Re-sign Jerdroppal Paddlehands?

[lambeaulambo]

Other than playing Forrest Gump for the pingpong world championships, now there is talk regarding Jerdroppal's return or departure. If you look at this objectively, I do think that the pack may be able to get him on the cheap due to his flathanded prowess. He is only 25. If he demands a large salary, it may be time for him the take the pingponging show on the road. Thoughts?

 

[13 Times Champs]

Haven't we previously plowed this ground?

 

[VolvoD]

let's start 5 more threads on the subject.

 

[TJV]

Haven't we previously plowed this ground?

Yes, I just posted on Finley's contract situation in an established thread on this suject here: http://www.packerforum.com/threads/silverstein-on-contract-situation.42946/#post-488631

 

[HyponGrey]

I take offense to this, the name's JerMouthoff.

 

[13 Times Champs]

I say he stays. Didn't want to start another thread on Finley.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/25/report-packers-torn-on-keeping-jermichael-finley/

 

[El Guapo]

Someone please lock this

 

[texaspackerbacker]

I wasn't posting here when you guys plowed the field before. I can't say I have extremely strong feelings one way or the other except to echo it that if he can be re-signed, extended, or preferably restructured cheap and cap friendly, I'd keep him. I also am on record saying I wish we could get a big ol' tree of a TE who might not be much of a deep threat, but who could get open for first downs and catch everything Rodgers throws near him. If Finley does stay, which I kinda doubt, use him as the hybrid receiver he is, a little bit less PT than now, a few less throws in his direction.

 

[NorthWestCheeseHead]

He did set a franchise record for catches by a TE in a season this year. 61 catches in 88 targets.

 

[13 Times Champs]

Someone please lock this

Why? Isn't whether we do or do not have Finley next year a legitimate topic for conversation? We can argue about the redundant threads but we should not be limited as far as discussion.

 

[HyponGrey]

I wasn't posting here when you guys plowed the field before. I can't say I have extremely strong feelings one way or the other except to echo it that if he can be re-signed, extended, or preferably restructured cheap and cap friendly, I'd keep him. I also am on record saying I wish we could get a big ol' tree of a TE who might not be much of a deep threat, but who could get open for first downs and catch everything Rodgers throws near him. If Finley does stay, which I kinda doubt, use him as the hybrid receiver he is, a little bit less PT than now, a few less throws in his direction.

Finley consistently gets open in the short field. He gets ignored. He seems to have taken a note or two from Jones because he hasn't dropped as frequently since the bye. Quite frankly the TE you're talking about might as well be tackle eligible. A shame most of the TE at the combine ran under 4.7, technically classifying them as a "deep threat"

 

[El Guapo]

Why? Isn't whether we do or do not have Finley next year a legitimate topic for conversation? We can argue about the redundant threads but we should not be limited as far as discussion.

It's the nth redundant thread on Finley. They should be combined so that the people just joining the conversation can see what's already been hashed around a million times.

 

[13 Times Champs]

It's the nth redundant thread on Finley. They should be combined so that the people just joining the conversation can see what's already been hashed around a million times.

I agree about the redundant threads but they aren't restricted to Finley. We have sticky threads where posters are supposed to comment and then an independent thread is started on the same subject. I leave it to the mods to figure this out. But I disagree that the latest news about Finley has been rehashed.

 

[NorthWestCheeseHead]

I really don't think that it is that big of a deal. If you'd like to not join in the beating of the horse, just don't join in. Simple.

 

[13 Times Champs]

The last paragraph in the article is more realistic than what Finley said.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/28/jermichael-finley-says-he-wont-take-a-pay-cut/

 

[El Guapo]

I really don't think that it is that big of a deal. If you'd like to not join in the beating of the horse, just don't join in. Simple.

Are you Mike Vick? Just kidding

My only defense is that this thread started out talking about keeping or dropping Finley. Not new news. What 13 Times posted is newer news, and so I'll take a swing at this horse. As the PFT guys said, Finley's agent will determine if any team is willing to come close to his current contract. If not, then Finley will be open to negotiation with the Pack.

My grandma always used to say, "Show me you love me. Don't tell me." That's what I want to see out of Finley.

 

[NorthWestCheeseHead]

Are you Mike Vick? Just kidding

My only defense is that this thread started out talking about keeping or dropping Finley. Not new news. What 13 Times posted is newer news, and so I'll take a swing at this horse. As the PFT guys said, Finley's agent will determine if any team is willing to come close to his current contract. If not, then Finley will be open to negotiation with the Pack.

My grandma always used to say, "Show me you love me. Don't tell me." That's what I want to see out of Finley.

I agree, the guy has not lived up to his current contract figure.

Nothing shameful about admitting that and busting your *** to get a better contract again. Still, for the time being we're going to have to move you into the basement. We may be keeping your red stapler.

 

[HyponGrey]

The last paragraph in the article is more realistic than what Finley said.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/28/jermichael-finley-says-he-wont-take-a-pay-cut/

Welp that settles it. Either we keep him for this year and draft his replacement this year or next year, or we cut him this year and draft his replacement.

 

[adambr2]

I usually don't suggest player for player trades, because they are very rarely done, but something I'd actually like to see would be Finley going to the Chiefs for Moeaki. Moeaki has a year left on his deal and then he becomes a RFA, and Finley has a year left on his. Moeaki hasn't put up good looking stats, but he has upside and has never had a real QB throwing to him. He could fill the void left by Finley at a much lesser price without too much dropoff at TE.

The Chiefs meanwhile are probably desperate to surround Alex Smith with a high upside target or two and this trade would give them exactly that.

 

[HardRightEdge]

"Pay cut" is a relative term, especially when talking about $8.25 mil due for one year.

What if a new deal was for 5 years, $27.5 mil, with a $7 mil signing bonus with $1.25 mil base in the first year guaranteed, and additional $4 mil guaranteed in year 2. The average is $5.5 mil, but the 2013 cash payout is the same, there's an additional $4 mil guaranteed, and the 1st year cap hit is $2.65 mil. If it doesn't quite work out, the dead cap money after year 2 is not terrible; quite manageable after year 3.

Is that a pay cut? There's more guaranteed money.

It would be a smaller deal than Hawk got. This draft is not rich in TE talent; the FA talent market is not that great. I think somebody would do this deal.

 

[weeds]

I really don't think that it is that big of a deal. If you'd like to not join in the beating of the horse, just don't join in. Simple.

Beating a dead horse in Europe will get you hamburger.

 

[adambr2]

You know what sucks right now? The fact that none of Andrew Quarless, Ryan Taylor, or DJ Williams have shown us squat offensively so far. If they had, this is an easy decision.

And before anyone says Crabtree, I think we all know that Crabtree is a decent career backup TE/special teams player. He is not, and never will be, a special TE that the defense has to gameplan for.