Cobb on trading block

[Mondio]

Bakh would have a much larger affect on this offense.

Anyway, if we lose 2 RBs Cobb isn't making up for that. Lose Adams, he isn't stepping in. Lose Graham LEWIS and kendricks and Cobb isn't making that easier to swallow either.

He's nice to have and we'd survive without him. Unless the unthinkable happens again, then he's not saving us either. If we're getting Mack or making Rodgers happy, I'm fine with the room he created. His importance to this team isn't anywhere close to Franchise left tackle worthy.

 

[Scotland Yard]

The headline of this blog s/b "Randall Cobb in Danger of Being Cut".

5'10" 190 lbs. WR entering his 8th season, been banged up a lot, costing >$9million. Who in the %@!* is going to pick up that contract?

The last two seasons Cobb has mustered a little over 600 yds., with 4 TD's each year. You could probably get close to that out of Geronimo, Kumerow, Valdez or St. Brown for about $1million/yr. each.

As for being the 'slot' guy, I'm not buying that Cobb is the only option for that. They have RB Montgomery who can handle a lot of that stuff coming out of the backfield, not to mention a plethora of TE's (I say they keep Tonyan, a former WR, specifically for this reason) and WR St. Brown is running almost all slot routes the whole preseason.

I've seen the great Aaron Rodgers on more than one occasion overthrow Cobb because he's just so short, and I know you honest Packer fans have seen it, too.

Much like a couple of years ago when I correctly predicted the demise of Sitton due his hefty contract and a much cheaper alternative available in Lane Taylor, I am calling for Cobb to be cut because his contract is even more out of line than Sitton's was back then.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

My point is, you can't start selling off pieces that you don't have a replacement for. About the only player that makes any sort of sense in a "Mack Deal" is Matthews. Money saved and position not compromised but strengthened.

I have enjoyed watching Kumerow and MVS play in the preseason, but I haven't let what they do cloud my judgement as to just how thin the WR position really is and will remain until Allison and below actually prove they are capable of starting and competing against top talent. Jeff Janis was the preseason wonder kid, as was Hundley and ......<insert names here> But when the big boys come out and play, its a whole different story, even with #12 as their QB.

 

[Divot]

I agree with C-Lee, this is fake news. But remember this is the time of year all the crazy rumors start to try to bait teams. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that "the packers are looking to replace Cobb with Allison" only to try to get a pick out of a trade with Allison.

 

[Mondio]

My point is, you can't start selling off pieces that you don't have a replacement for. About the only player that makes any sort of sense in a "Mack Deal" is Matthews. Money saved and position not compromised but strengthened.

I have enjoyed watching Kumerow and MVS play in the preseason, but I haven't let what they do cloud my judgement as to just how thin the WR position really is and will remain until Allison and below actually prove they are capable of starting and competing against top talent. Jeff Janis was the preseason wonder kid, as was Hundley and ......<insert names here> But when the big boys come out and play, its a whole different story, even with #12 as their QB.

It is thin with experience. So be it. Cobb can NOT take anyone of those guys responsibilities on. He does what he does, that's it. He's a fine receiver, but he's not taking Adam's responsibilities on outside. In fact, I don't even really want him lining up outside. But let's say he is, it's him and Adams, if it's Adams and someone else, I'm just fine with that if Cobb isn't here. Cobb is the slot man, he's gone, move JG down, put in any of those other guys and put JG out wide with someone else. I don't care. There are still plenty of opportunities to pass the ball if Cobb isn't here. Unless your plan is to plan on Adams, Lewis and JG to go down, well then, Cobb isn't making this offense go either.

I think with who we have Cobb's production could be replaced without much of a hiccup. if the past 3 years have been any indication, Cobb is as likely to be the one injured as any. If there is a big corresponding move associated with him being gone, I'm still good with it. He is not Adams to this offense, he is not JG, He is not Rodgers he is not a franchise LT. He's nice to have, but still expendable under the right circumstances. even with a good year for him this year he's probably going to be only the 3rd or 4th most productive guy in the passing game. That's not a "must keep" guy to me anymore.

