Why the Packers might let Cobb leave

nerdmann
Premier Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

His value has only skyrocketed in the wake of a breakthrough 2014 campaign in which he had career-highs in receptions (91), receiving yards (1,287) and touchdowns (12).

PackersNews wrote:

PFT also has a take.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your PACKERSHOME forum account or Register a new forum account

sschind
Senior Member

10 years ago

They might let him walk because he might cost more than they are willing to pay to keep him. It doesn't need to get any more in depth than that.

It all comes down to money and their idea of keeping the cap under control so lets leave it that and quit looking for excuses as to why they might let him go.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

10 years ago

Choosing Jordy over Randall was really the height of foolishness with the age disparity and the talent comparability.

Now, they get to right the wrong... let Peppers go so you can keep RC18. Why rent a grizzled veteran that literally could be worthless this season due to rapid decline at his age and watch a budding young star walk when your only other proven WR is guy who is hitting the age of decline for his position very soon?

The ONLY logical reason I could see them letting him go is the belief they have something special in Jeff Janis.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

TheKanataThrilla
Veteran Member

10 years ago

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

I'm not sure how releasing Peppers works into the argument. It is not that we run a risk of Cap Space that somehow releasing Peppers solves. The issue is the number and overpaying. You overpay for Cobb and then the trickle effect does happen when you sign the next guy.

The fact of the matter is Cobb just may not be that interested in us. As sad as that is to hear that may also be the truth.

Also the team may be comfortable with what they have if Cobb leaves and their gameplan.

It is not like Adams, Abby, and Janis are duds. We may even dip into the Free market. We may draft Maxx Williams and severely upgrade our TE position.

Not signing Cobb is not doom and gloom.

buckeyepackfan
Veteran Member

10 years ago

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Another Ted Thompson screw up.

You!re still as entertaining as ever.
Still a week left for something to get done.
Even after that the door is not closed.

Considering your past evaluations of player talents and Ted Thompson's decisions, I think I will wait and see what happens.

I think players appreciate the fact that Ted let's them explore Free Agency.

In the end, Ted usually gets his man.

I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

10 years ago

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

The Packers have over $30 million in salary cap space. They do not need to release anyone to retain Randall Cobb. If Cobb is offered something significantly more than the Packers are willing to pay, that's the breaks. You do not jeopardize your teams future for a player who isn't a quarterback.

Don't be surprised if Cobb is resigned with the Packers this time next week.

And then there this.

sschind
Senior Member

10 years ago

Also the team may be comfortable with what they have if Cobb leaves and their gameplan.

It is not like Adams, Abby, and Janis are duds. We may even dip into the Free market. We may draft Maxx Williams and severely upgrade our TE position.

Not signing Cobb is not doom and gloom.

Originally Posted by: TheKanataThrilla

Comfortable with what they have? That is a very scary thought to me.

I saw enough from Adams to think you may be right but I have no idea what you saw in either Janis or Abbredaris, other than false logic "Ted drafted them so they will be good" to say they are not duds. They may not be duds but I have seen nothing that tells me one way or the other and I don't take MM comments about Janis as any sort of confirmation because he said the same thing about Boykin the year before.

We MAY draft a guy that is better than Jimmy Graham or we MAY sign a FA that turns out to be even better than Cobb or Adams and Janis and Abby MAY step up but I would be much more comfortable with our situation knowing we didn't have to count on one or more of those things happening. It may not be doom and gloom but without a doubt it weakens our WR group and I don't see how anyone can argue that it doesn't (not that you were but some people think it won't make any difference) The argument is is the amount it weakens our WR group offset by continuity we retain in the cap. IMO that will depend on the difference between what we offer that he turned down and what he gets. 3 million a year maybe, 1 million, NO WAY. If he signs somewhere else for 10 million a year I will think it was a big mistake to let him go. If he signs for more than that I'll be fine with the decision to let him go.

warhawk
Senior Member

10 years ago

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

The logical reason and ONLY reason they will let him go is if another teams pays him too much money. Peppers is not the problem. You don't change the way you do business for one guy. The Packers have $32 million THIS year for three reasons the way I see it. First, because of how Ted Thompson handles the cap. Second, because the league increased the cap $10 mil. Third, because Ted cut Hawk and Jones.
IMO league increases do no good because all teams get that and it just puts that much more in all cofers and in part why Cobb is sitting where he is today. What did the cap increase do for cap poor teams? Nothing. Other cap wealthy teams are going to scoop up all the players and the cap poor teams can't compete with them. Not when it comes to FA. It may help a team extend a player or two or whatever.

