Skip to content

Report: Packers consider tagging Greg Jennings

Getty Images

Cutting defensive back Charles Woodson fits perfectly with the Packers’ approach to the business of football.  Using the franchise tag on receiver Greg Jennings doesn’t.

But that’s what the Packers are considering doing, according to Ian Rapoport of NFL Network.  And that would cost the Packers more than $10 million in real dollars and cap dollars for 2013.

With Jennings turning 30 later this year and missing half of the 2012 regular season, spending that much money doesn’t make much sense, given the way the Packers do business.

Moreover, the Packers have three receivers under contract who, according to one of them, each can generate more than 1,000 yards receiving in 2013.

So we’ll believe that G.M. Ted Thompson will plunk down $10.36 million for an aging luxury when he does it.  Until then, it just doesn’t fit with how the Packers do things.

Even if they do it, it still doesn’t fit.

Permalink 43 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Green Bay Packers, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
43 Responses to “Report: Packers consider tagging Greg Jennings”
  1. roastbeefsandwich says: Feb 24, 2013 3:48 PM

    I don’t see that happening. It was awesome having Jennings as a WR for so long, but I don’t think what he is worth as a player is worth for the Packers to pay it.

  2. gbpbacker84 says: Feb 24, 2013 3:49 PM

    Only reason I can see for this is them somehow trying to get a 2nd or 3rd rounder out of it, other than that, this is a terrible consideration. I’m all for the idea of picking Eiffert or Ertz in the first round and letting Finley kick rocks to further save another 8 million. I also say let Raji roll out as well and then give Rodgers and Matthews the family farm and build the OL and DL through free agency.

  3. stephenolszewski says: Feb 24, 2013 3:52 PM

    Somewhere Mike Wallace is seeing lots of $ signs all over if this happens

  4. geemoney713 says: Feb 24, 2013 3:53 PM

    Unrelated, I know, but does anyone else feel like the Ravens and Steelers fans are ruining this website with their comments?

  5. johnnyb216 says: Feb 24, 2013 3:54 PM

    That would be hilarious! I wonder if he will start acting like a petulant child if they do! Anybody who thinks he wants to stay in green bay is as gullible as they come…

  6. evansdad1221 says: Feb 24, 2013 3:54 PM

    As a Packers fan, I love Jennings. As a realist, he shouldn’t make a million more than the man throwing to him…

  7. sprinternest says: Feb 24, 2013 3:58 PM

    I don’t really see the logic there and I’m a Packers fan, and I love Greg Jennings. But I just don’t see it.

  8. theytukrjobs says: Feb 24, 2013 3:59 PM

    It fits if they have space next season and no younger players requiring extensions. Using the tag is spendy but doesn’t tie up resources long term.

  9. finfogducker says: Feb 24, 2013 4:03 PM

    Tag and trade, and if they get stuck he’s still a very good WR for one year. High rish, high reward, yet still very different from the Flynn situation last year.

  10. trapshoot says: Feb 24, 2013 4:05 PM

    Doesn’t fit Thompsons, mode of operation, but still wouldn’t be a bad move. He’s quite a weapon when he’s healthy

  11. silverandblack052099 says: Feb 24, 2013 4:06 PM

    I don’t think Aaron Rodgers would agree with the opinion in this article.

  12. ravenseattheirownpoop says: Feb 24, 2013 4:06 PM

    The Ravenator offers no good insight. Just blind loyalty

  13. lionfish57 says: Feb 24, 2013 4:06 PM

    You’re right Mike, Ted won’t do it. Packers are a draft and develop organization. We are not afraid to let our aging veterans go.

  14. emoney826 says: Feb 24, 2013 4:08 PM

    Tag and trade to his old pal Joe down in Miami. Ted knows there’s demand for Jennings and he knows its possible to get something for him, even if it is just a 3rd round pick or moving up spots in the draft.

  15. fwippel says: Feb 24, 2013 4:11 PM

    I’d be surprised if they tagged him. Jennings may be in demand, but he’s not worth what a franchise tag would cost.

