Randall Cobb is Back!!!· Page 4

musccy
Veteran Member

10 years ago

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

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.

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#32

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.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

buckeyepackfan
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#33

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

Done with you already.
Not going to let you spam this site at my expense.

The rest of the members who have posted on this thread have given their opinion of the deal.

You on the other hand have to take every topic and try and make it about how you would do things.

Of course you ALWAYS Have to have the last word.

How about a 1000 words on why Ted Thompson is the wrong man for the job.

We all miss those posts!

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

Yerko
Senior Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#34

Cobb was being offered upwards of $11-12 million from teams that will not be in contention next year. Instead, he took a smaller contract to come back to his home team. Why can't people be happy about that?

Aside from his freak injury two years ago, has Cobb not proven to you that he is worth such a contract? If not, who are you comparing Cobb's production/contract to that would say otherwise?

sschind
Senior Member

10 years ago

#35

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker

I will go on record as saying there is no way in hell Cobb would have signed for 7 years. I think 5 would have been the max. BUT, had he signed for 7 it would have included a lot more money and most likely more guaranteed so it is not a given than the cap hit would have been less. If they went with the same average and same % guaranteed that would have been almost 30 million guaranteed which would have been a SB cap hit of almost 6 million per year (SB can only be averages over 5 years not the life of the contract.)

sschind
Senior Member

10 years ago

#36

Originally Posted by: musccy

The Packers don't seem to like back loading deals. Its not good for the players and its not good for the cap in the long run. Players know they won't see the end of those types of deals so unless the up front money is much better they won't go for them. You don't see the Packers with many cap casualties. By that I mean guys being cut just because of their cap hit. That is what you get when you see 5 year deals with base salaries of 2,4,6,11,13 million. they last two are generally not going to be seen. IMO players like Jones and Hawk were not cap casualties They were not cut because of their cap numbers they were cut because of their performance. Had their performance been a notch better they would have been considered bargains at their price. I would be very surprised if year 4 of this deal is one of those types of years. His cap hit may be near 11,12 million by then but I think it will fit in with the rising cap (we assume) quite nicely.

There are certain players that you might have to pay a bit over market price for but that does not mean it will kill your cap. You just have to make sure you pick the right ones to overpay for.

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#37

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.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

sschind
Senior Member

10 years ago

#38

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker

I should have been clearer. Back loaded deals are not good for the cap in the long run. Short term they can be great. Back loaded deals with large bonuses cause lots of dead money when the player is cut and the last two years of the SB accelerate. Back loaded deals force teams to make cuts based on salary cap implications rather than performance. Teams are forced to cut players they would prefer to keep simply because their large salaries make it impractical. Then when they are cut the SB acceleration kicks in and leave the cap hurting with dead money. So now, not only have you lost a talented player that simply couldn't afford to keep but you still have to count a large portion of his bonus against the cap. I'd prefer, to pay a guy early on when you are reasonably sure he will perform and then if his production slacks off you can get rid of him and not have to count a bunch against the cap. Also, a front loaded deal or a more uniform deal will allow a teams to retain a player in the later years even if his production slips a bit but not terribly so because he is not counting a ton against the cap. That's one reason why we got Peppers last year. I think the Bears would have liked to have kept him but by making his salary 13 million and adding more bonuses to the tune of another 5 million or so they simply couldn't justify the 18 million dollar cap hit so they had to cut him. As a result they still had to count 8 million against the cap. Had they paid him a little more in 2011 (when he was producing) they may have been able to keep him around in 2014. That is just one example and there may be more to it than that. I don't know what their cap situation was in 2011 so maybe they needed it structured that way or maybe.

IMO pushing large amounts of salary and bonus money into the future is not a good thing.

Also, another thing I didn't make clear but in my example I had assumed a signing bonus over and above the salary amounts since most multi year deals include a signing bonus. I was talking the 36 million as strictly salary. I just didn't make it clear. That is my fault for not specifying. You are right, on a strictly 36 million dollar deal your structure would make more sense and would be more realistic.

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#39

OK, Sschind, I suppose I see your point, but I still see the process as more good than bad even considering the long term. If the guy is young enough and good enough, you can generally take the risk he won't end up cut at the end. Instead, when the last couple of years come along, you restructure in a more cap friendly way. It would work for somebody like Cobb but not for somebody older or not as good. I just wish Ted would push the limit to improve the team way more than he does. There is a large difference between "cap hell" and too far from the cap like the Packers have been.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

10 years ago

#40

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:

You have to admire the brilliance by the Packers here. The best sales tactic is to have the balls to walk away and that's what the Packers gave the impression of with Randall Cobb.

And then there is this. Zing!

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 (3-Jul) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!

Zero2Cool (3-Jul) : My cousin, yes.

dfosterf (3-Jul) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?

Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.

Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself

Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"

Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs

Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade

Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade

dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us

dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.

wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.

Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year

dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot

dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.

dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year

dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.

Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?

Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason

Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”

Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.

Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.

Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH

beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.

Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law

Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter

Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter

Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp

dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night

dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60

dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO

Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m

dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions

dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing

Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.

dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup

dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw

dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.

Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.

Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.

wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.

Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?

Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women

Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂

Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2025 Packers Schedule

Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM

COMMANDERS

Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM

Browns

Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM

Cowboys

Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM

BENGALS

Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM

Cardinals

Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM

Steelers

Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM

PANTHERS

Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM

EAGLES

Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM

Giants

Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM

Lions

Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM

Broncos

Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM

Bears

Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM

RAVENS

Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM

Vikings