Truth & Rumors > NFL

Pack, Finley seeking long-term deal

Views
32795
Comments
52

08:05 AM ET 01.20 | While the franchise tag might come relative inexpensively, the Packers may not be interested in using it on their tight end. [Green Bay is] interested in signing Jermichael Finley to a long-term deal and would rather not use the franchise tag on the tight end, Finley's agent [Blake Baratz] said. ... "Now that the season's over there's a little more time to focus on the particulars." The two sides had several discussions throughout the season, though there is no immediate time frame on getting a deal done. The primary issue seems to be finding a number acceptable to both sides for a young player (Finley will be 25 on March 26) who has yet to reach his potential and has an impact on the offense that isn't measurable by statistics.

Green Bay Press Gazette

Jermichael Finley, Getty Images Jermichael Finley, Getty Images
January 20, 2012  08:11 AM ET

It's in everyone's best interest to get a contract deal done and not go with the franchise stuff. This team can be a contender for a number of years.

January 20, 2012  08:29 AM ET

When u Win everybody wants their Fair Share!!!

January 20, 2012  08:48 AM ET

Sounds like a no-brainer for the Pack. Ted Thompson knows what he's doing.

Now, about Dom Capers and that defense...

January 20, 2012  09:07 AM ET

The primary issue seems to be finding a number acceptable to both sides for a young player (Finley will be 25 on March 26) who has yet to reach his potential and has an impact on the offense that isn't measurable by statistics.

^^^^^ Isn't that always the primary issue in these negotiations???

January 20, 2012  09:17 AM ET

OK, as a Bears fan I could care less here but since it is early, and I know the TnR community is dying to know my take, I feel obliged to opine. How about the **** focus less on getting a deal done with their TE and instead focus on signing a dependable #3 wideout, someone who will work well in the slot, and maybe a fourth too because we all know that Donny Driver and James 'No Show' Jones ain't cutting it ...

January 20, 2012  09:25 AM ET
QUOTE(#5):

OK, as a Bears fan I could care less here but since it is early, and I know the TnR community is dying to know my take, I feel obliged to opine. How about the **** focus less on getting a deal done with their TE and instead focus on signing a dependable #3 wideout, someone who will work well in the slot, and maybe a fourth too because we all know that Donny Driver and James 'No Show' Jones ain't cutting it ...

And there is only so much money to go around. It comes with winning, it is not cheap to keep your better players and he is not the only one they have to work out a deal with.

January 20, 2012  09:39 AM ET

He's very good, but he's not Gronk.

January 20, 2012  10:12 AM ET
QUOTE(#7):

He's very good, but he's not Gronk.

Gronk holds onto everything.

January 20, 2012  10:23 AM ET

True. We now know what an elite TE can do and Finley hasn't done it yet. Then again, it took Vernon Davis until this year to get it. Melman's right though, the Packers need to put most of their focus on upgrading that defense. With that offense even getting the D to middle of the road could be enough to put them back in the SB.

January 20, 2012  10:27 AM ET

This is the same guy who dropped three critical passes in the Giants game that stalled drives. This is the guy who was a shell of himself this year compared to last year. This is a guy when compared to the top tight ends wasn't on the same planet and yet they are talking long term contract? Apparently the Packers aren't that interested in another Super Bowl when you are afraid to part with those that didn't get you there.

Comment #11 has been removed
January 20, 2012  11:16 AM ET
QUOTE(#8):

Gronk holds onto everything.

But defensive backs have a hard time holding on to Gronk.

January 20, 2012  11:18 AM ET

Dude had a couple good games with Rodgers at QB...not exactly worth a franchise tag which is why they won't use it on him.

Comment #14 has been removed
Comment #15 has been removed
January 20, 2012  11:37 AM ET

@ross the boss - if GB franchises Flynn, no team will give up a first round pick. No team can afford to pay a backup QB 15-20 million and teams making offers to GB would know this. GB would have no leverage to demand a first rounder in return because they would have to trade him or dismantle their roster to accommodate that huge salary for a backup player.

Comment #17 has been removed
January 20, 2012  11:51 AM ET
QUOTE(#13):

Dude had a couple good games with Rodgers at QB...not exactly worth a franchise tag which is why they won't use it on him.

You can only use that tag once. And it will not be on him.

January 20, 2012  11:53 AM ET
QUOTE(#15):

I would rather they franchise Flynn and trade him for first rounder

It would cost them around $16 million to do that, and that ain't a gonna happen.
He is UFA and has earned the right to go play and run his own team. And he will.

 
January 20, 2012  12:56 PM ET
QUOTE(#19):

It would cost them around $16 million to do that, and that ain't a gonna happen. He is UFA and has earned the right to go play and run his own team. And he will.

AMEN!!

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Irving: Fans don't deserve the Cavs
    Views
    7833
    Comments
    680
  2. 2
    Red Sox dodged two injury scares
    Views
    2944
    Comments
    495
  3. 3
    Trump taking a legit run at the Bills
    Views
    2233
    Comments
    106
  4. 4
    Why the Raiders have lost 111 of 160 games
    Views
    5982
    Comments
    66
  5. 5
    Bruins can't count on shut-down D
    Views
    1593
    Comments
    59

SI.com

SI Photos