Cobb on trading block

[sjb12681]

Latest rumor:

"The Ringer's Mike Lombardi reported on his GM Street podcast (h/t Rotoworld), Green Bay has explored the trade market for Randall Cobb: "I know his name's being shopped around.""

Thoughts?

 

[Mondio]

I'd be fine with it. I'm not worried about our offense with or without Cobb.

 

[Snoops]

With all the unproven talent behind him idk how I feel about it.... I don’t like it

 

[Jerellh528]

Depends on what we get back. On the surface, I’m very afraid of that wr depth without him.

Would this indicate that we’re trying to shed salary to acquire Mack or not? Although I’m a much bigger packer fan than laker fan, I find the intricacies of the nfl salary much more difficult to follow and understand than the nba.

 

[Snoops]

Depends on what we get back. On the surface, I’m very afraid of that wr depth without him.

Would this indicate that we’re trying to shed salary to acquire Mack or not? Although I’m a much bigger packer fan than laker fan, I find the intricacies of the nfl salary much more difficult to follow and understand than the nba.

The raiders have made it clear that they don’t wanna trade Mack.. how long that stands beats me.. but I mean it makes sense yes and no on Cobb he hasn’t had the same production he had back in 2014. I doubt anyone is gonna wanna take on his 12 million cap hit this year.. I feel more this salary cap related. And they end up releasing him potentially. It’s potentially a concern with all the unproven depth behind him

 

[Dantés]

I prefer to keep Cobb, but would assume that if he really is on the block, the coaching staff feels really good about the other options, though they’re unproven. I think the bottom line is that they have more receivers they want to keep than they have room for.

Lombardi has been way off in the past, so this could be nothing. Wishful thinking— it could be coming from talks surrounding Khalil Mack.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Only way I see this making any sense is if one or more of these are true:

1. One or more of the current Packer WR's are ready to step up and start in the slot.
2. Packers have their eyes on a cheaper Vet replacement for Cobb.
3. Packers are rewriting their offense and will be mostly lining up with a 2 WR and 2 TE set of Adams, Allison, Graham and Lewis, with JG playing in the slot.

I find it hard to believe that they want to thin the experience depth at WR or that this move would be strictly to free up Cap space in order to resign Rodgers.

One would also have to believe that the trade value for Cobb isn't very high, given that he is currently on a pretty expensive "one year" contract. Much like trading for Mack, his contract would need to be reworked and if Cobb is open to doing that, why not just keep him and the savings?

 

[Dantés]

Only way I see this making any sense is if one or more of these are true:

1. One or more of the current Packer WR's are ready to step up and start in the slot.
2. Packers have their eyes on a cheaper Vet replacement for Cobb.
3. Packers are rewriting their offense and will be mostly lining up with a 2 WR and 2 TE set of Adams, Allison, Graham and Lewis, with JG playing in the slot.

I find it hard to believe that they want to thin the experience depth at WR or that this move would be strictly to free up Cap space in order to resign Rodgers.

One would also have to believe that the trade value for Cobb isn't very high, given that he is currently on a pretty expensive "one year" contract. Much like trading for Mack, his contract would need to be reworked and if Cobb is open to doing that, why not just keep him and the savings?

The only scenarios that make any sense to me are that:

1) They are super high on the young guys and want to get something for Cobb now rather than just letting him walk in a year.

Or

2) They are using him and/or clearing his cap space to attempt bringing in an expensive trade target. It is interesting that the Raiders’ top slot receiver right now is something called a Griff Whalen.

I think the most likely of all is:

3) They aren’t trading him.

But that door #2... gets me all hot and bothered.

 

[HardRightEdge]

$9.5 mil in cap savings minus $500,000 for a roster replacent = $9 mil to go toward Rodgers contract, now or later.

Kumerow or Morre have the quicks to play the slot.

I doubt anybody's going to be interested in picking up that one year contract.

