What does this mean for J-Mike's contract situation?

I would gladly blow through as much cap space as possible

to keep all three. Unfortunately, because of the way the defense is set up, the priority list HAS to be Matthews, Raji, and Finley, in that order.

Of the three, Finley is the most “replaceable”. Maybe not at the position, but production-wise on offense. Nobody can replace what Matthews and Raji provide for defense.

http://twitter.com/WhalesLarry ...but only if you want to see someone still trying to figure Twitter out.

by Mitchell Maurer on Oct 3, 2011 12:17 PM CDT reply actions

Yup…if anything, they already showed Finley last year that they don’t need him to win a title. He’s important but he has to realize that he hasn’t done anything yet…all he’s done is show potential. You can’t give him Gates money when he hasn’t put up Gates numbers.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Oct 3, 2011 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions

NOW I see why we let Cullen go,

we have so many young stars we need to extend. I think we get a deal done, because we’re lpaying Driver and Grant good money and they will both be gone next season. But if he asks for too much money, we have to let him walk. Matthews and Raji are also big priorties, and guys who we needed to win the SB. Everyone would have loved to have had Finley last season, but we got it done witout him because we have so many TEs.

"I should run a marathon backwards, so I can see what 2nd place look like"
- Royce Da 5'9"
I've always wondered if he's actually 5'9".

The Lombardi trophy should either be in it's birth place, or else on a vacation in South Beach.

by BlackPack-fan on Oct 3, 2011 12:23 PM CDT reply actions

We’ve still got time on those two before we really need to talk about them. Certainly not this year…maybe starting it up during the season next year? Matthews numbers are down this year so you know this isn’t the year he’s going to want to bring it up.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Oct 3, 2011 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

well we already proved we can win without finley but look at what weve become with him..that being said i still think clay and raji come first altho id love to see all 3 get resigned. I have trust in TT figuring it out

by packers34 on Oct 3, 2011 2:28 PM CDT reply actions

TT will make the right choice

We did win a Title without iFnley, but we are such a more dynamic team with him. With teams like the Falcons and Lions stockpiling young talent, we need Finley. That said, he’s behind Matthews and Raji for money. We can find another TE- heck we have a couple others on our roster who could get playing time on most other teams—but we can’t find another linebacker like Matthews.
I would explore ways to move Grant and/or Jones before letting Finley go.

by Jeffersap on Oct 3, 2011 2:44 PM CDT reply actions

Moving players to sign Finley

Grant already comes off the books next year. Packers won’t resign him… I expect that Driver is off the books next year too. Thats about 8M in cap space freed up. More than enough to sign Finley. Also in the next few years, Pickett, Clifton and Woodson will be off the books. Take the money PIckett is making and give that to Raji. One down. Take the Woodson money and give it to Matthews. One defensive playmaker off the books goes right to another defensive playmaker. Probably pretty close in asking price for Matthews. Two down… We also need to get Rodgers locked up for anothe 6 or 8 years. Right now Rodgers is averaging about 12M per on his contract. Take the 8M we save from Clitton retiring, add onto Rodgers contract and the puts him in the 20M range, which is right in the ball park for the best QB’s in the NFL.

This is obviously somewhat over simplified… But it also may come down to exactly those kinda scenarios!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 4, 2011 12:28 AM CDT up reply actions

very oversimplified

I like the logic and lets hope it works out that way..Only thing thats hard to predict right now is the money people will be getting filling in spots for people like woodson or clifton..you know players right now that may not be stars yet or heck might not even be on the roster yet..its just a guessing game at that point..but I do see your point

by packers34 on Oct 4, 2011 1:22 AM CDT up reply actions

Filling spots of Wood and Clifton.

THey will be getting paid like rookies, cuz thats EXACTLY what they will be… Already have Clifton’s heir on the team. Sherrod or Newhouse is gonna step in at LT in the next year or 2, guarenteed! Woodsons replacement might already be on the team too… House is a terrific talent at CB. Whether he is actually Woods replacement or not is to be determined, but its very possible and maybe likely. Beyond that if they draft a CB high in the draft to add to the DB’s that guy might become the CB to step in for Wood.

Also lets not forget that Collins just suffered a potentially career ending injury. I certainly hope that isn’t the case, but if it is, his contract is off the books and gives us more cap room. Either way, replacements for Wood and Clifton won’t be high priced FA, they will be, if they already aren’t young players stepping in.

