Finley Named Starter

Obviously, with Cheesehead TV having left the scene on Satudray night, Mike McCarthy had to settle for speaking with Bob McGinn from the Journal Sentinel on Sunday night. Or something like that.

And yes, during said conversation McCarthy indicated that Jermichael Finley is the starting tight end for the Green Bay Packers.

Yes, he (Finley) is (the starter). He played very well. What's exciting about him, he gets better every week.

Obviously, this isn't a shocking development, given the way the players in question were playing down the stretch last year. And the 'starter' in this offense is pretty much a paper-title only, as McCarthy mixes his personnel so liberally, including a good dose of two tight end sets.

But it's a nod to the emerging talent that is, as McCarthy says, only getting better.

 

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.

__________________________

0 points
 

Comments (19)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
aussiepacker's picture

March 01, 2010 at 04:25 am

He also said d. lee was good on special teams but i cant remember seeing him stand out on any of the units. But i also have really only been watching since 07 But only got broadband in start of 08 and only found chtv in early 09 say know very little about his early stats. What is your opinion?

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

March 01, 2010 at 10:09 am

aussie - Lee had played a lot of teams when he first got to Green Bay. Not so much last year.

0 points
0
0
PACKERS.'s picture

March 01, 2010 at 07:03 am

Jermichael is good. I'll be very happy with him starting. And in case you haven't heard yet, the Pack are offering Kampman a new contract. 4 years with 5 mil/year.

Go Pack Go!

0 points
0
0
CSS's picture

March 01, 2010 at 11:43 am

Maybe it's semantics or how we like 'definitive' terms to describe objects/status, but does it really matter if a player is 'starter'? If the player takes 60% of the snaps over the course of a game but wasn't in the line-up on the opening snap do we care?

Pro teams have so many sub-packages on both sides of the ball in todays game that I don't know whey some fans obsess over who's starter on the depth chart. Not implying you make the casual fans case, but don't you agree?

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

March 01, 2010 at 12:18 pm

CSS - agree to an extent. I can tell you it matters to players, esp the ones with bonus language in their contract that says they get more money if they 'start' x amount of games.

0 points
0
0
CSS's picture

March 01, 2010 at 12:20 pm

Aaron - My understanding of that contractual language: It says 'percentage of available snaps', not 'starts'. Do you have a resource we can ask about the technical language for this type of incentive?

0 points
0
0
PackersThad's picture

March 01, 2010 at 12:29 pm

PACKERS, where have you heard that from?

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

March 01, 2010 at 12:50 pm

Thad - McGinn wrote a few days ago:
-
One source said the Packers earlier discussed a new contract for Kampman that would average about $5 million per year, or about the same as his expiring four-year, $21 million deal average.

But with the Packers providing positive reports on Kampman's recovery from reconstructive knee surgery, and Cornrich selling his client around the NFL combine this week, his average per year might shoot even higher.

0 points
0
0
CSS's picture

March 01, 2010 at 12:34 pm

Aaron, this is quick and dirty but Eli Manning, Matt Stafford and Brady Quinn all have language in their respective contracts incenting a percentage of available snaps, not starts:

http://adamjt13.blogspot.com/2009/05/matthew-staffords-contract.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4585883

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=1850116

Quick and dirty, small sample size.

0 points
0
0
PACKERS.'s picture

March 01, 2010 at 03:57 pm

Thad. Among several other sources:

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/playerbreakingnews.asp?spor...

Wait, was I really the first person to report important news on CHTV?! I'm kind of proud of myself right now ;)

0 points
0
0
Dustybricks6's picture

March 01, 2010 at 04:15 pm

Now I'm not a big tebow believer, but if he falls to the third round... It'd be interesting to see him play opposite finley at TE. And maybe groom him at third string qb as potential trade bait in the future.

0 points
0
0
jerseypackfan's picture

March 01, 2010 at 06:40 pm

So is it safe to say Finley benefited the most from the Cheesehead TV bump?

0 points
0
0
hyperRevue's picture

March 01, 2010 at 07:07 pm

Even in the 3rd round, I hope the Packers don't waste a pick on Tebow. With the team's other needs, even if he were to become a productive TE/H-back type player (a big if), then he's still just a #2 TE on the Packers. They have a lot more pressing needs then to take a gamble on a possible second tight end.

0 points
0
0
retiredgrampa's picture

March 01, 2010 at 07:11 pm

The words of the contract may not specify "starts", but according to my math, a "starter" already has one more "snap" than a guy who may come in on the next play or may not. So I can see why it's important to a guy to "start".

0 points
0
0
FITZCORE1252's picture

March 01, 2010 at 09:54 pm

Regarding Jermichael... RUN WITH IT, SKY'S THE LIMIT! I always appreciated D-Lee, but man, he's got some stone hands at really inopportune times.

Regarding Tebow, if we were to burn a 5th on him I guess I could understand that, I think there's enough potential there to warrant a 5th rounder for a project. If we took him before that, I'd be pretty pissed. This is a fairly deep draft class at some of they key areas we need to focus on... a project QB is not one of them.

GBP 4 LIFE

0 points
0
0
Dustybricks6's picture

March 01, 2010 at 09:55 pm

Of course they have more pressing needs but imagine the trade value down the road for tebow. The packers are built for the long run, I am uncomfortable with the religious stuff, but tebow will be very appealing for a lot of teams if we groom him. We'd be smart to grab him while his value is high and fill the needs we have.

0 points
0
0
FITZCORE1252's picture

March 01, 2010 at 10:03 pm

Dusty,

I'm not concerned with drafting a guy this year with the hope he may have some "trade value" down the road. I'm pretty sure Ted isn't either.

The draft is to build/improve your roster, If a guy turns into trade bait 3 or 4 years down the road so be it, but I can't see any respectable GM drafting a guy with thoughts on his future "trade value".

Tebow may turn out to be a player, I however have sincere doubts. Like I said though, I think there is enough POTENTIAL there to possibly drop a 5th or 6th rounder on him. Somebody will likely take him before that, I hope it's not us.

GBP 4 LIFE

0 points
0
0
BLACKHAWK's picture

March 02, 2010 at 07:30 am

I think Jermichael is going to be a stud in this league! Another Antonio Gates, only better..this kid is only 22 or 23. AR said he has the best hands on the team and 09 showed that this kid is starting to mature after a difficult rookie season. The biggest question is can he stay healthy?

0 points
0
0
bomdad's picture

March 02, 2010 at 09:53 am

The catch he made in the last game, with his hands over his head with the Cards guy wrapped around his waist after a futile attempt to knock him off the route. WOW, he IS a stud already.

0 points
0
0