Peter King mentions in this round table discussion that Cobb will stay in GB

[PFanCan]

He´s not inclined to do it as of today but I wonder if he´ll change his mind once the end of Rodgers´ career comes closer.

I predict he won't change his mind as he will have (by then) drafted another future HOF QB who will be carrying a clipboard on the sidelines while learning from Rodgers.

 

[HardRightEdge]

One advantage to the franchise tag is that players hate it and have a strong incentive to negotiate out of it.

The hate is bound to be more acute among this first draft class under the rookie salary scale; star players from that class have been playing for relative peanuts and want to lock up guaranteed money and a big signing bonus.

I don't think the dead cap that the signing bonus creates can be underrated as a mechanism for semi-guaranteed money in the first 3 years of typical star player deals in addition to the actual guarantee.

While $13 mil guaranteed for the one year under the franchise tag is hardly peanuts, the idea of sustaining a serious injury in that year and never seeing the big payday can leverage the guy into a long term deal below the high end of his free market range.

There are risks nonetheless. If the player balks on a long term deal and rolls the dice on staying injury free, (1) that's a slug of money out of the salary cap, a particular issue for the Packers this offseason, (2) the process has to repeated the following season creating the same planning roadblock and perhaps the price goes up, and (3) any residual resentment over being tagged making the player's free agency priority the following year being getting out of town.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I don't think the offense would collapse without Cobb but replacing the best slot receiver in the league won't be easy either.

In addition there's no need for a third down back as Lacy drastically improved as a receiver and pass blocker in 2014.

I think Lacy can catch the ball as well. When I said third down back I meant one of those players that can line up in the backfield or out wide (e.g., Sproles, Vereen, etc). Packers used Cobb in that fashion at times last year (the game against the Pats comes to mind). So, third-down back is probably the wrong term but "running back that can also line up at wide receiver" is a lot to type.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Who is arguing the offense will collapse without Cobb? As I posted in another thread: “IMO the Packers could get by without Cobb against most of the teams on their regular season schedule, but I think he’s extremely important against good defenses and in the playoffs. Good defensive teams are able to take Nelson away (he had 7 total catches against NE and SEA), without Cobb more attention could be paid to Adams and the Packers don’t have another option on the same level as (even) Adams. Janis might … Abbrederis could … Boykin disappeared and getting even a talented rookie up to speed is difficult.

I looked at 5 games toward the end of the season, the playoff games against SEA & DAL; DET, BUF and NE. In those games Cobb had 33 catches for 439 yards and 3 TDs. Jordy had 20 for 287 and 1 TD. Adams had 15 catches for 251 and 1 TD. I’d hate to see those numbers with an inexperienced WR in the place of Cobb, even with the best QB in the league throwing to them.”

Of course the offense won’t collapse without Cobb but losing one of the two receivers opponents have to concentrate on would create a domino effect. IMO the Packers best chance at another Super Bowl include keeping Cobb (and Bulaga) and they have the cap room and money to do it as long as the players’ demands aren’t outrageous.

The post I quoted mentioned the Packers going 8-8 or worse if this trend continues which is why I mentioned the team collapsing.

Second, how is it that Brees, Brady and Manning can have terrific passing offenses with one highly paid receiving weapon (Graham, Gronk and Thomas, respectively) yet Rodgers for some reason needs to have two highly paid guys? The Broncos signed Emmanuel Sanders for $6m per year and I didn't see the Broncos passing game fall apart. Why is it so hard to see the Packers doing something similar? Sanders had 735 yards receiving in his final year with the Steelers and then exploded with the Broncos. In Oakland, Denarius Moore had 600+ yards receiving his first three years in the NFL before a disappointing season last year. Would it be astounding if Moore went from the quarterback play in Oakland to Green Bay and was, at the least, still a 600+ yard receiver? My money would actually be on him being a better receiver in Green Bay. In this example, if you're concerned that Moore doesn't play slot receiver then you can rest safe in the knowledge that Nelson is a REALLY good slot receiver (in 2013 he took 52.1% of his snaps in the slot)

Also, your stats on Cobb helping Nelson are great but the whole point of drafting a guy like Adams is that he'll turn into a good receiver as well. So why can't Adams help the team?