The Packers were also fortunate that they could cut two players that weren't playing much at the end of the year and needed to go and happened to put a good chunk of change back in the till. That's not going to happen every year. If they don't watch what they do or Ted changes the way he works they could very easily be stuck having to cut guys they absolutely don't want to let go.

Oh but we got $32 million. Well yeah they do but I think for the reasons I stated above there's a little false sense of securtiy going on around here. Fortunately Ted won't get caught up that. Cobb isn't signing a contract for $11 or $12 million. It's going to be closer to $50 million. Keep that in mind while also keeping in mind there are other players needed to be resigned, some that they will want to extend (Daniels for one) and that list of players that will come up next year and the following year as well that will require more money to hold on to.

"The train is leaving the station."

buckeyepackfan
Veteran Member

10 years ago

I am afraid Randall may be listening to his agent who is going for a big number contract that will be back loaded.
Signing bonus and guaranteed money are the only money's that count for the player.
The agent, on the other hand gets his percentage of the total contract!
Also known as "window dressing " money.

I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#10

Honestly, the Packers are going to let a 24 year old...a TWENTY FOUR YEAR OLD proven star just walk because of an extra mil or two average per season? Really? Draft, develop, depart? What we're going to end up with is a mediocre team once again carried by it's QB because we're only going to draft, develop and hold onto guys who ain't studs. Sounds like one heckuva plan...just hold onto the guys you draft and develop who don't prove to be special players...just middling talents like Don Barclay.

If we were going to give Jennings money as much or more as we're willing to give Randall that many years ago it is beyond insane to not pay a much younger star player than Greg was. 3 years ago we were going to give big money to an aging WR much like we did with Jordy. Now, we're not going to give it to a YOUNG stud and with the cap increase from the time Greg got his big offer?

You guys can set up your excuses all you'd like for Ted Thompson in advance... if he lets Randall walk that is a terrible move despite any spin you'd like to put on it. If we have plenty of room as you all insist we do...which I don't buy one bit considering they have to sign BB, DH, etc.

For the love of...set Tramon free and we'd be swimming in cap space. NO REASON to let Randall get away so we can pay old vets who are declining and I don't care about this...TT has a number garbage.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

dfosterf (2h) : Mackelvie

dfosterf (2h) : Michael Macelvie- NFL teams know how to draft- Why don"t they?

dfosterf (2h) : Youtube

Zero2Cool (7h) : Packers were not selected for the 2025 Hall of Fame game.

dfosterf (9h) : PFOW Out of our division would be a good thing imo

Zero2Cool (11h) : Jameson Williams is done at 24 years old? What? He's a WR, not QB. I'm missing something here haha

wpr (11h) : Tomorrow is almost here.

packerfanoutwest (11h) : would you want him if Pack needed a back up qb?

packerfanoutwest (11h) : JW is done......stick a fork in him

Zero2Cool (13h) : You should. He goes to AFC that helps Packers.

packerfanoutwest (23-Apr) : don't care

Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Lions shopping Jameson Williams?

packerfanoutwest (22-Apr) : Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst says Green Bay’s roster can win, even without adding anyone in the draft.

Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : It's a poor design. New site has SignalR like our gameday chat

wpr (22-Apr) : Ah today's Shout was very quick to post.

wpr (22-Apr) : now 3

Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Who? What?

beast (22-Apr) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?

Martha Careful (21-Apr) : meh

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : It's so awesome.

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : new site fan shout post fast

wpr (21-Apr) : Slow posting in Fan shout.

wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!

dfosterf (21-Apr) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am

wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days

beast (18-Apr) : 6 days

wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep

dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire

dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission

dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.

Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.

dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"

dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that

dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?

Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24