Report: Packers Still Considering Giving Franchise Tag to Greg Jennings
According to Ian Rapoport, the Green Bay Packers are still considering giving the franchise tag to soon-to-be free agent Greg Jennings.
By Zach Kruse
According to Ian Rapoport of NFL Network, the Green Bay Packers are still deciding whether or not to use the franchise tag on soon-to-be free agent receiver Greg Jennings.
Interesting to hear the #Packers are still considering franchising Greg Jennings. Thought that ship had sailed. Apparently not.
— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) February 24, 2013
Jennings is scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent on March 12, and it has been widely believed that the Packers would allow the 29-year-old receiver to get to free agency.
In eight games last season, Jennings caught 36 passes for 366 yards and four touchdowns.
Jennings told NFL AM last December that he was not interested in returning to Green Bay on the franchise tag.
"Will I be here? That's totally up to the Packers," Jennings said. "I know one way I don't want to be here is under a franchise tag."
The value of next season's franchise tag for receivers is $10.357 million.
Zach Kruse is a 24-year-old sports writer who contributes to Cheesehead TV, Bleacher Report and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. He also covers prep sports for the Dunn Co. News. You can reach him on Twitter @zachkruse2 or by email at [email protected].
Comments (26)
February 24, 2013 at 02:55 pm
Tag'n'trade?
February 24, 2013 at 02:57 pm
obviously this would be tough with the flooded WR market but if a team loses out on the wrs they want, they may be willing to take a trade for Jennings. Plus if they can't trade him, they will have him for another year
February 24, 2013 at 03:04 pm
At least in that senario GB could control where he lands. Lions/Bears would be scary with another threat at WR. Should he go to Miami....eh.
February 24, 2013 at 05:10 pm
Why are the Packers so obsessed with controlling players they no longer want?
Really, this is a non-issue. They aren't going to tag Jennings and use up most of their cap room after the draftees and restricted players like Shields are signed. unless, Finley is cut loose.
Tag and trade is fantasy because Jennings is putting it out there he wants $14 million per to discourage such tomfoolery. Let the man go.
February 24, 2013 at 05:27 pm
They wouldn't be thinking bout tag and trade unless a trade can be worked out ahead of time. I don't think the Packers can afford him, so if there is a tag, he is almost certain to get traded. Its in the Packers best interests to see if they can get a draft pick for him. You have to use every asset and get the most out of it. Thats what Jenning is... An asset.
February 24, 2013 at 10:50 pm
Could be posturing... especially if Packers are interested in other marquee WRs (Mike Wallace or Anquan Boldin). They will definitely want to negotiate from a position of strength and the first step is to appear to be "not desperate" for a WR. I don't see Ted really paying that kinda coin for a Jennings caliber player
February 25, 2013 at 09:40 am
If they were going to spend alot on a WR, it would be spent on Jennings. Not Wallace or anyone else.
February 25, 2013 at 04:17 am
You think so? See I don't see how they can let him just walk. It's not like Matt Flynn last year where the interest would be hard to guess. At least with Jennings they know what they'd get. BUT, he could be a pain in the ass if tagged like others have said.
February 25, 2013 at 09:46 am
Why can't they let him walk? They still have Nelson, Jones and Cobb at WR, not too mention Finley as a reciever. They won w/o him and he didn't make the offense significantly different when he wasn't in there. They can let him go and it won't hurt the offense. The reason the offense fell in the stat rankings was the 2 deep safeties and not being able to run teams out of that. Teams just sat back in the 2 deep and made the Packers drive the length of the field. Having Jennings isn't going to change that.
February 25, 2013 at 10:31 am
While it's only a small portion of the whole picture, in the 8 games with Jennings the team scored 28 PPG with 257 pass yards. In the 8 games without, it was 27 and 250. Pretty negligible difference.
Of course you can dig deeper with YPA, YPC, etc...but I just went with the top line stats that were readily available.
February 24, 2013 at 05:12 pm
i kinda have a feeling that jennings would be a pain in the ass all season if he was playing under the tag.
he'd be talking about it every time a microphone was put in front of him (or a camera)... that's for sure.
just not sure i want to listen to that all year.
it would get annoying.
guess it would only take one 150yd 2td game to get over it, though.
i'm all for whatever makes the Packers better.
if they tag jennings do you think that might spell the end for finley?
they'd at least have to restructure him, wouldn't they?
February 24, 2013 at 05:17 pm
I agree..Plus the cost of the franchise fee is way too much! Love the guy to death but at what cost?
February 24, 2013 at 05:19 pm
I think this nothing besides more Combine Hype. A whole lot of feelers going on right now between all the GM's and Coaches. What is real will come out when the check has to be written!
