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

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
I don´t think the Packers will put the exclusive franchise tag on Cobb. While not likely there´s a possibility Thompson decides to use either the non-exclusive or transition tag on Randall which would allow him to negotiate with other teams once free agency starts but the Packers would have a right to match any offer.

The exclusive tag, from every instance I've seen, is pretty much reserved for elite quarterbacks. Since the non-exclusive franchise tag would require any team negotiating with Cobb to forfeit two 1st round draft picks for Cobb, it pretty much takes Cobb off the market just as effectively. No team is going to give up two 1st round picks for Cobb.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
As far as the tag itself, it's a little pricey. Cobb isn't worth paying the same as Dez Bryant. However, there's some logic behind it. If there's no fair deal by the summer, Cobb playing under the tag for 1 year wouldn't be the worse thing, even for an inflated salary. There's no long-term commitment but you keep your WR corps together until you have a little bit better idea of what you have in your young guys and then at this time next year you've got a much better idea of what you have in Adams, Abby, and Janis, and whether or not you can afford to let Cobb walk at that time.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
As far as the tag itself, it's a little pricey. Cobb isn't worth paying the same as Dez Bryant. However, there's some logic behind it. If there's no fair deal by the summer, Cobb playing under the tag for 1 year wouldn't be the worse thing, even for an inflated salary. There's no long-term commitment but you keep your WR corps together until you have a little bit better idea of what you have in your young guys and then at this time next year you've got a much better idea of what you have in Adams, Abby, and Janis, and whether or not you can afford to let Cobb walk at that time.

The problem with Cobb playing under the franchise tag would be that his entire salary would count towards the 2015 cap. In comparison a long term deal could be structured in a different way which would be especially appealing with the cap expected to raise significantly again in 2016 and Mike Daniels possibly being the only high-priced free agent after next season.

BTW so far the Cowboys haven´t put the franchise tag on Dez Bryant.
 

Ace

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
94
Location
Milwaukee
The problem with Cobb playing under the franchise tag would be that his entire salary would count towards the 2015 cap. In comparison a long term deal could be structured in a different way which would be especially appealing with the cap expected to raise significantly again in 2016 and Mike Daniels possibly being the only high-priced free agent after next season.

BTW so far the Cowboys haven´t put the franchise tag on Dez Bryant.

But all indications are that they are, as well as Denver on DT
 

rodell330

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
5,611
Reaction score
493
Location
Canton, Ohio
If Cobb isn't resigned this will be one of the dumbest things I've seen from this front office. If you can over pay for the likes of Brad Jones and AJ Hawk then pay Cobb who at least is a major factor.
 

Ace

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
94
Location
Milwaukee
I don´t think the Packers will put the exclusive franchise tag on Cobb. While not likely there´s a possibility Thompson decides to use either the non-exclusive or transition tag on Randall which would allow him to negotiate with other teams once free agency starts but the Packers would have a right to match any offer.

I agree on the exclusive tag on Cobb, don't see it. I kind of like the idea of a transitional tag on him though. It buys some time while allowing him to go out and seek other offers which his agent I'm sure his pushing him to do but we still hold the final decision. It almost takes the control away from Randall and his side in a way which his team may not like but that's business.
 

Curly Calhoun

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
2,040
Reaction score
496
Occasionally we are surprised by Ted Thompson. He did trade up to get Clay Matthews. He signs Julius Peppers. One change in behavior he should consider is putting the franchise tag on Randall Cobb. All the capaholics out there might go nutso, but here's something to chew on: the Packers have a key component of the offense for one more year, minimum. The cap number is $12 million and change, more than Jordy is making quite honestly. But you know if Cobb hits the market he is gone. The Raiders are said to be drooling to get a shot at him and don't really care what they have to spend. His market value is going to top $9 million. The Packers have the room this year, and it will give them a shot at making a long term deal.
The reality is no rookie receiver can do what Cobb does as well. Jeff Janis? Really? Boykin? Really?
With the loss of Finley at tight end, you need a top-level threat, already well versed in McCarthy's system to keep the ball rolling, so to speak.
The Cowboys tagged Dez Bryant for the same reason. Cobb should get the tag and work on a long-term deal. If he doesn't want a long-term deal, you have one year of breathing room to find a replacement.



Cobb, reportedly, wants about 9 million a year. The franchise tag would cost you about 13 million - why would you give him 4 million more than he is asking?
 

