they would have extended him before that bonus and massaged his number moving forward.


Tough to say with all the other cap gyrations going on with Rodgers and Clay
They get training camp, preseason and the first month of the season to decide:

Extend him, trade him or just ride out the season and by that point they'll know more about Bostick and Quarless or a draft pick. Things usually look different by October and whatever they decide it will be based on whether or not they can replace him - in March they didn't have a viable option, by October they may

Add Reply

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