Any Packers getting dealt today?

[MacReady]

Just now, Mazrimiv said:

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.

Super duper good argument.  I'm awed by your debate skills.  Repeat the same thing over and over again, say counterpoints are irrelevant with no backing them up.  Gonna have to remember that strategy. 

[CWood21]

On 11/3/2017 at 10:00 AM, jleisher said:

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

And whose our two boundary receivers?  You've got Davante Adams and?  Your options right now are Trevor Davis and Jeff Janis.  Neither of which really inspire any real confidence.

EDIT: Scratch that, you still have Geronimo Allison as a fit, but he hasn't really played all that well this year.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, 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.

So we now need to spend a high pick on a WR?  Add WR to IOL, EDGE, CB, S (if Burnett isn't re-signed) as needs.  Probably could include TE and DL in there as well.

[CWood21]

22 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. 

I think there was a bit of dead money when they released AJ Hawk, but I don't think there's any way to go back and check it out.

[MacReady]

Just now, CWood21 said:

I think there was a bit of dead money when they released AJ Hawk, but I don't think there's any way to go back and check it out.

https://overthecap.com/packers-release-lb-aj-hawk/

1.6 million. 

[CWood21]

9 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

https://overthecap.com/packers-release-lb-aj-hawk/

1.6 million. 

For some reason, I was thinking he had 2 years left on his deal.

[TheOnlyThing]

6 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

https://overthecap.com/packers-release-lb-aj-hawk/

1.6 million. 

How much dead cap would there have been if Hawk and Brad Jones were cut prior to the 2014 season?

You know, the season in which that dynamic duo started at ILB in the opener in Seattle, which led to Jones immediately getting benched (for the season) and the one in which the D finally took off after Hawk was benched mid-season and Clay moved to ILB (only for Hawk to make his untimely reappearance in the NFC Championship game)?

[CWood21]

12 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. 

Let's not make things personal Horizon.

1.) I think that argument is a bit disingenuous.  It's not like the Packers are pocketing that $9.5M, and not spending it.  In reality they're probably reinvesting that into a FA, or re-signing their own FAs.  Although, I find that $9.5M number to be a bit off since you have to factor in a replacement.  At minimum, you're going to replace him with a veteran minimum salary, use 500k for easy calculations and you're really saving closer to $9M.  But if the Packers take a WR relatively high (let's say mid 2nd), than you're adding probably closer to $1.25M, so that cap saved is closer to $8.25M.  If you can save money and believe you get similar (or better production) out of a rookie receiver and/or Geronimo Allison, why would you hold onto Cobb?  Cobb is on pace for a 70 catch, 653 receiving yards, and 3 TD reception year.  That would rank T-35th in catches and T-66th in receiving yards last year.  He's currently the 15th highest paid WR in terms of AAV.  That's not a good thing when the cost is higher than what they're producing.

2.) Have you seen our OLB depth chart?  I'm more confident that Aaron Rodgers will get more out of Geronimo Allison and/or draft pick(s) than I am in the defense getting anything out of Kyler Fackrell or Chris Odom.

3.) Spend it elsewhere.  We're not just pocketing that money.

4.) Draft pick and/or Geronimo Allison.

5.) Not sure what the question is asking, since the way it's worded indicates that we're looking 3-4 years down the road.

6.) How many times have we had a similar scenario?  The closest comparison I could make is the AJ Hawk situation.  They released him and went with a cheaper alternative.  The Packers are usually prudent with the contracts they hand out.  They usually aren't stuck with bad contract, or ones with significant amount of dead cap.  Hawk is really the only one that comes to mind in that regard.

7.) One player being released doesn't affect our negotiating ability.  We have a LONG history of players seeing the end of the contract, why would this be any different?

8.) IF the Packers are paying him, then there is nothing to say about it.  Cobb has underperformed his contract, and just about everyone notices it.  I think you're overthinking this whole situation.

[MacReady]

I wasn't asking you, CWood, but thanks for showing it's possible to actually try to discuss it instead of arrogantly insinuating you're right beyond a shadow of doubt without providing a single shred of evidence to support your arrogant claim.  And I don't know what you mean about making it personal. 

1. We don't sign free agents, and when we do, it doesn't cost 9.5 million to do it.  Especially not when we start off with 27 million, which will likely go up with Bennett retiring.  In short, if your argument is we're not pocketing the money, why not just use it on a veteran receiver who knows our offense and whom Aaron trusts, which is hard to accomplish and certainly takes time to accomplish?