 

[sschind]

I can only assume that any team interested in trading for Cobb would be allowed to talk to him and try to work out some sort of an extension before hand. Either that or the trade is contingent on an extension being worked out by a certain date or the trade is voided. I'm not sure how either of those things work but I'm certain I have seen something similar before. If not I also find it unlikely that any team is going to pay his salary for a possible 1 year rental and if they do I can't see them willing to give up much for him. A conditional 5th rounder at best would be my guess unless a long term deal could be worked out it could go higher. I would also think that if he were allowed to walk next year we would get at least that in a comp pick.

The Packers may have decided to go all in on the youth movement and rather than risk losing promising rookie they have decided to get what they can for RC now and take advantage of any cap savings. If it happens it may very well work out that any WR who takes his spot will put up the same numbers as Cobb would have but with the inexperience of the rest of the group I wouldn't be too excited about it. He could put up 60/600/6 and we would be left wondering if that is all RC would have gotten or if we left a lot more on the table so to speak and we would never know.

As far as the Raiders go I wouldn't put too much stock in comments that they are not interested in trading Mack. They may be true but as snoops says that could change tomorrow if the right deal comes along. I have no doubt they have been fielding offers and as of yet nothing has been good enough for them to say yes.

On the surface I would say nay to trading him simply because of the lack of experience in the rest of the WR corps but in the end it all depends. What do we get in return? Who is his replacement and how does he do? What do we do with the cap savings? If it happens and we get a day 2 pick and a guy who goes 100/1000/10 and it helps get a Rodgers deal done then I'll be the first one to say great job Gute.

 

[Zartan]

I dont think we could get much for Cobb. Keep him for veteran depth at WR.

 

[C-Lee]

I'm calling fake news. Do we really want Geronimo Allison and a bunch of rookies being WR2-5?

 

[Snoops]

Ian Rapoport just said that Green Bay does NOT have him on the trade block but reporting teams have inquired about him.
Seems like the guy who first broke the news was reporting it backwards
Mike lombardi that is

 

[C-Lee]

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1032450671184887809[/TWEET]

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'd be fine with it. I'm not worried about our offense with or without Cobb.

You should be worried about the offense if the Packers traded Cobb, meaning they would enter the season with only one receiver that has caught at least 30 passes from Rodgers.

I doubt anyone is gonna wanna take on his 12 million cap hit this year.

While I don't think it makes a huge difference a team acquiring Cobb would take a $9.1 million cap hit for the 2018 season with the move resulting in $3.65 million of dead money for the Packers.

Only way I see this making any sense is if one or more of these are true:

1. One or more of the current Packer WR's are ready to step up and start in the slot.
2. Packers are rewriting their offense and will be mostly lining up with a 2 WR and 2 TE set of Adams, Allison, Graham and Lewis, with JG playing in the slot.

I highly doubt the Packers front office feels confident enough about any of the rookie receivers or Kumerow to trade Cobb. The Packers will most likely use two tight end sets more often anyway but having Cobb makes it a way more intriguing formation.

They are using him and/or clearing his cap space to attempt bringing in an expensive trade target. It is interesting that the Raiders’ top slot receiver right now is something called a Griff Whalen.

Nelson lined up in the slot a lot for the Packers over the past two seasons. I expect the Raiders to use him there frequently.

I can only assume that any team interested in trading for Cobb would be allowed to talk to him and try to work out some sort of an extension before hand. Either that or the trade is contingent on an extension being worked out by a certain date or the trade is voided.

The Packers could allow a team acquiring Cobb to talk to him about an extension before the trade is completed but there's no way a deal is dependent on a contract being worked out by a specific date.

