Packers sign TE Jared Cook

[Sky King]

There's no denying the Packers should add some talent on the defensive line in this year's draft but the inside linebacker position is still in need of a major upgrade which should be addressed early in the draft.

On the other hand I don't feel the need to draft an offensive lineman before the fourth round. While the team is in need of depth at both tackle spots there's no need to get a starter.

Maybe so regarding the OL being a lower priority in our minds, but TT always seems to surprise us some way or the other.

For example, it seemed obvious to a fair number of posters that an ILB should have been a priority during the past four drafts. However, that situation was instead "solved" by moving our best defensive player inside (during the prime of his career, no less) and to backfill the other ILB position with what some might call mediocrity. It does not seem as though TT sees the current cast of ILBs (not including Matthews) as being as much of a weakness as some of us do and hasn't for years.

So since this is a draft reputed to be loaded with talent at the interior line positions and ILB is not; and TE has been addressed somewhat already; and TT has re-signed his backup RB and the starter looks to be fit, plus he has Crockett in waiting on the bench; and since Jordy and Montgomery will be back; and #2 QB looks set; and DB was addressed last year; and DL lost one starter and will be short one key backup/potential starter early and for a quarter of the regular season; and since TT historically values big guys; I'm guessing that he primarily goes for DL, OLB, OL above all other positions.

And because I put that in writing now watch him pick ILB, TE, WR, RB and QB with the first 5 picks.

 

[TeamTundra]

Hope he finds some motivation and excels. Not a fan of bringing guys in who are said to be lazy. Rather have guys who are enthusiastic and just love playing football.

Hope the rumors are false or he suddenly changes his ways.

Ben Sirmans, the Packers new RB coach, was previously with the Rams and worked with Jared
Cook. I'm sure if Cook was highly unmotivated the Packers would have avoided signing him.

 

[AmishMafia]

Ben Sirmans, the Packers new RB coach, was previously with the Rams and worked with Jared
Cook. I'm sure if Cook was highly unmotivated the Packers would have avoided signing him.

Good point.

 

[PikeBadger]

With all players, you have to keep in mind there are 2 sides to the negotiations. I am guessing Cook's agent was hoping for a longer term deal worth more guaranteed money. But given Cooks last contract with the Rams: 5 years, Total Value: $35,100,000 (avg. $7,020,000/year; $16,000,000 fully guaranteed) and how he under performed, TT was smart not to get tied into such a long term deal, even at lower numbers. Bottom line, Cook settled for a reasonable offer from a good team, with an excellent QB that he will be able to prove himself or not cash strap another team with. A win-win for both sides IMO.

That is so funny. 16m guaranteed. I think Rodgers and Matthews are the only players in Packer history to get that much guaranteed money on a contract. No wonder some franchises suck as bad as they do.

 

[PikeBadger]

It seems no matter how well you manage the cap, sooner or later it's still going to get some punches in on you.

Every off season has its own set of challenges. Some of those names you listed will have retired, been released, traded or allowed to move on in free agency. A couple may get contract extensions or get re-signed just prior to the opening of 2017 free agency. We won't be hamstrung by the salary cap. It's essentially the same story every year, the names just change. You can absolutely count on 9-12 rookies being on the 53 man opening day roster. There is no need to worry. All is well.

 

[PikeBadger]

Nothing leaks out of there does it

It's great, isn't it?!?!

Meanwhile back here at the ranch, hand wringing and gnashing of teeth over our lazy do nothing GM

 

[PikeBadger]

Cook can do things for our offense to alleviate the frustration we have with the drops. Adams can't.

Actually, Adams could if he doesn't drop a lot of balls this year. He's the one guy on the roster physically capable of running through defensive backs.

 

[PackerDNA]

Actually, Adams could if he doesn't drop a lot of balls this year. He's the one guy on the roster physically capable of running through defensive backs.

+
A healthy Montgomery could fit that bill, too.

 

[Chris398]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...-i-wanted-a-qb-known-for-getting-the-job-done

 

[RRyder]

+
A healthy Montgomery could fit that bill, too.

Yes but all that matters little if the ball keeps hitting the ground when it's thrown to them.

I get the Cook signing and think it will help but it won't help even a little if he keeps dropping ducks.

Personally I would've banked on bounce back years from Adams, Cobb and both Montgomery and Jordy comming back from injury and spent on Dansby before adding Cook but I do understand the idea behind the signing

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You sound a lot higher on him than when he initially got released...

I said at the time the Rams released three players that Cook would be the only one I was moderately interested in. He wasn´t my first choice to address the tight end position but he´s an upgrade over Rodgers.

For example, it seemed obvious to a fair number of posters that an ILB should have been a priority during the past four drafts. However, that situation was instead "solved" by moving our best defensive player inside (during the prime of his career, no less) and to backfill the other ILB position with what some might call mediocrity. It does not seem as though TT sees the current cast of ILBs (not including Matthews) as being as much of a weakness as some of us do and hasn't for years.

I truly hope that Thompson knows the inside linebacker position has been a weakness for several years running. Moving Matthews outside again and just hoping the remaining players at the position will get the job done next season won´t cut it this time.

Every off season has its own set of challenges. Some of those names you listed will have retired, been released, traded or allowed to move on in free agency. A couple may get contract extensions or get re-signed just prior to the opening of 2017 free agency. We won't be hamstrung by the salary cap. It's essentially the same story every year, the names just change. You can absolutely count on 9-12 rookies being on the 53 man opening day roster. There is no need to worry. All is well.

Currently the Packers have a total of $126,736,888 allocated to the 2017 salary cap for only 29 players. With the team not being able to roll over a lot of cap space from this season into the next one and the cap expected to raise to $166 million that will leave the team with approximately $40 million in cap space. While that may sound like a lot of money several core players will become free agents after the 2016 season and Thompson won´t be able to re-sign all of them because of not having enough cap space available.