2. True.  Granted.  But we run things specifically to avoid dead money.  We're 21st in dead money this season at 4.27 million.  3.125 of that is Shields.  .615 is Goode.  .36 is Guion.  So if you take out just injuries and off field concerns, we'd be in the bottom 3 in dead money spending.  It's how we've operated, it's how we'll operate, so if the goal is to get money, we'd do it without having dead money.  Cap only argument, and Matthews makes more sense.

3.  We're a team that takes care of our own first.  Not gonna let you underestimate that fact because it's true.  We're gonna pay our own before we pay others.  It builds loyalty, and that's a bigger point than anybody in this argument is willing to admit. 

4. Draft pick and Allison.  You've just admitted Allison isn't playing well right now, and a draft pick isn't going to match and certainly won't exceed Cobb's production based on how long it takes for Aaron to trust somebody. 

5.  I was suggesting if Nelson moves to the slot, Allison is your #2.  Not good. 

6. Similar scenario as in cutting a player under performing.  Hawk is the only time it's happened, and he was under performing a LONG time before we cut him. 

7. It's  still against what we stand for as far as taking care of our own. 

8. If Cobb is under performing so badly, why did Aaron say recently that the Packers are better when he's on the field?  And did he under perform on the biggest stage last year?  18 receptions for 260 yards and 3 touchdowns in three playoff games suggests he's not performing as poorly as people suggest. 

There are points to be made for cutting Cobb, but would you - would anybody - argue that it's a no-brainer?  That's my point here.  It certainly isn't.  If it's a no-brainer, he'll be cut.  I'm betting he won't be. 

[spilltray]

No matter what the contract is, getting rid of Cobb majorly hurts your WR group. Fine move Nelson to the slot, but now you NEED another edge guy next year, even if you resign Adams, and he's going to have to play a LOT so you better be ready to both sign someone and draft someone high. At that point you are really just better off keeping Cobb for one more year because anyone you bring in may or may not actually work out.

 

Say you cut Cobb draft a guy in the 2nd, and sign a WR capable of being a #2. If that FA comes in and plays like Martellus Bennett for example, it could get bad next year unless the rookie steps in BIG time.

 

If you get rid of Cobb, the only real weapons you have at the position are Adams and Nelson. This offense runs too many 3 WR looks to count on Allison, Janis and Davis for meaningful snaps unless they show a ton more than they have. It's better to use him as a place holder for a year and bring some young guys in rather than being basically pressured into signing someone.

[CWood21]

Let's leave the snide comments out of it Horizon, it doesn't help anything.

13 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

1. We don't sign free agents, and when we do, it doesn't cost 9.5 million to do it.  Especially not when we start off with 27 million, which will likely go up with Bennett retiring.  In short, if your argument is we're not pocketing the money, why not just use it on a veteran receiver who knows our offense and whom Aaron trusts, which is hard to accomplish and certainly takes time to accomplish?

I think we're all hoping that this year's splurge in FA isn't just a flash in the pan, that Ted is actually utilizing that FA to improve the team.  The NFL (and really any of the professional leagues) is about surplus value.  The more production you can get for less money the better.  If you believe you can get the same (or better) production out of a rookie as you will out of Randall Cobb, why would you pay an extra $9.5M to Cobb to have the same production you can get out of a rookie?  Trust shouldn't be the deciding factor, and definitely shouldn't outweigh the money the Packers would/could save by releasing Cobb.

15 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

2. True.  Granted.  But we run things specifically to avoid dead money.  We're 21st in dead money this season at 4.27 million.  3.125 of that is Shields.  .615 is Goode.  .36 is Guion.  So if you take out just injuries and off field concerns, we'd be in the bottom 3 in dead money spending.  It's how we've operated, it's how we'll operate, so if the goal is to get money, we'd do it without having dead money.  Cap only argument, and Matthews makes more sense.

As I mentioned in other threads, you can't have too many pass rushers which is why despite not producing like you'd like, he's not going to be released.  But the lack of dead money goes back to the fact that the Packers don't hand out huge signing bonuses or large guarantees.  In terms of guarantees, we've got seven players with guarantees of at least $10M.  And of those 7, only two are making $20M+ in guarantees.  Dallas has 6 with $10M+, but 5 with $20M+ in guarantees.  Seattle has 14 and 8.  Minnesota has 8 and 6.  Atlanta has 12 and 6.  The Packers usually have little in the way of dead cap, because they don't allocate much of the contract to guarantees.  The biggest SB that any of our players have in terms of cap hits is Clay Matthews at $4.1M.

27 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

3.  We're a team that takes care of our own first.  Not gonna let you underestimate that fact because it's true.  We're gonna pay our own before we pay others.  It builds loyalty, and that's a bigger point than anybody in this argument is willing to admit.

I understand that.  But releasing one player doesn't change that.  We released Josh Sitton from that contract, but that didn't seem to prevent the Packers from signing Martellus Bennett.  Is it an issue?  Possibly, but it's probably not nearly the issue you believe it to be.

27 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

4. Draft pick and Allison.  You've just admitted Allison isn't playing well right now, and a draft pick isn't going to match and certainly won't exceed Cobb's production based on how long it takes for Aaron to trust somebody.

Honestly, I do think a draft pick and/or Allison could match.  Or even outproduce him.  If you believe that Allison's production in his rookie season is something that he could repeat, he's likely posting a 52 catches, 870 receiving yard season.  That is outproducing Cobb at a fraction of the cost if you took the targets that Cobb has gotten and given them to Allison.  Allison went from playing 80%+ of the defensive snaps in Weeks 2 and 3, and since then he's been over 25% of the defensive snaps just once.  He produced in his first two weeks, and then he's been on the bench since then.  Mainly because the Packers don't go 4 wide very often, and our receivers have been relatively healthy.

34 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

5.  I was suggesting if Nelson moves to the slot, Allison is your #2.  Not good.

Again, if Allison can match or outproduce Cobb it's better than staying with status quo, especially if you can save money.

34 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

8. If Cobb is under performing so badly, why did Aaron say recently that the Packers are better when he's on the field?  And did he under perform on the biggest stage last year?  18 receptions for 260 yards and 3 touchdowns in three playoff games suggests he's not performing as poorly as people suggest.

Why do everyone use players or coaches comments as facts?  What is Rodgers going to say?  That Cobb sucks?  His numbers the last year and a half have been below what was expected, I don't think anyone can refute that.  He's only gone over 1000 yards receiving once in his career, yet he's being paid as the 15th best WR.  Of the players being paid more than him, how many of them have had 1 or less 1000 receiving yard seasons?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's only 3 of them.  And two of them (Allen Hurns and Keenan Allen) just signed extensions coming off their rookie contracts.  The other one (Tavon Austin) is being discussed as a very real cap casualty IIRC.

39 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

There are points to be made for cutting Cobb, but would you - would anybody - argue that it's a no-brainer?  That's my point here.  It certainly isn't.  If it's a no-brainer, he'll be cut.  I'm betting he won't be.

I'm not sure implying it's a no-brainer, there's a very real argument to make.  And I think it's foolish to suggest otherwise.

[MacReady]

Just now, CWood21 said:

I'm not sure implying it's a no-brainer, there's a very real argument to make.  And I think it's foolish to suggest otherwise.

And that's the only reason I was discussing it.  It's closer to being a no-brainer to keep him than it is to being a no-brainer to cut him. 

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, HorizontoZenith said:

And that's the only reason I was discussing it.  It's closer to being a no-brainer to keep him than it is to being a no-brainer to cut him. 

Honestly, I'd disagree.  I'm closer to releasing him than I am to keeping him.  I'm not sure why the Packers have gone away from Geronimo in recent weeks.  At a quick glance, I think it's because of injuries since Jordy Nelson missed most of the Falcons game and Cobb missed the entire Bengals game.

[Mazrimiv]

2 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Super duper good argument.  I'm awed by your debate skills.  Repeat the same thing over and over again, say counterpoints are irrelevant with no backing them up.  Gonna have to remember that strategy. 

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am out to convince you of something.  I am not.  I do not address your points because IMO they have little to do with the core question of whether it makes any sense for the Packers to pay Cobb an additional 9.5M next season that they are not obligated to.  IMO it is a no-brainer to let Cobb walk.  If you feel otherwise, I have no issue with us having differing viewpoints.

[MacReady]

Just now, Mazrimiv said:

IMO it is a no-brainer to let Cobb walk.

Two questions:

1. Do you believe the Packers front office is smarter than you when it comes to football decisions?
2. If you answered yes to the previous question, will you admit that you had no brain when you made this statement if Cobb isn't released leading into next year?

If it's such a no-brainer, the Packers front office would have to have no brain not to do it.  If they don't do it, it wasn't a no-brainer, in which case it was pretty foolish to suggest it was a no-brainer, right?