I highly doubt Thompson is going to change his draft and develop philosophy to replace Wood or Clifton! He’ll do what he has been doing the past 5 years. Adding young talent and developing them into quality players!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 4, 2011 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

That sounds do-able

Essentially the Packers have to hope they can replace the outgoing studs (Woodson, Pickett, Clifton) with incoming guys on rookie wages (like we have Finley and Clay on) I think to be a contender, a team needs to always have top notch guys on rookie contracts. If anyone can draft that way, it’s TT.

by Jeffersap on Oct 4, 2011 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions

Exactly my point...

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 4, 2011 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions

Yeah and then you can add in the fact that rookies are finally being paid like rookies which will make it even easier for teams like ours to resign these big guys.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Oct 5, 2011 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions

incentive-laden?

The knock against Finley is that he seems prone to injury. So far, so good this year (knock on wood!) but his value is not as great if he can’t stay healthy.

I wonder if the Packers could provide him with a respectable base salary and then include incentives tied to staying healthy and putting up the numbers we suspect he could put up in a full season of games.

by mjjoe on Oct 3, 2011 3:55 PM CDT reply actions

very possible. I don’t know that you can tie them around his health but maybe around hitting certain statistical targets that he obviously won’t hit if he’s not healthy.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Oct 5, 2011 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions

Incentives for Finley

Can be tied directly to being active on the game day roster. If he’s healthy he’ll be on the game day, if not he won’t be active. You can easily tie his roster bonus money to being active on game days.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 5, 2011 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions

What this means

Is that contacts are being worked on week by week, and we don’t need to alarm about who is or isn’t getting a new contact until the 10th, 11th, and 12th hours.

by pharom on Oct 4, 2011 11:27 AM CDT reply actions

10th hour is too soon.

"Perfection is not attainable,
but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

"It's a great day to be great, baby!"

Skol is a four-letter word.

The Munsters of the Midway still suck!

by NorthStarr on Oct 5, 2011 12:48 AM CDT up reply actions

Championship Discount

The best way to afford all these guys is to win another Super Bowl this year. The big stars are re-upping because the clubhouse is tight, the wins are coming fast and furious, and these guys, especially on offense, have glimpsed greatness. Rodgers and the wide outs are signed for the next two or three years. The line will be together for 3 or four years. Finley is the only missing link right now. Will he strictly be a “in it only for the money” player, or will he give a discount to be part of a potentially great team?

Nitschke never wore an earring!

by Packer Pete on Oct 4, 2011 7:16 PM CDT reply actions

What kind of "discount" can we expect Finley to give?

Honestly, football players have a short window to earn money. Guys like Rodgers will never have to work another day in their life (if they are wise with their $) but a lot will have to work once they leave the NFL. Finley has every right to earn every penny he can.

Athletes do give discount. Manning gave a discount to the Colts so they could resign Addai. Over in the NBA, former Jazz man John Stockton took a deal well below market value to help the team (part of the deal was he could use the basketball arena for his son’s hockey practices)

So, sure, discounts happen.. Guys like to win. But I don’t think we can expect Finley to take a sharp cut in pay, nor do I think he should be asked to.

Fortunately, I’m confident that TT already has a complex plan in place to keep the talent that is most irreplaceable and replace the talent that will become too expensive. Given Finley’s talent and game changing nature, I’m going to guess that TT will pay the man.

by Jeffersap on Oct 4, 2011 10:08 PM CDT up reply actions

Plus I think that the premise of winning a Super Bowl means people will be more willing to stay is flawed...

or at least could have an opposite effect on some. Some people get the ring, then want the money.

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Oct 4, 2011 10:17 PM CDT up reply actions

Eventually we won’t be able to keep them all and tough decisions will need to be made. Jenkins already learned this. Just guessing but Finley is at a crossroads this year. We stockpiled on TEs behind him. If he doesn’t live up to the hype or goes down with another injury, they’ll move on. If he lives up to the hype he’ll be paid like top 3-5 TE IMO.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Oct 5, 2011 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions

A Wait and See Approach

All of the guys who have gotten big contract extensions have been contributing and improving over the past 3-4 years. Finley has shown major-huge-incredible POTENTIAL, but he hasn’t put it together for more than a few games. I think that TT is waiting to see how the year plays out and then he will either sign Finley to an extension or let him seek a big payday elsewhere.

by MikeDB on Oct 5, 2011 9:17 AM CDT reply actions

Fins has said he wanted to be one of the highest paid TEs in the league

Bu I don’t think ya can earn it like this – "We’ll have to go back, not being selfish or nothing, but go back and dial up something so you can get your playmaker the ball in games like that when it’s close," Sounds like he’s got sour grapes against not getting as many touches last week and acting as though he’s THE playmaker rather than A playmaker.

