Report: Packers torn on keeping Jermichael Finley

AP

Sunday brought word that the Packers are still considering using their franchise tag on wide receiver Greg Jennings and that doesn’t seem to be the only issue vexing them with the start of free agency approaching quickly.

Bob McGinn of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that the team is “torn” about whether or not they will keep tight end Jermichael Finley for the 2013 season. The question of Finley’s future has been batted around for months, with McGinn previously reporting that the Packers had already decided to dump Finley before the second year of the two-year deal he signed last offseason.

Now the word is that the Packers coaching staff and General Manager Ted Thompson want Finley to return for another year while “other people in the organization” favor his release. That split would seem to favor Finley’s return, although there may be a desire to revisit the financial picture on the Packers’ end of things.

Finley is due to have a cap figure of $8.75 million, a number McGinn suggests that the team might like to pare down via a restructuring although it’s unclear whether Finley would feel the need to take a pay cut to remain in Green Bay. The tight end market isn’t overflowing this offseason and Finley might decide to roll the dice on the possibility that someone else will give him a similar contract that runs beyond this season if faced with any demand to revisit his Packers contract.

16 responses to “Report: Packers torn on keeping Jermichael Finley

  1. GB should let Finley walk, IMO. They can replace him in the passing game w/ younger athletic TEs Andrew Quarless and DJ Williams, and as a blocker with Tom Crabtree.

  2. J-Mike is a conundrum for certain. He has lots of upside, depending on his state of maturity. Honestly, I say let him play out for a new contract, GB should get his best efforts.

  3. Finley is good but he is so unreliable. He shows moments of greatness but when you need to make a critical play, can anyone honestly say that you would trust Finley to make it? The Packers have so many receiving weapons, so they do not necessarily need a potentially great TE. They need a reliable TE. Finley is good but you just never know when he is going to catch it or drop it. If Rodgers does not trust him as much as the other guys, that is going to possibly affect his decision making in the few seconds he has to pass the ball. Plus, Finley just keeps yapping to the media…the bottom line is you want to keep him and hope he starts becoming more consistent…but no way should the Packers pay top dollar for potential.

  4. Finley should test the market. There must be a lot of teams looking for a guy who drops too many passes and refuses to block (or just doesn’t know how). I am sure he is worth about 10% of what he is supposed to get. He should definately go elsewhere. GB would be better without him on the roster.

  5. This is not unrelated to the talk about tagging Jennings (which I don’t really agree with, unless you think you’re going to tag-n-trade like they did with the Cleveland Browns for Corey Williams. I still can’t believe they gave us a 2nd round pick for him).

    After you factor in the likely RFA tenders, the Packers will be only about $15 mil under the cap. Tagging Jennings at $10.36 mil takes up most of that, so it just doens’t make sense… UNLESS the plan is to cut Finley (only $500k of dead money) and tag Jennings to keep the passing offense at an elite level. Essentially, cutting Finley (cap savings of $8 mil) and tagging Jennings (cap charge of $10 mil) puts the much more reliable player on the field for an extra $2 mil next year.

    That’s a no-brainer, if that’s the way they are approaching it.

  6. Why such drama? It can’t be that hard to get rid of the 8th best TE in the NFC North. And with all that elite talent riding the Green Bay pine. And with the draft wizardry of Ted Thompson. And with the Lombardi-esque wisdom of Mike McCarthy. It shouldn’t be too hard to find some fresh meat for Packers fans to grope during the Lambeau Leap.

  7. If he were to have a James Jones like off-season. Which he seemed to reach the potential that TT saw, and drafted him for with less drops and Finley matures and loses his outbursts, I am all for it.

    The guy is a mismatch, too quick for LBs, too big for DBs.

    I do know that whatever choice TT makes will be best for GB.

  8. 4 to 5 tight ends on the roster ?
    smh – Idk, 3 tight ends is good enough …
    8 million dollars for an average tight end is a bit much, could use those roster spots on Defense and Oline – spend that money on Clay and ARod.

  9. I respect McGinn but I believe he is trying to save face here a little bit. He was pretty adamant during the season that Finley was gone. I just have a hard time believing after McCartheys comments that they will release or trade him. They have nobody to replace him with. Drafting a replacement is just keeping the status quo. They need to improve on what they have not just replace.

  10. Would prefer that he stays one more year; could still grow up. But if he goes… well, they won a SB without him already.

  11. Let him walk. I’m so sick of the “potential” that J-Mike has. Every “next season” is going to be Finley’s year.

    Figure out the offensive line by using a 1st/2nd rounder on an OT/OG. Remember, we won a Super Bowl with Starks and Brandon Jackson carrying the load while Finley was on IR.

  12. Wait, the GM and the coaching staff want him to stay, but “other people in the organization” want him gone? What other people in the organization count? Do Packers stockholders still not realize they don’t get a say in how the team is run? One last time: Your stock is a $200 piece of paper, NOTHING ELSE!

Leave a Reply

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