Finally, the Packers offense isn't the biggest problem with the Packers winning a Super Bowl, it's the defense. It's a matter of opinion but let's say that the Packers sign a player like Moore for $5m per year and Dan Williams for $6m per year (nose tackles don't get paid a ton of money, Kyle Williams is only at $6.75m per year). Basically you've spent $2m more per season and might get a slight drop in offense but a big bump on defense. Net, I think the overall team would improve in that situation. In my opinion, getting a good nose tackle and a slightly worse replacement receiver would put the Packers closer to winning a Super Blow than just signing Cobb and hoping Raji can re-discover the form he flashed five years ago. Packers-Seahawks might have gone differently if Lynch wasn't averaging 6.3 yards per carry. Combo of Adams and a Moore-like receiver could probable come close to the 69 combined receiving yards of Cobb and Adams in that game.

However, the above scenario assumes that the replacement WR will work out (though I don't think that's a large assumption with Rodgers at QB) and that Williams would maintain his level of play in Green Bay. So signing Cobb is probably safer but doesn't really fix any of the issues this team has on defense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The post I quoted mentioned the Packers going 8-8 or worse if this trend continues which is why I mentioned the team collapsing.

Second, how is it that Brees, Brady and Manning can have terrific passing offenses with one highly paid receiving weapon (Graham, Gronk and Thomas, respectively) yet Rodgers for some reason needs to have two highly paid guys? The Broncos signed Emmanuel Sanders for $6m per year and I didn't see the Broncos passing game fall apart. Why is it so hard to see the Packers doing something similar? Sanders had 735 yards receiving in his final year with the Steelers and then exploded with the Broncos. In Oakland, Denarius Moore had 600+ yards receiving his first three years in the NFL before a disappointing season last year. Would it be astounding if Moore went from the quarterback play in Oakland to Green Bay and was, at the least, still a 600+ yard receiver? My money would actually be on him being a better receiver in Green Bay. In this example, if you're concerned that Moore doesn't play slot receiver then you can rest safe in the knowledge that Nelson is a REALLY good slot receiver (in 2013 he took 52.1% of his snaps in the slot)

Also, your stats on Cobb helping Nelson are great but the whole point of drafting a guy like Adams is that he'll turn into a good receiver as well. So why can't Adams help the team?

Finally, the Packers offense isn't the biggest problem with the Packers winning a Super Bowl, it's the defense. It's a matter of opinion but let's say that the Packers sign a player like Moore for $5m per year and Dan Williams for $6m per year (nose tackles don't get paid a ton of money, Kyle Williams is only at $6.75m per year). Basically you've spent $2m more per season and might get a slight drop in offense but a big bump on defense. Net, I think the overall team would improve in that situation. In my opinion, getting a good nose tackle and a slightly worse replacement receiver would put the Packers closer to winning a Super Blow than just signing Cobb and hoping Raji can re-discover the form he flashed five years ago. Packers-Seahawks might have gone differently if Lynch wasn't averaging 6.3 yards per carry. Combo of Adams and a Moore-like receiver could probable come close to the 69 combined receiving yards of Cobb and Adams in that game.

However, the above scenario assumes that the replacement WR will work out (though I don't think that's a large assumption with Rodgers at QB) and that Williams would maintain his level of play in Green Bay. So signing Cobb is probably safer but doesn't really fix any of the issues this team has on defense.

The Packers ranked 23rd in positional spending for WRs and 28th for TEs during the 2014 season, spending less at both positions than the teams you mentioned.

Bottom line there's no other receiver currently on the roster capable of replacing Cobb and not a lot of good slot WRs available in free agency. The Packers have the mecessary cap space to sign Randall to a long-term contract, so let's get it done.