When life gives ya lemons, shut up and eat your damn lemons.
Brett Favre will lead the Vikings to a Victory in Super Bowl XLVI, Guaranteed! - REVENGE4FAVRE

by P-Townfan on Oct 5, 2011 11:59 PM CDT reply actions

If I remember correctly...

Finley said he wanted to be paid in new Trident Layers Gum.

I don’t get paid in gum. =(

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Oct 6, 2011 12:05 AM CDT reply actions

And just as we discuss this subject...

Finley has a meeting with McCarthy about frustrations.

Sounds like its worked out for now, but the team really does not need these distractions. He should know by now that Rodgers passes to the open receiver. He is a playmaker and is going to be focused on by the defense and needs to understand that.

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Oct 6, 2011 1:10 AM CDT reply actions

eh he’s doing it the right way. He wants more action so he can show his value so he talked to the coach about it. He didn’t go to the media, he didn’t explode in the locker room…what do you want? This is exactly what a player should do if they are frustrated. He’s a human. He’s in a contract year. He wants to be in the action. This is what you do…

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Oct 6, 2011 8:50 AM CDT up reply actions

I think he went about it the right way but the reason he’s frustrated is silly if you ask me. He hasn’t seen a whole lot of action because everybody but Chicago has focused so damn much on him that it’s created openings for everybody else. I get that it could suck to be the decoy but all that’s supposed to matter is winning. He needs to realize Rodgers isn’t going to force it to him if he’s covered. Period.

Even if he doesn’t have the great stats — which is doubtful — I’m sure Thompson will realize how valuable he is simply because of all the attention he draws.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2011 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions

man…he really sucked it up last night. He made some nice catches but I remember his HUGE drops, especially the TD he dropped that hit him IN THE CHEST! That is NOT how you get a mammoth contract.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Oct 10, 2011 8:08 AM CDT up reply actions

Like PA said...

I don’t like him already having issues with targets. Its only been 4 weeks and he knows Rodgers isn’t going to force something. You may be right about wanting stats for the contract year but that makes me even more uneasy. It means he’s looking for lots of money over helping the team this year.

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Oct 6, 2011 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions

Do you honestly think Jennings took less money to help the team?

Cuz he certainly didn’t… He got his and now Finley wants his… THis is what is called NO BIG DEAL! Its not even news worthy IMO!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 6, 2011 9:24 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

The point is, how he reacted after that Broncos game is concerning. Like I said, I understand him wanting the ball but he came off as incredibly arrogant, and sounding like he was more concerned about him than the team.

I wouldn’t have a problem if we lost the game or struggled on offense, or Rodgers missed him open or something but none of those things was even remotely close to being the case.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2011 9:33 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

I don't find it concerning at all..

He didn’t like that he wasn’t utilized more against Denver and went to his HC and talked about it. Would you rather he expressed himself in the media? I hardly think so… So exactly what did he do wrong? He went to his HC to express himself. Most teams would find that admirable. Don’t you you remember Jennings doing something very similar on the sidelines during a game? But you give Jennings a pass for that, and gripe about Finley doing it thru the proper channels! Thats just Wrong!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 6, 2011 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Well no, of course he shouldn't to to the media...

I would hope he learned that by now (not that it didn’t get their anyway). So he did that right.

Now I don’t know exactly what he said to McCarthy so you may be right but I do find it a potential issue down the road if, in fact, Rodgers was targeting the open person in the game and Finley is simply wanting the ball forced to him. Nobody’s asking him to take a paycut but I would expect that he won’t complain about not getting targets if he knows Rodgers goes to the open guys. He did get 3 catches….more than Jones got in a couple games, and he also bitched. Not a great trend in 4 weeks to have 2 apparently unhappy pass catchers.

I wouldn’t mind if Finley was like, “Hey McCarthy I noticed something on film that shows I am open or can get open in certain situations where I could be used more often.”

I would be concerned if it was more like, “Hey McCarthy, I’m in a contract year/the biggest threat on the team, make more plays/play calls for me me me.”