Ace

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
94
Location
Milwaukee
Cobb, reportedly, wants about 9 million a year. The franchise tag would cost you about 13 million - why would you give him 4 million more than he is asking?

It buys time to work out a long term deal. Yea he could play under that one year deal at 13 million but IF we were to tag Randall IMO it would be to solely keep him away from free agency because we weren't able to hammer out a deal in time.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
Cobb, reportedly, wants about 9 million a year. The franchise tag would cost you about 13 million - why would you give him 4 million more than he is asking?

Because they're not even comparable courses of action. Cobb surely isn't looking for 1 year/$9M, he wants a multi-year deal. Don't know how much he wants guaranteed, don't know how many years he's looking for. 5 years/$45M with $20M guaranteed is a lot bigger commitment than a 1 year/$12M franchise tag.

Though still not an ideal cap move. The only player that I can recall that TT has ever franchised was Corey Williams, and he immediately traded him.
 

net

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
980
Reaction score
22
Location
Rhinelander
All valid points, but if he walks, what is that going to cost the Packers offense? Do you think Jeff Janis or a rookie will be the same producer?
You keep losing players and eventually you have an 8-8 team(or worse) perpetually rebuilding with rookies. This is one example where they need to retain a Pro Bowl level player through whatever means. There is no trophy for having the most cap room. There is a trophy for winning the Super Bowl.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
All valid points, but if he walks, what is that going to cost the Packers offense? Do you think Jeff Janis or a rookie will be the same producer?
You keep losing players and eventually you have an 8-8 team(or worse) perpetually rebuilding with rookies. This is one example where they need to retain a Pro Bowl level player through whatever means. There is no trophy for having the most cap room. There is a trophy for winning the Super Bowl.

I agree the Packers need to re-sign Cobb but I would prefer them to work out a long-term deal. While there´s no one currently on the roster capable of replacing Cobb adequately I don´t see us becoming a .500 team if he would walk away in free agency.
 

Ace

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
94
Location
Milwaukee
All valid points, but if he walks, what is that going to cost the Packers offense? Do you think Jeff Janis or a rookie will be the same producer?
You keep losing players and eventually you have an 8-8 team(or worse) perpetually rebuilding with rookies. This is one example where they need to retain a Pro Bowl level player through whatever means. There is no trophy for having the most cap room. There is a trophy for winning the Super Bowl.

I don't think losing Randall makes us an 8-8 or worse team. I understand your point, and I am all for keeping him, hell even over spending if need be.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
All valid points, but if he walks, what is that going to cost the Packers offense? Do you think Jeff Janis or a rookie will be the same producer?

No clue, because I don't know what else they would do to address the position. Don't know if they draft another WR, sign one in free agency, or what kind of player Abbrederis turns out to be. I know that they'll have an elite offense no matter what happens with Cobb, just the way that the Patriots manage to do with Edelman and LaFell as their best WR's.

You keep losing players and eventually you have an 8-8 team(or worse) perpetually rebuilding with rookies.

As long as a healthy Aaron Rodgers is the QB here, our base is probably 10-6 and better depending on what else we do. We won't be an 8-8 team with or without Cobb without a Rodgers injury.

This is one example where they need to retain a Pro Bowl level player through whatever means.

No, not through whatever means. Not if whatever means means going above and beyond what Oakland would offer to retain the player. Make your offer, set your number, stick to it, and don't get into a bidding war just because you've fallen in love with a player.

There is no trophy for having the most cap room. There is a trophy for winning the Super Bowl.

Which is much easier to do if you properly manage the cap by not overpaying for talent from year to year and not wavering from what got you to where you were.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
There is no trophy for having the most cap room. There is a trophy for winning the Super Bowl.
IMO this is a classic example of fans suggesting the teams they follow 'go for it' at all costs. If followed that's much more likely to result in the GM 'going away'. The one thing we know for certain is Thompson will not sacrifice the future cap for today.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
The Packers actually spend a lot of money on the defense. Last year they were ranked 3rd in the league with $69 million of the cap committed to the defense.

Yeah, but bad contracts don't mean you stop spending. If defense is still holding you back then you need to focus on that side of the ball. Just because you have bad contracts on defense doesn't mean you stop spending and give up. A great QB makes everyone on offense better. No such position exists on defense. It sort of makes sense that a team with a great QB would spend more on defense.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
The one thing we know for certain is Thompson will not sacrifice the future cap for today.