 

[XPack]

Talented, Young, Has a proven on field understanding with Rodgers, can make a deadly duo with Nelson - See no reason for us not to resign him on long term. It'll be a investment for the future. The % of us getting a WR better than Cobb in next 2-3- drafts should be low.

TT should have gone bonkers for us to not re-sign him.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The Packers ranked 23rd in positional spending for WRs and 28th for TEs during the 2014 season, spending less at both positions than the teams you mentioned.

Bottom line there's no other receiver currently on the roster capable of replacing Cobb and not a lot of good slot WRs available in free agency. The Packers have the mecessary cap space to sign Randall to a long-term contract, so let's get it done.

Kind of final for conjecture. Fans have no idea if Adams can come close to replacing Cobb. Also, where is it written that the Packers second WR has to have 1,300 yards receiving? In 2011 the Packers offense was amazing and the second WR had 949 yards receiving. It's not hard to imagine Adams getting to that number in his second season. So even if the team doesn't have the calibre of third or fourth receivers of the 2011 team, having an offense that's 85% as good as that one would be plenty to win the Super Bowl.

The slot WR is not a glamorous WR position overall. You say there aren't many good ones in free agency, well, there aren't many good ones overall in the NFL. Packers are an exception in getting a lot of production from the slot receiver.

Packer might have the cap space to re-sign Cobb but that space could also be used to improve other areas of weakness on the team. I'm not saying one is right or wrong, just that's it's not a clear-cut decision.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Kind of final for conjecture. Fans have no idea if Adams can come close to replacing Cobb. Also, where is it written that the Packers second WR has to have 1,300 yards receiving? In 2011 the Packers offense was amazing and the second WR had 949 yards receiving. It's not hard to imagine Adams getting to that number in his second season. So even if the team doesn't have the calibre of third or fourth receivers of the 2011 team, having an offense that's 85% as good as that one would be plenty to win the Super Bowl.

The slot WR is not a glamorous WR position overall. You say there aren't many good ones in free agency, well, there aren't many good ones overall in the NFL. Packers are an exception in getting a lot of production from the slot receiver.

Packer might have the cap space to re-sign Cobb but that space could also be used to improve other areas of weakness on the team. I'm not saying one is right or wrong, just that's it's not a clear-cut decision.

Adams won't replace Cobb as he's not a great fit to play in the slot. If the Packers let Cobb walk away their #3 receiver will either be Boykin (who drastically regressed in 2014), a free agent signing (which is never a sure thing) or someone without any experience in the NFL.

Opponents will be able to shift their coverages towards Nelson and Adams and force the Packers to beat them with their other pass catchers which haven't proven to be capable of doing it.

 

[adambr2]

The conflicting stories really highlight the hilarity of all the speculation this time of year. One source reports that the Packers definitely will bring Cobb back, another reports that they're going to let him test the market.

Meanwhile, we all know Thompson is about as tight lipped as they come and none of the "sources" really know for sure.

 

[TJV]

The post I quoted mentioned the Packers going 8-8 or worse if this trend continues which is why I mentioned the team collapsing.

Keep in mind the same poster started a thread titled, 8-8 if lucky (opps!) on September 22, 2014:

McGinn said early on the team was going to be 12-4. A better projection is 8-8, about where they were last year. It is fairly clear the team is not what it was three years ago. It's a combination of things, but mainly other teams have figured out the offensive system and the defense, while good in spurts, isn't consistent enough. What has evolved in Green Bay is a modern version of the Bart Starr coaching era. Mediocrity was rewarded with more money, and everyone was so busy praising themselves they didn't realize they couldn't play routinely with the good teams. … I see a team in decline and I don't think a remedy will occur until they fall even more.

https://www.packerforum.com/threads/8-8-if-lucky.54615/

Perhaps he could take a queue from “Half Empty” and change is name to “Completely Empty”? ( just kidding net, but you have to agree that was over the top negative.)

Second, how is it that Brees, Brady and Manning can have terrific passing offenses…

Here’s a good answer:

Bottom line there's no other receiver currently on the roster capable of replacing Cobb and not a lot of good slot WRs available in free agency. The Packers have the necessary cap space to sign Randall to a long-term contract, so let's get it done.