 

[Mondio]

But i'm not worried. If he gets traded, it's for good reason for us, we needed the cap space to do something or we got something in return. I doubt they're considering trading him for a song. I am fine with Adams and whoever else on the outside and we'll be seeing a lot of 2 TE sets anyway. He's a good target for Rodgers, he's not irreplaceable. While it might be true rookie WR generally don't do a lot under this offense, they usually haven't had to to either. I don't envision a lot of 4 or even 5 WR sets like we've run in the past. We have 3 legitimate TE's on this roster right now and they could even keep a 4th somehow if they wanted too. It's not unheard of. If they think they can use more of them and be down a WR, then so be it. our offense looks different is all. If you told me I had to have Adams, Lewis, JG, Williams and pick one of Allison, MVS,Kumerow, or EQ on the field right now, I'd be fine with it.

I like Cobb, think he's a fine person and football player. He's had some playable injury problems that have affected him, but when healthy he's still pretty dang good. I think he comes thru big for us at times. But I also don't think he's going to sink a season or put us over the top for a super bowl either. I still view this as a 2 season rebuild and we're off to a nice start. I'm fine keeping him too and letting his contract run out. Comp picks are nice too.

 

[twan890]

I think we need to keep Cobb. His high contract is not a secret, and should provide some opportunity for a team friendLIER deal after expiration this year.

I love Cobb, but he's not a WR1, but he's one of the most efficient receivers lining up in the slot. I'm hoping we find a mutually beneficial way to keep him in our long term plans. I will always remember how open he got as time ran out in the 4th against Chicago. Those are the moments we need play makers like him on our side of the ball.

 

[McKnowledge]

The raiders have made it clear that they don’t wanna trade Mack.. how long that stands beats me.. but I mean it makes sense yes and no on Cobb he hasn’t had the same production he had back in 2014. I doubt anyone is gonna wanna take on his 12 million cap hit this year.. I feel more this salary cap related. And they end up releasing him potentially. It’s potentially a concern with all the unproven depth behind him

With the emergence of quality young running backs, why not utilize Ty Montgomery as dual threat receiving back? Slot receivers are required to have run after catch ability anyways and Montgomery is under contract (cheaply) for two more years (team-option withstanding). Besides, the young rookies will progress throughout the season.

 

[XPack]

Looks like this is fake news!

Nut were it true, I'd be pretty pissed. Now that we have 2 genuine WRs and a class TE backed by a talented support cast and we end up trading one? Looks like we can't take 1 step forward without taking 2 back.

I want both in team this year.

 

[Dantés]

You should be worried about the offense if the Packers traded Cobb, meaning they would enter the season with only one receiver that has caught at least 30 passes from Rodgers.



While I don't think it makes a huge difference a team acquiring Cobb would take a $9.1 million cap hit for the 2018 season with the move resulting in $3.65 million of dead money for the Packers.



I highly doubt the Packers front office feels confident enough about any of the rookie receivers or Kumerow to trade Cobb. The Packers will most likely use two tight end sets more often anyway but having Cobb makes it a way more intriguing formation.



Nelson lined up in the slot a lot for the Packers over the past two seasons. I expect the Raiders to use him there frequently.



The Packers could allow a team acquiring Cobb to talk to him about an extension before the trade is completed but there's no way a deal is dependent on a contract being worked out by a specific date.

They may do that, but have not been in camp is my understanding. I could be wrong.

 

[PackAttack12]

But i'm not worried. If he gets traded, it's for good reason for us, we needed the cap space to do something or we got something in return. I doubt they're considering trading him for a song. I am fine with Adams and whoever else on the outside and we'll be seeing a lot of 2 TE sets anyway. He's a good target for Rodgers, he's not irreplaceable. While it might be true rookie WR generally don't do a lot under this offense, they usually haven't had to to either. I don't envision a lot of 4 or even 5 WR sets like we've run in the past. We have 3 legitimate TE's on this roster right now and they could even keep a 4th somehow if they wanted too. It's not unheard of. If they think they can use more of them and be down a WR, then so be it. our offense looks different is all. If you told me I had to have Adams, Lewis, JG, Williams and pick one of Allison, MVS,Kumerow, or EQ on the field right now, I'd be fine with it.

