TheOnlyThing Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 4 hours ago, CWood21 said: There's a whole lot of hindsight being used in this thread. Majority of the forum was stoked when they signed Martellus Bennett. Who cares if the majority of the forum was stoked? The majority of Packer fans were not stoked when Rodgers was selected either. Opinions of forum posters are often wrong, so it is a good thing they are not being paid multiple millions by our favorite team to make important roster decisions. As for moving on from Cook, hindsight, foresight, or no sight, only those with blind faith in the "front office" could still be arguing that moving on from Cook and signing the signings of Bennett, Kendricks, Graham, and Lewis to take his place has not been a net negative for the Packers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted September 11, 2019 Author Share Posted September 11, 2019 Bill Huber: This is LaFleur from today on Goodson: "I would anticipate seeing him quite a bit out there. He’s been all ball since the moment he got here. ... You could see it the other day in practice on our bonus day, it looked like he’s been here for a while." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 2 hours ago, Packerraymond said: Everyone was pounding the table for Cook when the season ended. Who here wasn't? have pound marks, can show 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 [someone better take that sweet, sweet setup] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 1 hour ago, TheOnlyThing said: Who cares if the majority of the forum was stoked? The majority of Packer fans were not stoked when Rodgers was selected either. Opinions of forum posters are often wrong, so it is a good thing they are not being paid multiple millions by our favorite team to make important roster decisions. As for moving on from Cook, hindsight, foresight, or no sight, only those with blind faith in the "front office" could still be arguing that moving on from Cook and signing the signings of Bennett, Kendricks, Graham, and Lewis to take his place has not been a net negative for the Packers. Because a post without context has no meaning. As I pointed out earlier, Jared Cook's first season AFTER Green Bay was damn near identical to the season that Jimmy Graham just came off of. So why are people lamenting the fact that the Packers chose not to re-sign Jared Cook and are jumping at the opportunity to release Jimmy Graham for savings? If you wanted to argue that the Packers would have saved more long-term by going with Jared Cook, I could probably understand that sentiment but there was this tweet by Rob Demovsky shortly after Martellus Bennett's deal was leaked. So let's use that as a baseline, let's say $6.5M was the amount that Jared Cook was willing to sign for. The Packers signed Jimmy Graham for $10M/year. Are you telling me that the Packers are so desperate for the $3.5M difference between the two contracts? Or is it just the irrational "new toy syndrome" in full effect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 2 hours ago, Packerraymond said: Everyone was pounding the table for Cook when the season ended. Who here wasn't? And after Martellus Bennett signed with the Packers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snackattack Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 24 minutes ago, CWood21 said: And after Martellus Bennett signed with the Packers? everyone thought we got the better deal with martellus at the time. boy were we all wrong... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 I bet Outpost knew we should have signed Cook. And he was the only one that knew. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 11 minutes ago, Norm said: I bet Outpost knew we should have signed Cook. And he was the only one that knew. Nah, he only wanted Cook if we traded Rodgers as part of the deal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSG Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 6 hours ago, Joe said: Not to distract from the debate, but you really don't think we have the RB position set with Aaron Jones? Aaron Jones has a higher average YPC and the only difference between the two is really the fact that Kamara has had more opportunities to produce. I'm willing to bet that Jones would be more productive than Kamara has been if he had been given the same amount of carries and targets since their rookie year. YPC is such a misleading stat and is a terrible way to judge talent. I love Aaron Jones but there is absolutely no way you can put him in the same tier as Kamara when it comes to being a receiver. Aaron Jones is a lot closer to being below average or mediocre than he is elite when it comes to being a receiver. Aaron Jones has had plenty of opportunity he just hasn't shown that he's capable of taking advantage of it by staying healthy. Not only is Kamara a better player he's substantially more durable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSG Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 6 hours ago, Joe said: Again, all echoing my point. Jones may not be the best in pass-pro, I'll definitely admit that; but put him in that New Orleans offense over his entire career with a far superior strength and conditioning team and he's just as productive as Kamara if not more productive. So the only thing a RB in the NFL needs in order to be an elite receiver is targets? I feel like this would is exactly the same as looking at MVS's YPC last year and saying the only thing he needs is the same amount of opportunity in order to outproduce Julio Jones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted September 11, 2019 Author Share Posted September 11, 2019 Ross Uglem: Packers play five of their next six at home. If they can achieve a 4-2 mark through that run, they'll sit at 5-2. 75% of 5-2 teams make the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 10 minutes ago, Leader said: Ross Uglem: Packers play five of their next six at home. If they can achieve a 4-2 mark through that run, they'll sit at 5-2. 75% of 5-2 teams make the playoffs. More interested in what % of teams make it after 7-0. More relevant. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted September 11, 2019 Author Share Posted September 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, incognito_man said: More interested in what % of teams make it after 7-0. More relevant. But perhaps its relevance is offset by its likelihood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOnlyThing Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, CWood21 said: Because a post without context has no meaning. As I pointed out earlier, Jared Cook's first season AFTER Green Bay was damn near identical to the season that Jimmy Graham just came off of. So why are people lamenting the fact that the Packers chose not to re-sign Jared Cook and are jumping at the opportunity to release Jimmy Graham for savings? If you wanted to argue that the Packers would have saved more long-term by going with Jared Cook, I could probably understand that sentiment but there was this tweet by Rob Demovsky shortly after Martellus Bennett's deal was leaked. So let's use that as a baseline, let's say $6.5M was the amount that Jared Cook was willing to sign for. The Packers signed Jimmy Graham for $10M/year. Are you telling me that the Packers are so desperate for the $3.5M difference between the two contracts? Or is it just the irrational "new toy syndrome" in full effect? Yep context matters and so do facts. "The Packers gave Bennett a $6.3 million signing bonus as part of a three-year, $21 million contract" not a 3 year $18.45 million contract as alluded to above. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22597937/arbitrator-denies-green-bay-packers-attempt-recoup-part-martellus-bennett-signing-bonus Cook signed a 2 year $10.6 million dollar contract with Oakland. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-orleans-saints/jared-cook-6042/ Now, Cook may well have been demanding at least $1.2 million year more per year (or $6.5M annually as you contend above) to stay in GB rather than the $5.3M per year he eventually got in Oakland. Or, that could be GB "front office" spin, which certainly seems to be Cook's position: In any event, over $10M of the Packers 2018 salary cap space was devoted to Graham and Bennett during the 2018 season and their return on that investment was 55 receptions, 636 yards, and 2 TDs. Meanwhile, for <$6M against the cap in 2018, the woeful, dysfunctional, Jon Gruden led Raiders got 68 receptions, 896 yards, and 6 TDs out of Jared Cook. Cook was a better player and cheaper option at TE when compared to the Packers TE in 2017 and Cook was a far, far more productive and a much, much cheaper option at TE in 2018 when compared to the Packers TE. Oh, and Cook signed a 2 year deal with New Orleans this past offseason for $15M. Are there any Packer fans who, at this point, would rather not have Cook on their team for an $8M cap hit in 2019 as opposed to Graham's $12.6M 2019 cap hit? Hard to look at the record of all that has transpired at the TE position in GB since the "front office" chose not to re-sign Cook in March of 2017 and not think it did not have a negative impact on the team, but no doubt some will continue to argue just that. Edited September 11, 2019 by TheOnlyThing 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.