CWood21 Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 Just now, incognito_man said: there are a lot of wrong ways to do things. I mean, I've used Joe Flacco as a "toxic" contract as an example in previous years. There are healthy and toxic contracts, which is generally the difference between teams with healthy cap situation and those that don't. Teams that can spread the cap hit relatively evenly over the life of the contract tend to be viewed as more sustainable contracts. I mean, I'll use Fletcher Cox as an example. He's uncuttable until after the 2019 season. They incur too much dead cap by releasing him that they end up having a bigger cap hit. The way that contract is structured, if the Eagles don't want to have Cox have a $22M cap hit for the 2019 season, they'll have to renegotiate his contract. That isn't the case with Nelson or Cobb. They're both at the end of their contracts, and their contracts don't go past this upcoming season. The Packers can afford to hold onto their contracts if they're not going to spend it elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, CWood21 said: I mean, I've used Joe Flacco as a "toxic" contract as an example in previous years. There are healthy and toxic contracts, which is generally the difference between teams with healthy cap situation and those that don't. Teams that can spread the cap hit relatively evenly over the life of the contract tend to be viewed as more sustainable contracts. I mean, I'll use Fletcher Cox as an example. He's uncuttable until after the 2019 season. They incur too much dead cap by releasing him that they end up having a bigger cap hit. The way that contract is structured, if the Eagles don't want to have Cox have a $22M cap hit for the 2019 season, they'll have to renegotiate his contract. That isn't the case with Nelson or Cobb. They're both at the end of their contracts, and their contracts don't go past this upcoming season. The Packers can afford to hold onto their contracts if they're not going to spend it elsewhere. but they will spend it elsewhere, or lose Adams. That's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted December 10, 2017 Share Posted December 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, incognito_man said: but they will spend it elsewhere, or lose Adams. That's the point. Except as I already showed in the other thread, the Packers can re-sign all their key FA and not lose Davante Adams. The only thing that paying 3 WRs $10M+ is that it takes them out of being players in FA. If they release Cobb, that $9M that I "projected" the Packers grows closer to $18.5M. IF they're going to be players in FA, then that absolutely makes sense. If they're not going to use that money, they're not following the CBA. It's not really this complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 1 minute ago, CWood21 said: Except as I already showed in the other thread, the Packers can re-sign all their key FA and not lose Davante Adams. The only thing that paying 3 WRs $10M+ is that it takes them out of being players in FA. If they release Cobb, that $9M that I "projected" the Packers grows closer to $18.5M. IF they're going to be players in FA, then that absolutely makes sense. If they're not going to use that money, they're not following the CBA. It's not really this complicated. you're right, it's not complicated at all. It's very simple: nobody pays 3 WRs that much money because it's not smart. And we won't either. Whatever mental gymnastics you want to do to try to avoid that is over-complicating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 Just now, incognito_man said: you're right, it's not complicated at all. It's very simple: nobody pays 3 WRs that much money because it's not smart. And we won't either. Whatever mental gymnastics you want to do to try to avoid that is over-complicating it. Your argument was that the Packers CAN'T pay 3 WRs $10M+, arguing that keeping Cobb would prevent the Packers from re-signing Davante Adams. As I showed in the other thread, that simply isn't the case. Keeping Cobb doesn't prevent them from re-signing their own players, it likely keeps them from being active in FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 Just now, CWood21 said: Your argument was that the Packers CAN'T pay 3 WRs $10M+, arguing that keeping Cobb would prevent the Packers from re-signing Davante Adams. As I showed in the other thread, that simply isn't the case. Keeping Cobb doesn't prevent them from re-signing their own players, it likely keeps them from being active in FA. you're making things up. I've said about 100 times that they won't. They could pay 53 WRs $150 million. But they won't. Won't =/= Can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 Just now, incognito_man said: you're making things up. I've said about 100 times that they won't. They could pay 53 WRs $150 million. But they won't. Won't =/= Can't. Ok...so if the Packers aren't paying $12.5M to Randall Cobb, what do you think they're going to do with that extra $9M they're saving by releasing Randall Cobb? As I've already stated, they can already utilize their current cap space to re-sign Davante Adams, Morgan Burnett, and Davon House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 Just now, CWood21 said: Ok...so if the Packers aren't paying $12.5M to Randall Cobb, what do you think they're going to do with that extra $9M they're saving by releasing Randall Cobb? As I've already stated, they can already utilize their current cap space to re-sign Davante Adams, Morgan Burnett, and Davon House. they will spend it on someone(s) that don't play WR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevein2012 Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 GB has cut players before when their play dropped off relative to their contracts. Guys like Woodson, Driver, Barnett I believe all ended up cut. Not really anybody as young as Cobb but I also can't think of anyone who has gotten that big of a contract and had that big of a drop in production. an anyone think of a young player that got a top 10ish contract and had their play drop that much but played out their deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 Just now, incognito_man said: they will spend it on someone(s) that don't play WR So you believe that the Packers will be active in FA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 1 minute ago, CWood21 said: So you believe that the Packers will be active in FA? I believe they will spend that money elsewhere on the roster through a variety of avenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 Just now, incognito_man said: I believe they will spend that money elsewhere on the roster through a variety of avenues. There's only a finite amount of ways to spend money. You either re-sign your own players, you sign other teams FA, or you extend contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, CWood21 said: There's only a finite amount of ways to spend money. You either re-sign your own players, you sign other teams FA, or you extend contracts. Agreed. There is truly a finite number of avenues to acquire players for money in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siman08/OH Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 I honestly believe we will pay Davante and keep Cobb. Who knows what would have happened if Rodgers didn’t get hurt...Cobbs numbers may have exploded. Nelson’s surely would have been better and Adams would probably be better than they are. The next 3 games and possible playoff games will show how valuable these 3 really are to the team. Nelson wasn’t made for these short quick routes. Cobb should be but he hasn’t really clicked with Hundley. If we ball out I want all 3 back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmansmell Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 Devante is a beast, just not necessarily the prototypical beast that people think about (ie Moss or Julio). Dude is good for 5+ yards on a short rpo, and wins slants automatically. Not to mention, he's a jump ball option, and can stretch the field on double moves and in general with 12's balls. The thing about Cobb to me is that Monty could play that role for pennies next year, and Jones and Williams will be fine at RB. Plus we could go get a vet slot guy to take reps. Cut Cobb and chase Graham in my opinion. Then let TT work his second round magic, he's pretty much 4/4 with some legit stars as well right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.