He did say that they need to get the ball to their “playmakers” more, which after the Denvre game, apparently means only him, because everyone else had good games. That alone kind of irritated me because it lessens the status of everyone else on the team in his eyes.

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Oct 6, 2011 10:19 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

This is what's known as

but I do find it a potential issue down the road

borrowing trouble.

Worrying about bad things that might happen.

"Perfection is not attainable,
but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

"It's a great day to be great, baby!"

Skol is a four-letter word.

The Munsters of the Midway still suck!

by NorthStarr on Oct 7, 2011 2:23 AM CDT up reply actions

But to put on blinders and ignore indicators is asking for trouble...

history of mouthing off to the media
history of issues with the QB
contract year
complaining about targets ( a week removed from a career game)
comments about being “the playmaker” on the team when the rest of the offense is clicking better than ever

He has a laundry list of issues in this regard and it never seems to end.

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Oct 7, 2011 3:34 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

•complaining about targets ( a week removed from a career game)

This is the one that bugs me. It’s like come on man, the the opposing team did everything they could to shut you down and literally left some of our other guys WIDE open (See Jennings TD). If he wasn’t part of the game plan (which seems doubtful) or wasn’t getting the ball when he was open, then fine. But I highly doubt either of those things were the case.

Hopefully McCarthy talked some sense into him in their meeting.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Oct 7, 2011 8:20 AM CDT up reply actions

How is being on twitter

and saying ONE thing when he was a rookie, make him have a history of Mouthing off? Thats just not the case in any way!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 7, 2011 9:09 AM CDT up reply actions

That was only the most public one...

but he’s said many “bulletin board” things in the past. There was one right befor the Saints game, for example.

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Oct 7, 2011 4:19 PM CDT up reply actions

Finley talking

Is always about Finley doing his thing! I don’t recall any time he ever said anything that would be considered bulletin board material, as in how much better the Packers are over other teams or how he is going to own another player. Its all about what his expectations are for himself! And like I said earlier.. If you can walk the walk, your allowed to talk the talk! Finley backs up what he says on the field!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 7, 2011 8:04 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't remember what he said...

but he did say something of that nature before the Saints game. Anyway, itf he doesn’t become a distraction, then its fine. I get that it is his personality. But the media is like a vulture hovering over a dead body…..you have to be careful and smart about what you say, and Finley has started to become the lightning rod for the team. Maybe that just speaks to the tame nature of everyone else on the organization but then Finley should start to follow suit.

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Oct 7, 2011 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions

Its on you to show it...

As you were fond of telling me before. Go listen to Finley’s interview on Packers.com. All about the team. I don’t think he’s a lightening rod at all. And he, by all accounts is well liked inside the locker room. Nothing else really matters.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 8, 2011 1:14 AM CDT up reply actions

You watched the interviews?

I’m pretty sure he slipped in a, “Stroh kicks kangaroo babies” in there.

Those interviews were the same ones I was talking about so we’ve both seen them. My take was just that he addresses himself first and team second and you see it otherwise. Fair enough.

NEXT ARGUMENT!

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Oct 8, 2011 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions

He addresses himself

As in his expectations he has for himself, and his desire to be great… But he doesn’t say these are the numbers I have to have, or anything about him getting his… Its always about his expectations of himself. Thats hardly being about Me, Me, Me… Nothing wrong w/ stating he has high expectations of himself or of his desire to be great! I just don’t see anything bad about what he says in the interview. Have to watch it again, but certainly don’t remember anything that should be interpreted as ME ME ME..

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 8, 2011 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions

I guess its just my take on the way he says things...

I don’t have any issue with him wanting to be the best at what he does. Everyone should strive for that.

Funny how, as I’m typing this, there is an ad for Old Spice Swagger on the borders…..
maybe that’s what JMike is using…

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Oct 8, 2011 6:54 PM CDT up reply actions

My take of Finley Interview... Paraphrasing.

We, Packers football, Player I am faces double teams, but I’m fine w/ that as long as we keep winning and go to SB. not going to be easy, why I have to get in the playbook more than I have. I have to go out and make it happen. Opponent has to decide to take 85 or 88 out of game, if you get doubled that is their gameplan, just gotta make plays when singled. Can be a great game against Atl, they have a great offense…..

Thats my take. Yours?

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 8, 2011 7:19 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't know....

overall I was talking about all the interviews I see of him.

