TheBitzMan Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 9 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Oh, I completely forgot players doing the right thing and getting open don't get targets. Emmanuel Sanders had 50 targets that year. As a rookie. So you're saying that Antonio Brown, the best receiver in the NFL right now, took more time to be ready for frequent targets than a third round pick? Crazy to think that higher picks are picked higher because they're probably more NFL ready. Crazy. Just crazy to think that as a later round rookie receiver he was less ready for the NFL than an early round rookie. And..AND He had 28 receptions more than your 20 reception baseline this whole argument started on... Also add that to the 16 that Antonio had that is 44 receptions by 3rd and 7th round rookies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donzo Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, TheBitzMan said: I am not underrating Cobb - He is an average football player LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted August 23, 2018 Author Share Posted August 23, 2018 Just now, TheBitzMan said: And..AND He had 28 receptions more than your 20 reception baseline this whole argument started on... Also add that to the 16 that Antonio had that is 44 receptions by 3rd and 7th round rookies. Lol. You missed one important detail... I never mentioned 3rd-7th round rookies. It was 4th-7th round rookies. You know, since our rookies were selected in the 4th-6th rounds. Because we're talking about the context and chances of our receivers (4th,5th,6th rounds) having a shot. Sanders = 3rd round pick. Brown = 6th round pick. I literally laughed at this "gotcha" attempt. You didn't get me. You missed the whole point. I'll clear it up for you. Since 2000, percentage of receivers drafted having over 20 catches in rookie years. 1st round - 81% with over 20 receptions. 2nd round - 61% with over 20 receptions. 3rd round - 33% with over 20 receptions. 4th round - 24% with over 20 receptions. 5th round - 18% with over 20 receptions. 6th round - 5% with over 20 receptions. Do you see that sharp spiral down? That's your gotcha attempt spiraling down the drain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, Donzo said: LOL! This is just the trap of what he thinks is average versus everyone else's definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBitzMan Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 8 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: There's no amount of logic involved here. If Cobb sucks as much as you say he does, what team will pay him 9 million? If Cobb doesn't suck enough to be worth the 9 million, why would we trade him? Why would we cut him to afford Mack when cutting Matthews saves us more money? There's no ground to stand on in this argument. There is logic you just refuse to ever see a counterpoint. If the people who drafted the WRs and watch them every day think they can be an adequate replacement while adding Khalil Mack with Cobb's space, you really believe that you are smarter and more logical than them? Wait don't answer that... If Cobb sucks as much as you say he does, what team will pay him 9 million? the answer is none, which is why if the report is true of him being shopped (which I have 0 faith in Mike Lombardi) no one has offered anything. If Cobb doesn't suck enough to be worth the 9 million, why would we trade him? If we don't need the cap space there is no point to just letting him walk. May as well play out the year. Why would we cut him to afford Mack when cutting Matthews saves us more money? Because defensive depth is much more important to this team and they just invested 3 picks into the WRs. Mack/Matthews/Perry rushing on 3rd down? Count me in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted August 23, 2018 Author Share Posted August 23, 2018 Just now, TheBitzMan said: There is logic you just refuse to ever see a counterpoint. If the people who drafted the WRs and watch them every day think they can be an adequate replacement while adding Khalil Mack with Cobb's space, you really believe that you are smarter and more logical than them? Wait don't answer that... This is a horse****, stupid, insulting and borderline childish statement to make. We're not discussing a move that's been made. We're discussing the merit behind a potential move. I could literally say the exact same thing and be as pretentious as you. Want to see? "If the people who watch the rookies every day don't think they can be an adequate replacement for Cobb, do you really think you are smarter and more logical than them?" Do you see how ridiculous that kind of statement is? We're not discussing something that the Packers have done, we're discussing whether or not they'll do it. So far, Cobb hasn't been traded. Thus, so far, my line of thinking is closer to the Packers than yours. If Cobb had already been traded, your line of thinking would be closer. Every day that passes with us NOT having traded Cobb is a day that confirms my standpoint... Do you get that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 2 hours ago, TheBitzMan said: Here are the facts - They have been messing around with Davante in the slot during the preseason and they clearly value versatility in their WRs. Cobb is only a slot guy, the least athletic WR they have and is injury prone. I am