    Tagging and then trading him? Not sure how that’d work since Jennings would stand to take a hefty pay cut. If a team uses a franchise tag on a player, they’d better be prepared to open the wallet and pay; that’s why I can’t see this happening.

  16. petersjeffrey36 says: Feb 24, 2013 4:17 PM

    non-exclusive maybe try to get a pick for him…
    truth be told while they can move the ball, the pass attack is not as explosive with out him.
    just say bye-bye to Raji and Finley build through the draft like they always do

  17. daknight93 says: Feb 24, 2013 4:18 PM

    It’s easier and cheaper to sign him to a 3 or 4yr deal than tagging him for 1 yr at his age…just not worth it. Good luck with that Packer Fans

  18. lambeaufieldwest says: Feb 24, 2013 4:18 PM

    As good — sometimes great– as he’s been for us since we drafted him, he’s not worth it anymore. Granted, when he’s on the field, he commands attention from the defense, however, he can’t stay healthy anymore. He’s getting old. Time for TT to get us another 2nd round WR.

  19. deltaoracle says: Feb 24, 2013 4:26 PM

    No, it doesn’t make much sense, and you can tell it’s a slow news day.

  20. win1soon says: Feb 24, 2013 4:28 PM

    How could this be, I thought it was a done deal with the Fishies?? Got to love a month of rumors and stories to kill time!

  21. jessethegreat says: Feb 24, 2013 4:28 PM

    Jennings is a great player and one of the good guys off the field, but unfortunately, my Packers have more pressing needs.

    Use that cap space on NEEDS instead of depth at one of the Packers deepest positions.

    Only I could see the tag coming is if the Thompson already has a trade lined up.

    I hope they just let him go, though. He has earned his shot at unrestricted free agency.

    Not to mention I’m still sour about trading players and picks. Anyone remember GB trading Hasselbeck and their 1st to Seattle for their 1st about a decade ago? Packers received Jamal Reynolds while Seahawks received Hass and the pick that turned into Steve Hutchenson.

  22. dealer009 says: Feb 24, 2013 4:35 PM

    I actually think its smart.

    He probably has 1 or 2 years of top speed play left. On the open market, he could probably demand at least a 3 year, $24 million guaranteed contract from someone.

    Why not pay him $10 million for the first year only, knowing he has chemistry with Rodgers?

  23. jlpats says: Feb 24, 2013 4:52 PM

    Look let’s be real.. The pats run the league.. Not the ravens or steelers.

  24. ddjesus says: Feb 24, 2013 4:55 PM

    Not on board with this, it’s disrespectful to Jennings, who is already trying to sell his home and is preparing his family for the move. Let the man walk, and get his money somewhere else. His stock won’t be any better at age 30 than at 29.

  25. lambeaufieldwest says: Feb 24, 2013 4:57 PM

    Not sure why Packers fans are so willing to let Raji go. He had his best season last year.

    We need to stay strong with our front seven. We can’t afford to not pay Raji. Especially since I’m sensing this will be Pickett’s last season.

  26. emperorzero says: Feb 24, 2013 5:21 PM

    The only way it would almost make sense is if they cut Finley, but at this point, cutting Finley doesn’t make any sense either.

  27. chi01town says: Feb 24, 2013 5:27 PM

    Jennings is STILL the biggest and best WR that the packers have. so
    it makes sense to me for them to keep him. Rodgers aint no fool he needs that big threat. but greenbay cant pay him the tag or a new contract THEY DONT HAVE THE MONEY.

  28. daddyb1gdrawz says: Feb 24, 2013 6:34 PM

    Talking about it and actually doing it are two different things. Plus, Packers do not have that kind of dough to spend on a position they are rich in. If they do something like this just to trade him they will paint themselves in a corner because no team will trade for him with his injury history and age. Plus I am not so sure Miami is an actual destination. Many thought the same thing last year with Matt Flynn but that did not happen. Sure, Seattle may have offered more money but if Philbin really wanted him he would have outbid Seattle. Not convinced GB has the stones to franchise Jennings.

  29. packmanfan says: Feb 24, 2013 7:04 PM

    Packers made mistakes with Driver and Woodson.
    They shouldn’t make a 3rd mistake with Jennings.