I’m picky about the way people say things, because I was always of the mindset that its better to deflect praise and accept blame, so overly confident people generally rub me the wrong way when they are talking about it. Not that I think they are bad, just that I don’t like the way they say things.

But I don’t think he’s causing any issues in the locker room at the moment, as long as the whole “meeting with McCarthy” thing was what you said it was.

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Oct 8, 2011 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions

Issues w/ the QB?

Come on man… What issues? Saying one thing when he was a rookie gives him issues w/ Rodgers? Good Lord, thats ridiculous! HE said he was A playmaker, not THE playmaker!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 7, 2011 9:17 AM CDT up reply actions

Thats why I put...

“history”. Because it happened in the past.

And he said Rodgers needs to get the ball to his playmakers after a game where Rodgers had thrown TDs to 4 or his Top 5 targets. Guess which one didn’t catch a TD.

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Oct 7, 2011 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions

Saying Rodgers needs to get the ball to his playmakers

Isn’t in any way a shot at Rodgers! Your reachin! Its no secret Rodgers needs to get the ball to his playmakers. And Finley is 1 or 1a among his playmakers! So how is that even remotely close to this "History w/ his QB’ your speaking of? I just dont see it!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 7, 2011 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions

That wasn't what I was referring to.....

that was a shot at the other offensive playmakers on the team (all the others that have been playing great so far this year besides Finley).

The shot at Rodgers was a long time ago, and he hasn’t done it since, which is why I put that in the “history” column. But it doesn’t mean he won’t do it again if he doesn’t get his way……

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Oct 7, 2011 10:43 PM CDT up reply actions

I would say it means he learned his lesson!

Seeing as he was laid into by the coaching staff and other players after he said it… He was also a 21 yr old rookie at the time. I would say hes learned alot since them!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 8, 2011 1:17 AM CDT up reply actions

Except, that wasn't the context

in which you used the word ‘history’.

Your usage was a “history of,” which, normally, is a reference to repeat occurances.

"Perfection is not attainable,
but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

"It's a great day to be great, baby!"

Skol is a four-letter word.

The Munsters of the Midway still suck!

by NorthStarr on Oct 8, 2011 2:24 AM CDT up reply actions

In an overall sense....

but not necessarily each one separately. He was corrected on some of those and expected not to do them again. I was just pointing out that it wasn’t just once or twice that he’s said something that can lead up to a distraction-type presence.

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Oct 8, 2011 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions

Finley is simply wanting the ball forced to him.

WHere do you come up w/ this? Theres a vast difference between wanting the ball more and wanting it forced into double coverage. I read where he asked McCarthy about finding ways to get him open if teams look to double him. Thats not reallly hard to do either. Teams w/ Franchise type WR do that all the time.

Finley is undoubtedly a playmaker, so finding ways to get him the ball should be a priority. Thats not Finley being a me, me, me player.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 7, 2011 9:08 AM CDT up reply actions

That's fine....

In fact, thats what I said. It was an either/or. If what you say is true, then so be it, I’m fine with that.

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Oct 7, 2011 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions

He didn’t like that he wasn’t utilized more against Denver and went to his HC and talked about it. Would you rather he expressed himself in the media? I hardly think so… So exactly what did he do wrong? He went to his HC to express himself. Most teams would find that admirable.

Did you read my response to Trevor? The very first thing I say is that I think he went about it the right way.

It’s not about that for me. Yeah, I did give Jennings a pass because imo, Rodgers was forcing the ball to Finley — throwing to him even when he was double teamed. I noticed it, and I remember a group of others seeming to notice it too. When Jennings complained about it, it only confirmed to me that I might have been onto something.

The difference between last season and this season is exponential. Last season, the offense was sputtering and we were losing to mediocre teams. This season, the offense has looked damn near unstoppable, and we’ve won every one of our games.

So yeah, I’ve got a problem with Finley complaining about not seeing action when he was getting double teamed, and we were winning by double digit points. He needs to get over himself and realize that without him, the offense wouldn’t have put up 40+, and wouldn’t look as good as it has all season long. Just because he hasn’t had the gaudy stats doesn’t mean he’s not incredibly valuable to this team — and doesn’t mean he can’t/won’t get his big contract that he wants imo.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Oct 6, 2011 10:25 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

I think you guys have never gotten over

Finley making one comment when he was a ROOKIE! And now your looking for trouble in anything he says and does.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 7, 2011 9:15 AM CDT up reply actions

Not at all. I honestly could care less about that comment. For the record, he’s easily my favorite Packer behind Rodgers. So much so, that I reached for him in every one of fantasy leagues just to make sure I had him. I hope like hell that we re-sign because his presence this season has catapulted our offense from being really good to nearly unstoppable.