 

[XPack]

It is thin with experience. So be it. Cobb can NOT take anyone of those guys responsibilities on. He does what he does, that's it. He's a fine receiver, but he's not taking Adam's responsibilities on outside. In fact, I don't even really want him lining up outside. But let's say he is, it's him and Adams, if it's Adams and someone else, I'm just fine with that if Cobb isn't here. Cobb is the slot man, he's gone, move JG down, put in any of those other guys and put JG out wide with someone else. I don't care. There are still plenty of opportunities to pass the ball if Cobb isn't here. Unless your plan is to plan on Adams, Lewis and JG to go down, well then, Cobb isn't making this offense go either.

I think with who we have Cobb's production could be replaced without much of a hiccup. if the past 3 years have been any indication, Cobb is as likely to be the one injured as any. If there is a big corresponding move associated with him being gone, I'm still good with it. He is not Adams to this offense, he is not JG, He is not Rodgers he is not a franchise LT. He's nice to have, but still expendable under the right circumstances. even with a good year for him this year he's probably going to be only the 3rd or 4th most productive guy in the passing game. That's not a "must keep" guy to me anymore.

I think you are underrating Cobb. He is the 3rd best WR we have and any amount of stop gap with JG and youngsters will not be as good. Cobb was good for 2 seasons and then his production dropped. Adams has 2 good seasons now and it'd be wrong to discount the same possibility here (touch wood!).

Offence with Cobb will not be as good as this offence without Cobb. Unless plan is to replace him with another top WR.

 

[Mondio]

I know exactly what Cobb is. and I get it, he's better and more experienced than some rookies. But this offense is NEVER going to go thru Cobb again. Ever. Not even close. It will be JG, Adams and the running game. any one of those rookies can take the top off so much more than Cobb can. I think those rookies can play that part. If Adams were to go down, there is JG and there is Lewis. He's not going to be explosive, but he has better hands than most think and he's a huge target that can move the chains. He's also a beast in the run game. Cobb is not going to make this offense work better if any of those important pieces go down. Sure we're better if he's on the field than someone who's never taken a snap. BUT, he's that 3rd or 4th down the chain guy and he's not the guy that's going to replace JG or Adams in the offense. Just how important is he? TE/running game, Adams and JG all are far more important than Cobb. So while nice to have, hardly a guy that isn't expendable either. I get it, we're better with him. But there are a lot of other variables I can see where losing him is worth what we'll gain. Even if it's just money to lock up Rodgers.

 

[gbgary]

cobb would be a big loss but if the end result, in some way, is Mack they'd be foolish not to do it.

 

[hasamikun]

Come on. If you wanna go with one veteran WR and the rest nearly complete unproven, you are nuts. Cobb may not have the production from 2014 but he is still a good WR. And I dont wanna meet AR12, when the Packers trade another WR he trusts.
Let Cobb play his contract year you only can win. If the does good, everyone is fine. If not, he gets out or takes a teamfriendly deal. No need to trade him now.
And I dont think it is worth weakening the Offense just to get Mack. Packers could get mack in a possible trade without him getting traded or soemthing

 

[Curly Calhoun]

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

There you have it - Unsubstantiated rumor blown to smithereens.

Shoddy initial reporting.

Keep calm and carry on.....

 

[HardRightEdge]

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.

I agree Montgomery is a slot option, however there is no team option 5th. year with him. That's only for 1st. rounders and must be exercised before the 4th. season.

 

[longtimefan]

I agree with C-Lee, this is fake news. But remember this is the time of year all the crazy rumors start to try to bait teams. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that "the packers are looking to replace Cobb with Allison" only to try to get a pick out of a trade with Allison.

fake? ok

 

[longtimefan]

I agree with C-Lee, this is fake news. But remember this is the time of year all the crazy rumors start to try to bait teams. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that "the packers are looking to replace Cobb with Allison" only to try to get a pick out of a trade with Allison.

fake? ok

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packers have a lot of "options" at slot, a current player, FA, waiver wires, trade, but which option is the best one for the offense? I wouldn't consider playing Monty, a guy that has been fully converted to a RB, in the slot a great option, unless it was an emergency. This isn't October, there will be players cut, a trade could be made, but right now on August 23rd Cobb is the Packers best option in the slot currently on the Packers roster. People thinking that just about anyone capable of catching a pass can step in and play his position aren't wrong about that being an option, but it is not a very good option IMO. People expecting Adams and Jimmy G to carry the load are forgetting about injuries and what happens when a secondary can basically say "all eyes on those 2 guys, put a rookie on their new slot guy because he isn't that good".

