Jump to content

Any Packers getting dealt today?

{Family Ghost}

By {Family Ghost}
in Green Bay Packers

Recommended Posts

spilltray

spilltray

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, jleisher said:

Correct!  If Cobb is dealt or released, Nelson moves into his slot.  

Then who do you have as a 2nd outside WR? It becomes a pretty big hole. You'd be better off moving Montgomery back to slot WR IMO. Geronimo is an ok depth guy, but that has problems too.

 

If you are going to move Cobb you need a starter level WR immediately. If not, it's going to hurt the offense pretty significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jleisher

jleisher

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, spilltray said:

Then who do you have as a 2nd outside WR? It becomes a pretty big hole. You'd be better off moving Montgomery back to slot WR IMO. Geronimo is an ok depth guy, but that has problems too.

 

If you are going to move Cobb you need a starter level WR immediately. If not, it's going to hurt the offense pretty significantly.

I think they will keep Montgomery at RB, bouncing him back and forth could mess him up.  If Cobb is moved, which I don't think will happen, but if so, then a high draft pick and Geronimo would battle for that spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MacReady

MacReady

Posted
Posted
Just now, jleisher said:

I think they will keep Montgomery at RB, bouncing him back and forth could mess him up.  If Cobb is moved, which I don't think will happen, but if so, then a high draft pick and Geronimo would battle for that spot.

I'd honestly rather trade Montgomery than any other receiver/running back on our roster.  Cobb is valuable to us in a lot of ways regardless of his contract.  Rodgers trusts him, and it takes Rodgers a billion years to trust somebody.  We're not replacing his production, such as it is, with anybody else other than Montgomery, and at this point, putting Montgomery back at WR is going to take just as much time to gain Aaron's trust as a new receiver. 

Montgomery is wasted here as far as a top receiving running back.  We could probably get more for him in a trade than we could get from trading Cobb.  The Patriots would probably be interested even though they have a bunch of backs. 

It's really frustrating to me how many people want to trade Cobb and Matthews.  No, they're not living up to their contracts, but who gives an actual damn?  This isn't Madden.  We'd get MAYBE a 5th round pick for Clay, and MAYBE a 4th round pick for Cobb.  Kelvin Benjamin was just  traded for a 3rd round pick and he's 26 years old and a former first round pick.  Sammy Watkins was traded for a second round pick and he was a top 5 draft selection with a 17.5 average yards per catch season.  In Buffalo. 

Who would honestly trade for Matthews?  Really?  If even Packer fans think he's done, why in the hell would an NFL team suddenly think he's worth more than a 5th round pick? 

It's just so narrow-minded to think, yeah, we should trade them.  Why?  They're making too much money with us based on their production, but another team will be fine with paying them? 

And what difference does it make what they're getting paid if we're never close to the cap limit anyway?  If we never sign major free agents anyway? 

Ty Montgomery actually has value to other teams because he's HAD success as a running back, he's had success as a receiver, we underutilize him, he's still on his rookie contract and he's 24 years old. 

If Aaron Jones gets to 1,000 yards on the season, I'd put Montgomery as the most likely to get traded by a very significant margin when looking at him, Cobb and Matthews.  Mostly because he's the one of those three that I could see other teams actually having interest in. 

And then back to the quoted material specifically, why get a low draft pick... 5th or 6th round... only to spend a high draft pick to replace what you're losing?  It doesn't make sense.  When you're a team with a franchise QB, you don't trade players who play positions you're weak at, or would be weak at in the event of a trade.  You trade players at positions of strength.  Allison is not the receiver people think he is.  If he was the starter instead of Cobb, he'd be as effective or worse than Cobb.  No better.  When you have a top free agency candidate (Adams) at the position, you don't talk about going down to Nelson and Allison as your top two receivers until you know it would at worst be Nelson and Adams, and even then you don't trade Cobb until you know that that "top pick" is worth that top pick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mazrimiv

Mazrimiv

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Pugger said:

I think Cobb is held in higher regard by his coaches than folks in here.

So was AJ Hawk.  It doesn't mean the coaches were right.  Paying Cobb 12.75M next season would be nuts.  Release Cobb next season and take the 9.5M in cap savings to help pay for Adams new contract and move on.  It's a no-brainer IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MacReady

MacReady

Posted
Posted
Just now, Mazrimiv said:

So was AJ Hawk.  It doesn't mean the coaches were right.  Paying Cobb 12.75M next season would be nuts.  Release Cobb next season and take the 9.5M in cap savings to help pay for Adams new contract and move on.  It's a no-brainer IMO.

Find an example of a time the Packers paid more than 2 million dollars in dead money that wasn't due to injury.  It's not gonna happen.  We'd be paying 3.25 million dollars to not have Cobb.  When you look at it that way it's not such a no-brainer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MacReady

MacReady

Posted
Posted
Just now, Mazrimiv said:

Yes, it really is

Can you find a time we've had more than 2 million in dead money?  We're going to have 27 million in cap space next year.  You think it's going to take 9 million more than that to re-sign Adams? 

If you can't answer those two questions simply to fit your argument, it's not a no-brainer.  By definition. 

Even more reasons it's NOT a no-brainer...

0 dead money to cut Matthews, 11 million gain.  It's not a no-brainer.  Pick your arguments.  This isn't one of them.  Admit it, it's not a no-brainer.  It's actually the opposite of a no-brainer since there are so many things to think about.  Come on... Admit it... It's not a no-brainer.  Admit it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheOnlyThing

TheOnlyThing

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Find an example of a time the Packers paid more than 2 million dollars in dead money that wasn't due to injury.  It's not gonna happen.  We'd be paying 3.25 million dollars to not have Cobb.  When you look at it that way it's not such a no-brainer. 

Moving on from an aging, mediocre to slightly above average (in this offense and at this stage of Cobb's career), and very expensive slot receiver is a no brainer if the goal of the franchise is to maximize on the field production per cap dollars spent. At the very least, a restructure would be in order.

However, if the goal of the franchise is to limit the amount of dead money accrued, then I agree the decision is not a no-brainer.

And based upon the Pack's recent track record of retaining players rather than eating dead money, I agree Cobb likely ain't going anywhere (and he ain't restructuring).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MacReady

MacReady

Posted
Posted
Just now, Mazrimiv said:

GB has a choice.  They can pay Cobb an additional 9.5M next season, or they can let him walk.

Letting him walk is the obvious choice.

No it's not.  Why are you still arguing this?  If you're going to continue arguing, please address the following:

1. Why does it make more sense to you to pay 3.25 million to get worse at a position?
2. Why Cobb when there's no dead money to cut Matthews?
3. What do we need the 9.5 million for when we're already 27 million under the cap?
4. Who is going to take Cobb's place? 
5. Who is going to take the place of who takes Cobb's place?
6. If it's such an obvious choice, why haven't we done it in previous similar scenarios?
7. What does that tell future players about re-signing with us if we're not going to see the contract through?
8. What will Adams think about re-signing with us if he sees us cut Cobb's contract short?

Your arrogance on this matter is disturbing when you haven't responded to or addressed a single counterpoint I've made. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MacReady

MacReady

Posted
Posted
Just now, TheOnlyThing said:

And based upon the Pack's recent track record of retaining players rather than eating dead money, I agree Cobb likely ain't going anywhere (and he ain't restructuring).

See?  You get the point I'm making.  Bravo for seeing my point instead of insisting you're right for the sake of being right and/or simply not liking Cobb.

I don't like Cobb either.  I didn't even want us to re-sign him (I can prove that).  We're still not doing anything based on the 8 points I've outlined that nobody has an answer for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mazrimiv

Mazrimiv

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

No it's not.  Why are you still arguing this?  If you're going to continue arguing, please address the following:

1. Why does it make more sense to you to pay 3.25 million to get worse at a position?
2. Why Cobb when there's no dead money to cut Matthews?
3. What do we need the 9.5 million for when we're already 27 million under the cap?
4. Who is going to take Cobb's place? 
5. Who is going to take the place of who takes Cobb's place?
6. If it's such an obvious choice, why haven't we done it in previous similar scenarios?
7. What does that tell future players about re-signing with us if we're not going to see the contract through?
8. What will Adams think about re-signing with us if he sees us cut Cobb's contract short?

Your arrogance on this matter is disturbing when you haven't responded to or addressed a single counterpoint I've made. 

1

I don't address your points b/c they seem irrelevant to me.  The choice is a simple one.  Pay Cobb 9.5M next season, or don't.  The obvious answer is not to pay him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...