  30. ihateyoujeff says: Feb 24, 2013 7:09 PM

    Packers played most of the 2012 season without Jennings and still had a pretty successful passing game. I love him as a Packer and he’s a great talent but I don’t think he’s a player of need.

    Letting Raji go would be a mistake. He doesn’t get the stats like other players on the defense do, but his constant demand of a double team free’s up Matthews and other players in the front 7.

    Let Jennings go,
    lock up Matthews and Raji….
    sign Canty to play DE on the opposite side of Pickett.
    find some safety and RB talent in the draft.

  31. ironmandc5 says: Feb 24, 2013 7:22 PM

    Hey mr jennings what does your sister think of the tag?

  32. larryboodry says: Feb 24, 2013 7:23 PM

    As a Bears fan, I’d love to see them do this, that’s 10 mil less they’d have to actually improve the team…And if they do let him walk, he’d be a great slot guy in Trestman’s new offense.

    But neither scenario is likely…GB has too many more pressing needs to tie up that much $ on Jennings, and Jennings probably won’t defect to an NFC North rival, either.

    Always a class act, good luck to him wherever he ends up.

  33. jerryyouradisgrace says: Feb 24, 2013 7:57 PM

    Jennings is a beast

  34. tonyc920 says: Feb 24, 2013 8:11 PM

    As much as I see and agree with the comments that it won’t happen, there must be something cooking. These guys don’t just make up stuff like this. I appears the concensus is a sign and trade. Ted is one of the best at what he does. If he can pick up a draft pick and at the same time make sure Jennings doesn’t go to a division foe, I’m all for it. I doubt he will carry a reciever at $10 mil per year. That’s money that should go to Matthews or Rodgers.

  35. grandsonofcoach says: Feb 24, 2013 9:37 PM

    Would only be a tag to trade move. Jennings wants out because he thinks he’s worth 14 mil. Tagging him and keeping him would only make him angrier. Apparently he’s already angry with Packers because their extension offer last year wasn’t what he thought he was worth. He’s a good receiver but not worth that kind of money.

  36. brownsfan2013 says: Feb 24, 2013 10:03 PM

    I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure you get cap penalties for tagging a player and then trading the player away. The purpose of the tag is to give teams the ability to keep their player or receive compensation for them if said player signs with another team. Not to get value out of a player you don’t intend to keep by allowing the team to tag and trade.

  37. joeyashwi says: Feb 24, 2013 10:40 PM

    As a Packer fan, the only reason that I could even see this as being a remote possibility is that they don’t want to see him in a Viking or Bear uniform next season. Both of those teams should be seriously interested in him if he hits the open market.

  38. mackcarrington says: Feb 24, 2013 11:18 PM

    Those horrible Old Spice commercials should be enough reason to release him.

  39. downslide33 says: Feb 24, 2013 11:39 PM

    If Packers use the franchise tag on him, trade him, can new team remove the franchise tag and sign him to a new deal?

  40. jessethegreat says: Feb 25, 2013 12:33 AM

    To clarify with bonuses, a 25 m contract over 5 years with no bonus would not effect the cap even if released after year 1 with 5 million paid in year 1.

    But the same contract with a 5 m dollar bonus cut after year 1 would result in a cap penalty in each unfinished year of 1m.

    Total bonus $$$ / years of contract = bonus avg or cap hit each year remaining on contract from bonus if removed from team before contract is finished

  41. hmpennypacker says: Feb 25, 2013 5:46 AM

    Hey coach Harbaugh! Bring this guy to San Fran, cut that mooch Moss, and if Crabtree whines tell him to shut up and play!

    49ers fans.

  42. purplepunisher says: Feb 25, 2013 11:13 AM

    Desparate move by a team that know its on the way down.

  43. axespray says: Feb 25, 2013 1:38 PM

    On the way down …. by making the playoffs consistently – winning a superbowl – winning the division 2 years in a row (in spite of having more injuries than any other team) – or that whole being one of the youngest teams in the league thing…

    totally on the way down – what, with the best GM and scouting Department supplying a loaded team with more talent.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!