 

[PackerFanLV]

Its crazy how people say do we really want G-MO at #2 receiver, I rather have him on the outside then cobb, also people was saying the same thing about Dvante Adams before last year. Alot of people also forget Monty and cobb are much alike. jamaal williams and Aaron jones can handle the backfield as proven last year. As a business stand point i can understand cobb being on the trading block.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

The cap is nearly a must. The same goes for Mathews to be honest. The 20+ mil. Could get the Rodgers deal done and not put the roster into a purge next year...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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 Packers have made the mistake of believing that inexperienced players, draft picks or even undrafted free agents are capable of immediately replacing veterans at an adequate level for way too long. It would be the same once again by trading Cobb and relying on Allison, Kumerow, Moore, MVS or EQ to pick up the slack.

I agree with C-Lee, this is fake news. But remember this is the time of year all the crazy rumors start to try to bait teams. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that "the packers are looking to replace Cobb with Allison" only to try to get a pick out of a trade with Allison.

I highly doubt another team is interested in trading for Allison.

cobb would be a big loss but if the end result, in some way, is Mack they'd be foolish not to do it.

If the Packers are interested in trading for Mack it makes most sense to send Matthews to Oakland.

Its crazy how people say do we really want G-MO at #2 receiver, I rather have him on the outside then cobb, also people was saying the same thing about Dvante Adams before last year. Alot of people also forget Monty and cobb are much alike.

I agree that Allison is a better fit on the perimeter than Cobb but he definitely won't be the #2 target in the passing game. Montgomery isn't a slot receiver anymore as he bulked up to play running back.

The cap is nearly a must. The same goes for Mathews to be honest. The 20+ mil. Could get the Rodgers deal done and not put the roster into a purge next year...

The Packers are in position to extend Rodgers' contract without either trading or releasing Matthews and Cobb.

 

[Deleted member 11740]

There are basically two possibilities here
That may play out in relation with o Cobb/Mack:

1. Before regular season we may trade Cobb for cap space and recoup as much as we can before the end of the season. Then get Mack for a first rounder and change.

2. My preferred option is to trade Matthews and a first to Oakland to free up the $8-10mil needed to land Mack. This will take longer and likely into the regular season to develop once Oakland realises how thin they are at OLB. Then at then end of the year let Cobb walk and use the spare cash to sign Mack to a long term deal.

What most of you guys forget is how successful the Patriots have been with no name, undrafted Or late pick WR in their offence. This type of player is hungrier than an injury prone guy getting $10mil a year. Many ppl forget this.

And go...

 

[Mondio]

Come on. If you wanna go with one veteran WR and the rest nearly complete unproven, you are nuts. Cobb may not have the production from 2014 but he is still a good WR. And I dont wanna meet AR12, when the Packers trade another WR he trusts.
Let Cobb play his contract year you only can win. If the does good, everyone is fine. If not, he gets out or takes a teamfriendly deal. No need to trade him now.
And I dont think it is worth weakening the Offense just to get Mack. Packers could get mack in a possible trade without him getting traded or soemthing

I probably am nuts and this would be news to nobody, but it's not like I "want" to trade him, i said I can see a few scenarios in which losing him would be worth it and I'd be ok with it. Every one acting like Cobb is irreplaceable in this offense all of a sudden after 2 years of saying he should be cut. The way i see it, in terms of the offense I "think" we're going to see on Sunday's this year, Jordy would have been more valuable if Adams or someone went down, because he could still be that boundary receiver that Cobb is not.

I think Cobb will see a resurgence in this offense only IF the others stay healthy and defenses more are worried about Adams and JG and they clear out the middle for him to work underneath. But then I think there are others on this team that can fill that same role well enough it's not going to tank our offense. I don't know how else to say it, but if Adams goes down, do you really think Cobb offers this offense what he does? We'd be going more multiple TE sets and running the ball far more and considering how successful we were with what we had at the revolving OL last year and the cluster that was the TE after the Martellus bit on top of a Qb that wasn't exactly the threat to throw that Rodgers is, I'd say leaning on the running game would be a good bet again this year. The only difference, Rodgers is good enough to take advantage with the timely pass when they're overplaying the run. If Adams or JG go down that underneath and middle stuff isn't going to be cleared out for Cobb and his value goes down for us IMO.

