It seems like a big contract now, but will be a bargain in two years. That's a Ted Thompson special.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

I just smile wide reading that now it's only about the guaranteed money...there was nary a mention of guaranteed money until after the deal was announced. That is what is so funny, here. You looked bad with your fingered diarrhea on this forum and now you need to change course to deflect.

Actually, it's about the cap... yes, guaranteed money factors into that but his overall cap hit is what matters and it's long term effect on it.

You keep saying I think I'm so smart.... I don't recall ever saying anything to that effect on this forum. It must be some insecurity on your part. I can't help if I prove to be right and you wrong all the time.

There is no singular agenda. Although, it is quite clear I'm not drinking the Ted Thompson koolaid like so many here. I think he's got some incredible strengths and some incredible weaknesses leaving him a tad above average. I can tell you he is the wrong GM to be in charge of a franchise with a special QB as we have now. His move with Randall shows me a little something. I'm proud of him for keeping a young star. It would've been devastating on many levels for him not to have done so.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

I would rather to have Cobb signed for about 7 years - making the cap hit less and keeping him past age 31 - years he should still be at the top of his game. Apparently Cobb wouldn't go for anything that long term though.

I see a large difference between this and the Jennings situation. Cobb is a lot more unique and a lot younger, both of which make this signing a very good thing, and letting Jennings go for what the Vikings paid him a no brainer also.

Having Nelson, Cobb, Adams, Janis, and Abbrederis gives the Packers about as good a WR corps as any team in the NFL. I would rather put extra WRs on the field than have deep threat TEs.

So good job, Ted - on this one anyway.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

assuming this contract isn't heavily back loaded (could be wrong) then I agree with you, although also acknowledge his contract is close to current fair market value for him. If the cap keeps going up 10/year, yeah, it'll look favorable for the Packers, but for now it seems appropriate.

Originally Posted by: musccy 

I would disagree about backloaded deals not being good for the cap - that's the reason why they happen. I would also disagree about them being bad for the player because almost always, they are accompanied by a fairly big bonus. You likely wouldn't see $2,4,6,11, and 13 million. You might, however, see $1,4,5,7, and 9 million with a $9 million bonus - the same $36 million in a more attractive way to the player and not bad at all on the cap.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

Saturday morning, I told Jimmy to get it done. I was scared. No lie. I didn't know if Green Bay had given up on me or what, since we hadn't heard from them in two weeks, since their last offer. I was nervous. I said, ‘Get it done. Whatever I have to do to get back to Green Bay, just make it happen.’

Randall Cobb wrote: