Cobb on trading block

[XPack]

But this offense is NEVER going to go thru Cobb again. Ever. Not even close.

That a sweeping statement.

I disagree. I still believe we've not seen the end of Cobb. Perhaps this would be his bounce back year. With JG attracting some defence, there will be more options available for WRs. Cobb and Adams in tandem will be juicy!

 

[Dantés]

There is a fundamental flaw in the logic that Cobb is dispensable because he isn't the main focal point of the offense-- as though it's a binary choice.

Cobb is not and won't be the main receiving target in this offense. But in his last three seasons with Rodgers, he's averaged 120 targets per 16 games played. That a large target share. And while it may go down, it likely won't dip below 100. That's an important role and, despite not being the most important, not one that can be casually dismissed.

If he's moved in the efforts to acquire a player (e.g. Mack) whose positive impact is far greater than the negative impact of losing Cobb, then great. But to move him for a late round pick, or to simply cut him, makes no sense at all. He's an ideal player to keep on the roster this year as he provides a bridge of experience to all the youth at the position.

 

[ShockwaveRider]

I love Randall Cobb as a player and as a person. I nearly became suicidal when we almost lost him the first time around.

But I'm deeply concerned that his production has fallen off and he's just too darn small. And probably grossly overpaid.

I see an equal amount of "Packers trading Randall Cobb" and "Packers not trading Randall Cobb" in an internet search.

Does anyone REALLY BELIEVE the Packers have a chance of signing Kahlil Mack?

 

[Mondio]

And to be clear, I was never saying we need to move him or that I want to or meant to imply he's some scrub we just replace for whatever we can get. Theres a certain level of compensation where I think it's perfectly acceptable amd its not a 4th round pick or something

 

[Mondio]

There is a fundamental flaw in the logic that Cobb is dispensable because he isn't the main focal point of the offense-- as though it's a binary choice.

Cobb is not and won't be the main receiving target in this offense. But in his last three seasons with Rodgers, he's averaged 120 targets per 16 games played. That a large target share. And while it may go down, it likely won't dip below 100. That's an important role and, despite not being the most important, not one that can be casually dismissed.

If he's moved in the efforts to acquire a player (e.g. Mack) whose positive impact is far greater than the negative impact of losing Cobb, then great. But to move him for a late round pick, or to simply cut him, makes no sense at all. He's an ideal player to keep on the roster this year as he provides a bridge of experience to all the youth at the position.

I never presented it that way. its part of a much larger argument. But to me, your 4th most important focus on offense is definitely in that replaceable category. The running game, JG and Adams are all above him. And if Adams goes down, is Cobb stepping in that role? If JG is gone is Cobb as effective doing what he does?

 

[Dantés]

I never presented it that way. its part of a much larger argument. But to me, your 4th most important focus on offense is definitely in that replaceable category. The running game, JG and Adams are all above him. And if Adams goes down, is Cobb stepping in that role? If JG is gone is Cobb as effective doing what he does?

I don't see how we can definitively place "the running game" above or below Cobb. You have to consider him among other receiving options. Of those, he's #3. And he isn't #3 primarily because of where he can/can't play on the field, but because of his experience, familiarity, and capability to play at a high level now, as opposed to most of the options behind him that likely aren't ready for a big role in 2018.

 

[Dantés]

I am increasingly convinced that these conflicting Cobb rumors are due to his name coming up in Mack discussions and some piece of that information leaking out. One person hears he's "on the block" because he's been named as a potential piece of a deal for Mack, another hears he's "not on the block" because the Packers are not otherwise actively shopping him.

 

[Poppa San]

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.

There wouldn't be any savings this season from moving Perry. He has a decent cap hit from his signing bonus to account for yet.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There wouldn't be any savings this season from moving Perry. He has a decent cap hit from his signing bonus to account for yet.

That was what we said about Matthews and Cobb a few years ago Like I said, purging him now would depend on what the coaches think of Perry and if he is living up to his contract, which might be "cheap" (if he isn't injured and plays better) when you compare it to what the new level of pay is for OLB's.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

With cap carryover. Overpaying now is the same as overpaying next year.

Would you sign Cobb for his current deal right now if we had the cap? Would you pick up Mathews for 11 or 12 mil right now if he was a free agent and we had the cap?

For me, that money is obviously better spent going towards the big chunk that we have to spend (#12). Or smaller more efficient chunks like Wilkerson de or Williams cb for 5 mil... Or an obvious splash like jimmy graham..... Graham >Cobb.

 

[bgrice91]

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

Lol I don't think gute will turn into uncle Ted but you could be right

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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.

You don't seem to understand that high priced wide receivers are aignificantly more talented than undrafted free agents on most occasions though.

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.

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?

In my opinion you're taking a wrong approach when talking about the consequences of trading Cobb. While I agree that he won't be the focal point of the offense he will be at least the third best option in the passing game, filling an important role in the Packers offense.

With the team not having an adequate replacement for him on the roster it would be a mistake to get rid of him while not expecting a dropoff.

i don't think oak would have any interest in matthews...perry maybe but not matthews.

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.

The Packers can't trade Perry as it would result in an additional cap hit of nearly $9 million with the move ending up in dead money of $19.5 million counting against the team's salary cap.

If he's moved in the efforts to acquire a player (e.g. Mack) whose positive impact is far greater than the negative impact of losing Cobb, then great.

I wouldn't even consider trading Cobb for Mack as a smart move for the Packers.

With cap carryover. Overpaying now is the same as overpaying next year.

Would you sign Cobb for his current deal right now if we had the cap? Would you pick up Mathews for 11 or 12 mil right now if he was a free agent and we had the cap?

For me, that money is obviously better spent going towards the big chunk that we have to spend (#12). Or smaller more efficient chunks like Wilkerson de or Williams cb for 5 mil... Or an obvious splash like jimmy graham..... Graham >Cobb.

There's no way the Packers would currently sign Matthews or Cobb to the contracts they did some years ago. But before moving on from either of them the team needs to have an adequate replacement on the roster.

 

[Mondio]

I would expect a drop off though, it's not my contention that getting rid of Cobb means we just move on without skipping a beat. I think he's going to have a pretty good year myself if he stays healthy and adams, JG and running game are healthy too. If one of those don't, his value to this offense goes down some, especially if it's Adams or JG, Cobb is going to be way less effective and is not going to replace what they do in this offense and we'd become a more run dominant team again at that point anyway.

But I do think what we'd lose we'd be able to gain with what we "could" get back and this team would be better off. I'll say it again, I don't want to get rid of him. I was addressing this thought that he can't be dealt. I don't think he provides us any blanket of security of those main guys go down, mainly because he is going to need them healthy for him to use his skillset to make plays. and if those other guys are healthy, the bulk of this offense isn't going to miss a beat.

 

[Dantés]

You don't seem to understand that high priced wide receivers are aignificantly more talented than undrafted free agents on most occasions though.



In my opinion you're taking a wrong approach when talking about the consequences of trading Cobb. While I agree that he won't be the focal point of the offense he will be at least the third best option in the passing game, filling an important role in the Packers offense.

With the team not having an adequate replacement for him on the roster it would be a mistake to get rid of him while not expecting a dropoff.





The Packers can't trade Perry as it would result in an additional cap hit of nearly $9 million with the move ending up in dead money of $19.5 million counting against the team's salary cap.



I wouldn't even consider trading Cobb for Mack as a smart move for the Packers.



There's no way the Packers would currently sign Matthews or Cobb to the contracts they did some years ago. But before moving on from either of them the team needs to have an adequate replacement on the roster.

The negative effect of losing Cobb would be made up for five times over by the positive impact of adding an elite pass rusher.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The negative effect of losing Cobb would be made up for five times over by the positive impact of adding an elite pass rusher.

There's no doubt Mack would have a bigger impact than Cobb but I would prefer the Packers to trade Matthews to acquire him.

 

[thequick12]

There's no way the Packers would currently sign Matthews or Cobb to the contracts they did some years ago. But before moving on from either of them the team needs to have an adequate replacement on the roster.

Both Cobb and Matthews are going to get paid by someone after this season. And while it won't be for quite as much as they currently make I bet it will be close. As the cap has gone up lesser players have been getting paid more it's just the natural progression. Think about some of the deals that were handed out in the off season to guys like jarvis Landry 15 m per, Paul Richardson and Albert Wilson 8 m per, Marquise Lee 8.5 per, donte moncrief 9.6 m per. I'd argue Cobb is a much better player than any of them and he will be more highly sought after. As for matthews I'm sure I could compile a similar list but after he posts double digit sacks this season I'm thinking 10 m per will be a reasonable number for him

 

[HardRightEdge]

Both Cobb and Matthews are going to get paid by someone after this season. And while it won't be for quite as much as they currently make I bet it will be close. As the cap has gone up lesser players have been getting paid more it's just the natural progression. Think about some of the deals that were handed out in the off season to guys like jarvis Landry 15 m per, Paul Richardson and Albert Wilson 8 m per, Marquise Lee 8.5 per, donte moncrief 9.6 m per. I'd argue Cobb is a much better player than any of them and he will be more highly sought after. As for matthews I'm sure I could compile a similar list but after he posts double digit sacks this season I'm thinking 10 m per will be a reasonable number for him

The guys you list there are all 25-26 years old getting second contracts. While it is debateable whether any or all of them are worth those deals, the fact remains they are hitting their prime and the teams that signed them perceive upside, Landry being the exception who just needs to keep doing what he's been doing.

Matthews will be 33 next season with some nagging injury every year. There's no "10 million per" in his future. Cobb will be 29 wth 8 years in the league with a lot of wear and tear. He might do all right if he has a big year but it would not be a long term contract. 2 years or maybe 3 with an out after 2. I would not expect a big year. If 2018 is a repeat of the last two seasons, the amount will be considerably smaller than those second contracts you cited as the perception of decline is reinforced.

 

[thequick12]

The guys you list there are all 25-26 years old getting second contracts. While it is debateable whether any or all of them are worth those deals, the fact remains they are hitting their prime and the teams that signed them perceive upside, Landry being the exception who just needs to keep doing what he's been doing.

Matthews will be 33 next season with some nagging injury every year. There's no "10 million per" in his future. Cobb will be 29 wth 8 years in the league with a lot of wear and tear. He might do all right if he has a big year but it would not be a long term contract. 2 years or maybe 3 with an out after 2. I would not expect a big year. If 2018 is a repeat of the last two seasons, the amount will be considerably smaller than those second contracts you cited as the perception of decline is reinforced.

Ok maybe not 10 but definitely 8 for Matthews and who knows if he posts 12 sacks in 2018. And I would just like to say Landry is garbage he averaged 8.8 yards a catch in 2017. The only reason he has put up numbers is because of the huge number of targets he got on a garbage team. And I agree 3 years 24 million for cobbs next deal sounds about right. My point is he's still gonna get paid quite a bit it's not like he's gonna get a 2 year 4 million dollar deal.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Ok maybe not 10 but definitely 8 for Matthews and who knows if he posts 12 sacks in 2018. And I would just like to say Landry is garbage he averaged 8.8 yards a catch in 2017. The only reason he has put up numbers is because of the huge number of targets he got on a garbage team. And I agree 3 years 24 million for cobbs next deal sounds about right.

"Landry is garbage"? I'll just let that sit there. You can't agree that 3/24 is right for Cobb because I said nothing of the sort. "I do not expect a big year", to be exact. Even if he does get back on track, that would still be too rich.

 

[thequick12]

"Landry is garbage"? I'll just let that sit there. You can't agree that 3/24 is right for Cobb because I said nothing of the sort. "I do not expect a big year", to be exact. Even if he does get back on track, that would still be too rich.

Look at Landrys stats 8.8 in 2017, 12.1 in 2016 his one good year. 10.5 in 2015 and 9 in 2014. I'm sorry but an NFL wr averaging under 10 yards a reception 2 of 4 years in the league is not good. And certainly not worth anywhere near 15 m per. Now look at cobbs stats and you're telling me he's not gonna get half of what Landry got per year? The only year Cobb averaged less than 10 was in 2017 and he still averaged 9.9. His career avg is nearly a full 2 yards better than Landry over nearly twice the sample size

 

[rodell330]

I like Cobb as a person and player but he is NOT worth the salary he is earning. Cobb should be a guy who can take over a game with JG and Adams garnering so much attention...but I just don’t see it happening.

 

[thequick12]

I like Cobb as a person and player but he is NOT worth the salary he is earning. Cobb should be a guy who can take over a game with JG and Adams garnering so much attention...but I just don’t see it happening.

I'd guess Cobb gets 80 catches for 1000 yards and 6 tds in 2018 with Adams and JG dictating the coverage. JG is going to be the focus of the coverage in the middle of the field and Cobb will find much more room to operate. The last time the packers had a player like that at te was 2012 Finley's last full season and Cobb posted 80 for 954 and 8 tds.

 

[Mondio]

If Adams and JG are out there I think Cobb is going to have a fine season if he stays mostly healthy

 

[Dantés]

There's no doubt Mack would have a bigger impact than Cobb but I would prefer the Packers to trade Matthews to acquire him.

Me too, but if for some strange reason the Raiders wanted Cobb instead I wouldn't hesitate.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'd guess Cobb gets 80 catches for 1000 yards and 6 tds in 2018.

I guess he will not.