Green Bay Packers: Jermichael Finley, Wide Receiver?

Neil Hornsby took an interesting approach when breaking down whether the Green Bay Packers should franchise Jermichael Finley—is Finley, billed as a tight end, actually a wide receiver, and thus should be franchised as one?

It seems to be a simple question to answer at first, considering that regardless of what he does on the field, his official position is tight end. That would therefore mean, should he be franchised, Finley deserves the $5.4 million payday that a franchised tight end is set to make in 2012.

However, taking a closer look at Finley's numbers, and it's clear he's not a traditional tight end, and in fact, he could be more accurately classified as a receiver.

Finley's agent has quite an argument in his favor if he wants to fight his client being franchised as a tight end.

Hornsby breaks down Finley's snaps in 2011 and determines that, by the numbers, he spent the majority of the season lined up as though he was a wide receiver (for example, Finley stayed in to pass block just seven percent of the snaps he played).

Those numbers, in concert with the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement requiring the tag must "apply to the position in which he participated the most plays," seems to intimate that the fact that Finley was lined up as a wide receiver for the majority of the 2011 season means he'd have to be tagged at the receiver rate, which is $9.4 million in 2012.

The Packers aren't likely to be willing to pay Finley at the receiver rate in 2012, but they don't have much legal footing to stand on if they franchise tag him as a tight end.

Hornsby guesses that Finley, his agent and the Packers will have to come up with another tag designation that classifies him as a hybrid tight end-receiver that pays somewhere in between the two rates.

It raises the question of whether there should be a new position in the modern NFL that helps clarify just what players like Finley, the New England Patriots' Aaron Hernandez and the New Orleans Saints' Jimmy Graham (as just three examples) truly are.

None are traditional tight ends, nor do their snap statistics indicate they're much different than wide receivers; however, when it comes to their paydays, they command the smaller paychecks of a tight end.

A reworking of both the tag designations and position classifications would better serve the way the tight end position has evolved into two very disparate types and thus would pay players more equitably.

Follow @FBALL_Andrea