I just found his comments after the Broncos game to be concerning. They just came off as arrogant. Like I said, I get he wants the ball — every receiver should and does. But when your as good as he is, he just has to realize that there’s going to be games where teams’ primary focus is going to be stopping him.

We’re lucky and fortunate that Thompson has put an offense together that doesn’t have to force it to him when teams’ are double, and even triple teaming him. Instead, we can go to Jennings, Nelson, Jones, Driver, and Cobb.

Like PPF said above, it seems like he’s a little too worried about getting his. But he’s gonna get his. Not every team is going to game plan to take him out of the game like the Broncos did. Hell, that strategy got a 49 spot hung up on them, so how well did it really work?

He’s probably worried about wanting to put up big numbers because he’s in a contract year — and like I said above, he probably will. But even if he doesn’t, the FO would be fools to not see just how much he’s helped the offense this season and I’m sure they do cause they’re smarter than me.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Oct 7, 2011 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions

Finleys comments

Are almost always about the team winning. Not about his putting up stats for his contract year. Now I’m sure he has it in the back of his head that he wants to put up stats… WHat young player doesn’t want to put up stats? But his comments are always about the team more than they are about JMike getting his.

So he went to McCarthy to see what can be done if he keeps getting doubled… It helps the team as much as it does JMike.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 7, 2011 8:14 PM CDT up reply actions

No they aren't....

and its what always bothers me about him. Its always about him first. Every comment is about, “I made the catch” or “I got open” or “I did this or that”. The team and others involved are always an afterthought. Its fine, if thats all it amounts to, though other players usually mention those around them first before they accept accolades for themselves. But he always mentions his part first in the interviews I’ve seen and then discusses the rest.

In Every Climb and Place....

by PhoenicianPakFan on Oct 7, 2011 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions

Again

Go over to Packers.com and lisen to his interviews. All about the team. Not about me and my stats… The only stat he mentions is the stat at the end of the year. The one about the team w/ the most W’s and the team w/ the most Lombardi Thophys this year!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 8, 2011 1:19 AM CDT up reply actions

He is most of the time but you can’t sit here and say that his comments weren’t mostly about him after the Broncos game.

From all acounts though, it seemed like his meeting with McCarthy went well so I’m sure everything got figured out.

Fire Slocum

by packallday555 on Oct 8, 2011 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions

I am with you here Stroh. I think people must think this never happens. He’s a STAR of the offense, its a contract year, and he wants to be a part of the team. This is nothing new and nothing to be concerned about.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Oct 10, 2011 8:09 AM CDT up reply actions

Finley is a talent we'd like to have

He’s only 24, among the best young TE in NFL along with Jimmy Graham, the NE Tandem, Gresham and Pettigrew. He saw Gates, Clark, Davis last year and Witten this year getting paid big money (guaranteed in the 20 million, contracts twice as much).

With that said, JF not getting that kind of money. No way. First, those guys are proven (1000 yds, 100 recs, tons of TDs, you name it). Second, most of those guys are primary or secondary targets in their teams. SD has to absolutely pay Gates, and so Dallas, SF etc. The Packers don’t have to pay Finley a king’s ransom to stay.

Well, he also saw a 27 year old Zach Miller robbing Seattle at gunpoint for $17M guaranteed ($34M total) and Kevin Boss getting $8 million guaranteed from the Raiders.

My prediction is a $20 million contract with about $10 million guaranteed. The option is to leave the Pack for an extra buck and have the likes of Tavaris Jackson sink him into irrelevance.

by Rodgers_for_MVP on Oct 10, 2011 4:21 PM CDT reply actions

20M in total compensation?

For how long a contract? If its for 3 yrs maybe, but even a 3 yr deal is gonna have to be more IMO. My guess is he gets a contract for close to 8M per for about 5 yrs. That comes out to about 40M in total compensation. he is superior in every way to Zach Miller, why should he get less? Part of his roster bonus money will be tied to his being active for games. If not active he will lose a little each week inactive of Roster bonus.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Oct 10, 2011 10:51 PM CDT up reply actions