February 24, 2013 at 05:33 pm
I agree with a lot of talk going on at the combine but what if team A really wants Jennings and his agent is telling them that Jennings will make more money from team B or that team A is like 4th on his possible destination list. Could be possible that team A went to the Pack and said tag him and we'll trade for him? Wow, pure speculation with a lot of wishful thinking, but still possible. In that case I would have to think team A considers themselves a WR short of the playoffs.
February 24, 2013 at 05:58 pm
Greg would be a distraction in GB under the tag, and management knows it.
Smoke and mirrors. Keep everyone guessing. I like it.
February 24, 2013 at 07:57 pm
Non-story, not happening.
GBP 4 LIFE
February 25, 2013 at 10:34 am
While I don't think it'll happen, it's not THAT crazy. $10 mil is a lot, no doubt, but it's only 1 season. And the money will come off the books before A-Rod and Matthews' contracts expire - so it wouldn't effect re-signing those too (unless they wanted to get them done a year or two early).
February 25, 2013 at 10:56 am
I think the Packers need to get Rodgers and Matthews under contract this offseason. Not that I think they'll lose them, but the longer they wait the more the price for both goes up. Rodgers is already looking at over 20M, what if Flacco signs for 22M? Suddenly Rodgers should be getting 25M. Waiting just causes the price to go up. And both have been underpaid for too long already.
February 25, 2013 at 11:02 am
" Waiting just causes the price to go up. And both have been underpaid for too long already."
That's a very good point.
February 25, 2013 at 12:24 pm
The Packers are sitting at a very interesting point in terms of the state of the NFL and salaries. There's been this constant assumption that each time a premier guy at his position comes up for a new contact, he HAS to top the guy behind him. But the cap's been pretty flat and it looks like it's staying that way in the near term. So do the premier contracts continue to have to trump the last premier contract at the position?
If the Ravens give Flacco 22M, are the Packers forced to give Rodgers 23M?
I sure hope not. The post-signing Rodgers/Matthews/Raji Packers are going to look VERY top-heavy as it is.
February 25, 2013 at 02:10 pm
Bingo.
I'd like to see a salary break-down of the last 10 Super Bowl winners in the year they won it all. I'm wondering if teams who have won have had cap numbers that were (relatively) less top heavy.
The prototypical team of the salary cap era is New England. The Pats won three in Tom Brady's first four years. They've won zero since, with two Super Bowl appearances.
Having a QB with a huge contract may just be an anchor. Remember how Farve was always complaining about having no talent around him in later years? If/when AR takes his $20M a year or whatever we will be back in that world.
February 25, 2013 at 03:26 pm
It's funny you mention the Pats, because Brady just signed another 3-year, WAY below market value contract extension.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130225/tom-brady-new-england...
Brady in 2005: ""To be the highest-paid, or anything like that, is not going to make me feel any better. That's not what makes me happy. In this game, the more one player gets, the more he takes away from what others can get. Is it going to make me feel any better to make an extra million, which, after taxes, is about $500,000? That million might be more important to the team.''
Here's hoping Rodgers' shares Brady's outlook in that regard.
February 25, 2013 at 09:39 pm
Isn't that after making 19M for the past 5 yrs tho? He's already made his mega-deal, Rodgers is now just getting his. Would be nice to get a discount, but Rodgers and Brady are in different places. And Rodgers has been underpaid for the past 3 years already. He's gotta get that mega-deal while he can. Hope I'm wrong.
February 25, 2013 at 09:48 pm
His last deal still was below market value at the time.
"In 2005, after his third Super Bowl title, Brady agreed to a six-year, $60 million deal, which at the time was dwarfed by Peyton Manning’s contract, which averaged $14.2 million a year."
Edit: His 2010 extension was 4 years for $72 million. So he was the highest paid player for a short while.
February 25, 2013 at 10:35 pm
So he's made what... About 120M over the past 6 years? Something like that? And was recently the highest paid player in the NFL. Rodgers has made about 50M the past 5 years. Thats gotta change.
February 25, 2013 at 11:43 pm
Rodgers clearly has to make more money; he's earned it. And Rodgers is worth more than Brady at this point in his career. To be honest, he can pretty much write his check. The only bargaining power the Packers have is to extend him earlier, so that he gets the bonus sooner (in case of catastrophic injury).
But I just hope he doesn't get sucked into a game of one-upsmanship with salary. Noone (including him) will care if Flacco or whoever had a higher average figure years from now. If he wants to measure his legacy in championships, he'd do well to take $18-20M/yr, rather than insist on making a statement at $23, 24, 25, whatever.