The Packers have made the mistake of believing that inexperienced players, draft picks or even undrafted free agents are capable of immediately replacing veterans at an adequate level for way too long. It would be the same once again by trading Cobb and relying on Allison, Kumerow, Moore, MVS or EQ to pick up the slack.

I just don't see how Cobb is seen by anyone as a viable replacement to physically do the things Adams, JG or the running game will do. A good receiver yes, but he's going to be the 4th or lower priority in this offense on a week to week basis. I don't think someone just steps in and is as good as Cobb, but seeing I "think" there are other players and phases of this offense that are going to the focal points, there are plenty of situations where trading Cobb won't be the end of the world for this offense. Unless everyone got hurt and cobb isn't going to be a 90+1400 yard receiver again even if he is getting all the #1 reads. Plain and simple, I think Cobb would be valuable as long as everyone is healthy, ie, Rodgers, run game, JG and Adams. If those aren't all in place I don't think Cobb is going to be all that effective doing what he's good at, so does he really protect against injury?

 

[Half Empty]

What most of you guys forget is how successful the Patriots have been with no name, undrafted Or late pick WR in their offence. This type of player is hungrier than an injury prone guy getting $10mil a year. Many ppl forget this.

However, I think we're more interested in the Packers. How many of their successful WRs have been those guys?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What most of you guys forget is how successful the Patriots have been with no name, undrafted Or late pick WR in their offence. This type of player is hungrier than an injury prone guy getting $10mil a year. Many ppl forget this.

And go...

That may have worked for the Patriots, but its hard to ignore the fact that it hasn't worked for the Packers. Why? Not really sure. So if the Packers want to rely on something that has worked for the Patriots, but not for their own organization, I call that dangerous optimism.

 

[C-Lee]

Cobb isn't going anywhere. Watch them extend him this offseason to drop his cap too lol.

 

[gbgary]

If the Packers are interested in trading for Mack it makes most sense to send Matthews to Oakland.

i'm not saying oak wants cobb. who knows who called and asked about cobb. i'm just saying whatever they get for cobb his cap relief could be used for Mack. btw...i don't think oak would have any interest in matthews...perry maybe but not matthews.

 

[sschind]

OK so here is what we do. We trade Matthews, Cobb and Bulaga (am I missing anyone who some people want released to save cap space. I know those are the big three) and our original first rounder to the Raiders for Mack and Chris Warren. Then we take the money saved to give Rodgers AND Mack the deals they want which makes them very happy. Then we trade Jamal Williams (we don't need him since we got Warren) and Allison (we don't need him because we got Super Jake and the Wonder Triplets) for an experienced right tackle and we don't need to replace Cobb because we got a happy Aaron Rodgers and he can make anyone into a star WR even it it means move Super Jake or one of the Wonder Triplets to the slot. Problem solved and we only lose pick number 32 because my plan will result in a SB victory guaranteed.

Now WIMM, before you pick my post apart and point out all the illogicalacies please note that I am joking. Also note that I know illogicalacies is not a word but it probably should be.

I would like to get Chris Warren though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

i'm not saying oak wants cobb. who knows who called and asked about cobb. i'm just saying whatever they get for cobb his cap relief could be used for Mack. btw...i don't think oak would have any interest in matthews...perry maybe but not matthews.

With the contracts that both Cobb and Matthews are currently under, 1 year and overpaid, I doubt there is much interest in either of them, unless another team can rework a contract and an extension to be more in line of what those guys are now worth. If Cobb is open to that, I would rather see the Packers keep him and extend him. Matthews possibly the same thing.

Nick Perry is an interesting trade option for Mack and it depends on if the Packers think he is currently being overpaid and what the future holds for Matthews. In my "little GM world" , if the decision is to trade for Mack, you try to rework Matthews and Cobb, trade Perry and a first rounder for Mack and use the savings of the 3 players to pay for Mack. Obviously, I doubt either Matthews or Cobb would be on board with that.