 

[ivo610]

I said at the time the Rams released three players that Cook would be the only one I was moderately interested in. He wasn´t my first choice to address the tight end position but he´s an upgrade over Rodgers.

Oh

All three of them had terrible seasons last year, no thanks.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Oh

Out of the Reggie Ragland thread:

Just because you recognize their names doesn't make any of them a great addition for the Packers. Every single one of them had a terrible season in 2015 and the only one I would be moderately interested in is Jared Cook as he surely suffered because of the Rams QB situation.

Oh

 

[Half Empty]

It's great, isn't it?!?!

Meanwhile back here at the ranch, hand wringing and gnashing of teeth over our lazy do nothing GM

Don't forget hyperbole.

 

[sschind]

Negativity already flowing lol

Always with the negative waves Moriarity. Always with the negative waves.

 

[ivo610]

Out of the Reggie Ragland thread:



Oh

Oh so things changed

 

[sschind]

I will say the bonus will be is that we're going to be absolutely loaded with comp picks in two years time

I like the idea that from a pick standpoint it cost us nothing and if he has a good enough year that we can't afford to resign him we will likely get a comp pick in return. Not to mention that if that happens we will have likely benefited from his performance as well. As far as the cap numbers go if you are looking strictly at a player who will not see the field unless there is and injury then minimum salary guys are fine and you need a few of them but when you have guys that will be on the field a quite a bit and you are expecting them to contribute every day then 2.75 million is not out of place. I feel the same way with the Starks deal.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Always with the negative waves Moriarity. Always with the negative waves.

Had to Google that one LOL

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[sschind]

Had to Google that one LOL

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

There is a scene later on where he makes the exact quote I posted. In all I think there are probably 5 "negative wave" scenes in the movie.

This scene is probably more apropos because of the stuff he says after it. "Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change." I could see that being appropriate for some of the posters here.

 

[PackerDNA]

My boy Oddball. CLASSIC!

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Actually, Adams could if he doesn't drop a lot of balls this year. He's the one guy on the roster physically capable of running through defensive backs.

What do you mean by that? He couldn't run past anyone this year.

 

[Half Empty]

What do you mean by that? He couldn't run past anyone this year.

"Past" vs "through"?

 

[Patriotplayer90]

"Past" vs "through"?

I don't see that, either. He didn't gain an inch when he got stood up on a goal line stand against Arizona, and was pushed off his routes and pressed by much smaller CBs.

Cobb is smaller, but is much tougher after the catch. Montgomery is also built like an RB and is quite elusive. They both show more consistent effort than Adams. He was ranked 118th out of 119 WRs who played 25% of the teams snaps per PPF. I'm hesitant to give him praise or have any hope for him.

 

[Carl]

I said at the time the Rams released three players that Cook would be the only one I was moderately interested in. He wasn´t my first choice to address the tight end position but he´s an upgrade over Rodgers.



I truly hope that Thompson knows the inside linebacker position has been a weakness for several years running. Moving Matthews outside again and just hoping the remaining players at the position will get the job done next season won´t cut it this time.



Currently the Packers have a total of $126,736,888 allocated to the 2017 salary cap for only 29 players. With the team not being able to roll over a lot of cap space from this season into the next one and the cap expected to raise to $166 million that will leave the team with approximately $40 million in cap space. While that may sound like a lot of money several core players will become free agents after the 2016 season and Thompson won´t be able to re-sign all of them because of not having enough cap space available.

Not being able to resign everyone doesn't make it a cap issue. That's simply how it goes in the NFL.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Not being able to resign everyone doesn't make it a cap issue. That's simply how it goes in the NFL.

As for the rest of the league, the cream at the top doesn't stay there very long with few exceptions, notably New England and Green Bay. Do you care if Green Bay becomes like the rest of the league? It would not be what you're accustomed to.

You need to look at the names involved. The 2017 free agent list is formidable, not Packer business as usual:

Sitton, Lang, Bakhtiari, Tretter, Lacy, Cook
Peppers, Perry, Jones, Hyde, Barrington (who may or may not matter)

As the Captain stated, the current cap commitment for 2017 is $127 mil for only 29 players.

Even if the other 24 roster positions were filled by minimum salary rookies brought in in 2016 and 2017, that will cost around $600,000 per player in 2017. That would bring the cap commitment up to $144 mil. That would bring the cap space down to $22 mil + what little carryover from 2016 may be left on the books.

In the mean time, the top 3 picks in 2016 will cost about $3.3 mil against the cap in 2017; the top 3 picks in 2017 about the same amount. Once you substitute those guys for minimum salary players you're down to around $18 mil in cap space + carryover. That might cover 2 of the starting O-Linemen and maybe a lesser player using signing bonus cap deferrals, keeping in mind s minimum $5 mil must be held back for practice squad players and IR replacements.

This year's draft needs to be outstanding to cover the losses. So too in 2017, but free agency will deplete the roster before you get there. Walking into the 2017 draft you will be looking at a lot of holes to fill. If the 2016 draft class is average, or heaven forbid of the quality of 2011 and 2012, there will be big problems.

Barring a high quality draft in 2016, some players with sizeable cap hits in 2017 will need to be renegotiated in order to keep more than those aforementioned 2 O-Linemen + one lesser player. That means some combination of Rodgers, Matthews, Cobb, Shields, Nelson, Daniels, Bulaga and Burnett. Those are the guys with $7 mil+ cap numbers in 2017. If that happens, it would imply those players are not living up to their contracts. In that case, you'll have more cap, but in the face of declining talent among core players.

Maybe Rodgers takes one for the team to secure one other quality player; maybe not.