You keep posting you want to see Cobb re-signed but it’s obviously not a priority for you. Nothing wrong with that, we just disagree.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Deadline for franchise tag has passed, Packers didn't use one of the tags on Cobb.

 

[yooperpackfan]

Deadline for franchise tag has passed, Packers didn't use one of the tags on Cobb.

IMHO that's a good thing.

 

[Ace]

IMHO that's a good thing.

I don't think it's necessarilly good or bad tbh. I think either way the ultimate goal is to get him signed up long term and that should still be the focus.

 

[yooperpackfan]

I don't think it's necessarilly good or bad tbh. I think either way the ultimate goal is to get him signed up long term and that should still be the focus.

I do hope they get him signed long term.
I just didn't like the cost of the tag.

 

[Ace]

I do hope they get him signed long term.
I just didn't like the cost of the tag.

But I don't think he would have ever played at that tag #. Just because he signs it doesn't mean that's set in stone. I believe they have until June to work out a deal. It was possible he could have played at that # sure but no guarantee.

 

[yooperpackfan]

But I don't think he would have ever played at that tag #. Just because he signs it doesn't mean that's set in stone. I believe they have until June to work out a deal. It was possible he could have played at that # sure but no guarantee.

Perhaps, but I feel that the tag was too costly to take a chance.
Besides it seems like players become alienated when they are tagged.

 

[Ogsponge]

Am I the only one fully prepared for the fact that Cobb is gone? I see only one scenario in which Cobb is a Packer next year. That scenario is where an NFL player actually says "being in a good organization, with a chance to win the Superbowl is more important to me that the size of the contract" and then sticks to it and accepts what would likely be a significantly lower contract to be in GB.

And what my gut tells me about that is, that if that is he how he felt, a deal would already be done.

 

[Ace]

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6497/randall-cobb

And the plot thickens...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6497/randall-cobb

And the plot thickens...

If Cobb is really asking for $12 million per season I would be fine with Thompson letting him test the market.

 

[Ace]

If Cobb is really asking for $12 million per season I would be fine with Thompson letting him test the market.

He's going to get it on the market. I've been saying all along he'd be dumb not to test the market, and I wouldn't blame him. Too many teams have wayyy to much money to spend.

 

[adambr2]

He's going to get it on the market. I've been saying all along he'd be dumb not to test the market, and I wouldn't blame him. Too many teams have wayyy to much money to spend.

There's also a lot of WRs available. We'll see. Cobb isn't worth 12M.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

He's going to get it on the market. I've been saying all along he'd be dumb not to test the market, and I wouldn't blame him. Too many teams have wayyy to much money to spend.

I doubt there's a team out there ready to pay $12 million per season to a slot receiver. Even with a ton of cap space available that's not a smart move. Unfortunately it only takes one though.

 

[sschind]

The problem with letting Cobb walk is not that we might be able to replace him or his production the problem is we might not be able to replace him or his production. In other words we know what we have now. Two top tier WRs, a promising second year man in Adams and a couple of other 2nd year guys with promise. If we let him walk we might end up even better at the WR position (I doubt it but it could happen) but we might end up far worse. Signing Cobb now means our WR position is taken care of for 3 more years. Not resigning him means we have a big question mark not only this year but in the future. The question is how much is 3 years of stability worth? To me that is worth 3 or 4 million dollars and I think we can afford it.

 

[adambr2]

Keep in mind that a week ago everyone was quoting the 9M number as fact, and Randall himself reminded fans not to believe everything they read online.

This is the time of the year when every football rumor source seems to become a less reliable version of TMZ.

 

[GhostofCurly]

Cobb is catching passes from the best QB in the game. There aren't many places I can see him ending up that he'll have close to that luxury. If he wants to play for a winner he'll swallow his pride and re sign for a bit less. If not, it was nice knowing you Mr. Cobb. There was a good team in GB before Cobb and they'll find a way if he walks.