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.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
All valid points, but if he walks, what is that going to cost the Packers offense? Do you think Jeff Janis or a rookie will be the same producer?
You keep losing players and eventually you have an 8-8 team(or worse) perpetually rebuilding with rookies. This is one example where they need to retain a Pro Bowl level player through whatever means. There is no trophy for having the most cap room. There is a trophy for winning the Super Bowl.

I think it's realistic to think Adams and another player can replace close to the 1,700 yards that Cobb and Adams accounted for last year, maybe even match it. If the Packers really like Rodgers at TE then his production should go up. If the Packers get a third-down back, then his yards would go up. Sign a free agent receiver like Danarius Moore and the Packers could probably run the offense without seeing too much of a drop-off. I'm not against signing Cobb (infact I'd like to see him back) but does it make sense to spend over $18m a year on two receivers when you have the best QB in the game and one of the top running backs? Especially when one of those receivers plays a receiver position that's generally pretty easy to replace. Only so many passes to go around on offense. If the coaches like Adams and want his role to increase then maybe the fron office feels like the $9m per year could be spent elsewhere.

Again, I would like to see the Packers bring Cobb back, but it's far from a certainty that the offense will collapse without him.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I think it's realistic to think Adams and another player can replace close to the 1,700 yards that Cobb and Adams accounted for last year, maybe even match it. If the Packers really like Rodgers at TE then his production should go up. If the Packers get a third-down back, then his yards would go up. Sign a free agent receiver like Danarius Moore and the Packers could probably run the offense without seeing too much of a drop-off. I'm not against signing Cobb (infact I'd like to see him back) but does it make sense to spend over $18m a year on two receivers when you have the best QB in the game and one of the top running backs? Especially when one of those receivers plays a receiver position that's generally pretty easy to replace. Only so many passes to go around on offense. If the coaches like Adams and want his role to increase then maybe the fron office feels like the $9m per year could be spent elsewhere.

Again, I would like to see the Packers bring Cobb back, but it's far from a certainty that the offense will collapse without him.

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.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
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.
 
Last edited:

Narveson

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
56
Reaction score
12
Official WR franchise tag numbers are out. WR's is set at $12.823 million. So that's what it would cost to tag Cobb. A few hours to go to make the decision.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Transition tag for WRs set at $10.971 million. Once again I don't think it's likely the Packers will use it on Cobb but it's not impossible.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,356
Reaction score
4,086
Location
Milwaukee
Transition tag for WRs set at $10.971 million. Once again I don't think it's likely the Packers will use it on Cobb but it's not impossible.

Franchise tag amounts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ou-need-to-know-about-the-nfls-franchise-tag/

Quarterbacks $18.5 million,
defensive ends $14.8M,
linebackers $13.2M,
cornerbacks $13.1M,
offensive lineman $12.9M,
wide receivers $12.8M,
defensive tackles $11.2M,
running backs $10.9M,
safeties $9.6M,
tight ends $8.3M,
kickers/punters $4.1M.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Transition tag for WRs set at $10.971 million. Once again I don't think it's likely the Packers will use it on Cobb but it's not impossible.
The problem with the transition tag is it serves merely as a placeholder with a lot of risk involved.

Since Cobb is bound to get more than that amount in guaranteed money from somebody else, with a long term contract to boot, the Packers would be bound to match the best offer Cobb receives in order to keep him. The risk is that a team with a lot of cap, a dearth of receivers, and a former spread offense /short throw QB (Oakland) will throw an oversized contract at him.

I agree with you about the exclusive franchise tag. $13 mil taken out $33 mil in cap space doesn't leave a lot to get done what needs to be done.

There's no free lunch in any of these tags.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
The problem with the transition tag is it serves merely as a placeholder with a lot of risk involved.

Since Cobb is bound to get more than that amount in guaranteed money from somebody else, with a long term contract to boot, the Packers would be bound to match the best offer Cobb receives in order to keep him. The risk is that a team with a lot of cap, a dearth of receivers, and a former spread offense /short throw QB (Oakland) will throw an oversized contract at him.

The only purpose of the transition tag is to be able to match an offer from another team. I agree that it's risky though as other teams can still throw a ton of money at him.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Top