guessing Gute isn't fond of a $9M cap hit for that player especially when he just drafted 3 of the most athletic WRs in the draft. He clearly has a type. You trade him if it allows you to open up cap space for another move. If not keep him for this year and move on next year. Either way losing Cobb doesn't amount to our outlook being ****ed. He clearly has a type. Or they wanted to add a certain body type to their group. When you're complaining about Cobb's athletisicm I think we're being a little greedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, TheBitzMan said: I think out of three rookies and Kumerow we can get 66 receptions and 600 yards (those are Cobb's last two seasons of production). This isn't how this works. I can get 30 recs out of 3 cheap guys. It doesn't mean that's better than having the guy who gets 90 on his own. How do people think that makes sense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 We need real football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBitzMan Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 1 minute ago, Outpost31 said: This is a horse****, stupid, insulting and borderline childish statement to make. We're not discussing a move that's been made. We're discussing the merit behind a potential move. I could literally say the exact same thing and be as pretentious as you. Want to see? "If the people who watch the rookies every day don't think they can be an adequate replacement for Cobb, do you really think you are smarter and more logical than them?" Do you see how ridiculous that kind of statement is? We're not discussing something that the Packers have done, we're discussing whether or not they'll do it. So far, Cobb hasn't been traded. Thus, so far, my line of thinking is closer to the Packers than yours. If Cobb had already been traded, your line of thinking would be closer. Every day that passes with us NOT having traded Cobb is a day that confirms my standpoint... Do you get that? That would be true if the report we are arguing wasn't "the packers are shopping Randall Cobb". That would lead me to believe that Gute sees an adequate replacement on the team or a way to get one. I was never arguing just cutting cobb for fun. I was arguing doing it to acquire something better for the team. Your just bending everything to fit what you want which is fine. I know that Cobb has value while you refuse to relent even for a second someone could see things different than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted August 23, 2018 Author Share Posted August 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, Norm said: This isn't how this works. I can get 30 recs out of 3 cheap guys. It doesn't mean that's better than having the guy who gets 90 on his own. How do people think that makes sense... We're not talking about sense right now. I take Fackrell, Biegel, Gilbert and Erik Walden over Clay Matthews because those four guys can total ten sacks in a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 42 minutes ago, TheBitzMan said: Your whole argument lacks context. For example Antonio Brown had 19 total targets his rookie year. You are completely disregarding opportunity in this whole argument. Show me rookie WRs with 50+ targets with an elite QB. Some guys aren't ready to get 50 targets.. Just throwing guys out there who aren't ready and throwing them tons of balls isn't automatically productive. I know you know that but your posts seem to lean the other way. They just need chances...I don't agree on general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted August 23, 2018 Author Share Posted August 23, 2018 Just now, TheBitzMan said: That would be true if the report we are arguing wasn't "the packers are shopping Randall Cobb". That would lead me to believe that Gute sees an adequate replacement on the team or a way to get one. I was never arguing just cutting cobb for fun. I was arguing doing it to acquire something better for the team. Your just bending everything to fit what you want which is fine. I know that Cobb has value while you refuse to relent even for a second someone could see things different than you. Didn't you literally gen minutes ago say you didn't believe the report we are shopping Cobb? That report has since been debunked. In fact, the new report is that teams called about Cobb and we weren't interested. You know that Cobb has value while I refuse to relent someone can see things differently? WHAT IN THE ACTUAL HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WITH THAT STATEMENT? Between the two of us, I'M the one saying Cobb has value and we should keep him. Serious question... Do you know what you're arguing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 31 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Tell me a team with a worse receiving corps than Davante Adams and Geronimo Allison as their 1 and 2. Dallas. I win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted August 23, 2018 Author Share Posted August 23, 2018 1 minute ago, Norm said: Some guys aren't ready to get 50 targets.. Just throwing guys out there who aren't ready and throwing them tons of balls isn't automatically productive. I know you know that but your posts seem to lean the other way. They just need chances...I don't agree on general. He is completely missing the point in everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.