I like Cobb, think he's a fine person and football player. He's had some playable injury problems that have affected him, but when healthy he's still pretty dang good. I think he comes thru big for us at times. But I also don't think he's going to sink a season or put us over the top for a super bowl either. I still view this as a 2 season rebuild and we're off to a nice start. I'm fine keeping him too and letting his contract run out. Comp picks are nice too.

The only issue is if Adams gets hurt, there's no one proven other than tight ends on the roster.

 

[Mondio]

The only issue is if Adams gets hurt, there's no one proven other than tight ends on the roster.

I know, I just think they're such different receivers he's not a replacement for him in how this offense is going to be run.

But I don't think he's going anywhere anyway. If it was for something big like getting Mack or Rodgers contract I'd be ok with it. As it stands, I see him playing out his contract here

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The only issue is if Adams gets hurt, there's no one proven other than tight ends on the roster.

Spot on.

The injury history of both Adams and Cobb coupled with how rookies have fared as WR's in Green Bay, has to give the Packers pause. Take Cobb out of that group and just WOW, what do the Packers do when Adams is out for multiple weeks and the rookies haven't stepped up? As much as some want to think Jones and Williams are really good RB's, the Packers offense will crash and burn without a passing game.

 

[Mondio]

Spot on.

The injury history of both Adams and Cobb coupled with how rookies have fared as WR's in Green Bay, has to give the Packers pause. Take Cobb out of that group and just WOW, what do the Packers do when Adams is out for multiple weeks and the rookies haven't stepped up? As much as some want to think Jones and Williams are really good RB's, the Packers offense will crash and burn without a passing game.

I do not believe that at all. We have the best TE's we have have had here since Jackson and Chewy and we have at least 3 of them. We have a road grader of a blocker who is underrated as a receiver, a guy that has some of the biggest and best hands to ever see a green and gold jersey and a damn solid guy in Kendricks. This is the most balanced offense we've had in a long time. If Eddie Lacy could keep us going at one time, so can these 2 with our TE's and rookie WR's. If our Running game can go without Rodgers throwing the ball, they better damn well be able to do it better with better TE's and an infinitely better QB to run the ball with and threaten with the pass.

When have we need a rookie WR to step up? Besides developmental guys we haven't drafted any with expectations or the ability to step in right away. Rookie WR's step up every year on some team, usually one without any other passing targets. so far I think MVS and his deep threat will be enough by himself just to keep defenses honest. The offense will look different, i'm not convinced it tanks at all. I think trying to run a similar offense with Cobb trying to do what Adams does would tank it more so than if you put a less experienced guy in Adams spot and run everything else the same.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I do not believe that at all. We have the best TE's we have have had here since Jackson and Chewy and we have at least 3 of them. We have a road grader of a blocker who is underrated as a receiver, a guy that has some of the biggest and best hands to ever see a green and gold jersey and a damn solid guy in Kendricks. This is the most balanced offense we've had in a long time. If Eddie Lacy could keep us going at one time, so can these 2 with our TE's and rookie WR's. If our Running game can go without Rodgers throwing the ball, they better damn well be able to do it better with better TE's and an infinitely better QB to run the ball with and threaten with the pass.

When have we need a rookie WR to step up? Besides developmental guys we haven't drafted any with expectations or the ability to step in right away. Rookie WR's step up every year on some team, usually one without any other passing targets. so far I think MVS and his deep threat will be enough by himself just to keep defenses honest. The offense will look different, i'm not convinced it tanks at all. I think trying to run a similar offense with Cobb trying to do what Adams does would tank it more so than if you put a less experienced guy in Adams spot and run everything else the same.

I wasn't referring to the current offense in a healthy state. I am referencing what happens when you dump Cobb and then start facing injuries to players like Adams, Alison and Graham.

Of course the current offense is in pretty decent shape and could have a good enough run game, due mainly to the passing game. However, IMO the Packers are not deep enough at any position on offense, other than maybe TE, to start thinking about trading or cutting Cobb. To me that would be right up there with deciding now is the time to trade Bahk.