Randall Cobb is Back!!!· Page 4

musccy
Veteran Member

9 years ago

It seems like a big contract now, but will be a bargain in two years. That's a Ted Thompson special.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

assuming this contract isn't heavily back loaded (could be wrong) then I agree with you, although also acknowledge his contract is close to current fair market value for him. If the cap keeps going up 10/year, yeah, it'll look favorable for the Packers, but for now it seems appropriate.

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#32

I would rather to have Cobb signed for about 7 years - making the cap hit less and keeping him past age 31 - years he should still be at the top of his game. Apparently Cobb wouldn't go for anything that long term though.

I see a large difference between this and the Jennings situation. Cobb is a lot more unique and a lot younger, both of which make this signing a very good thing, and letting Jennings go for what the Vikings paid him a no brainer also.

Having Nelson, Cobb, Adams, Janis, and Abbrederis gives the Packers about as good a WR corps as any team in the NFL. I would rather put extra WRs on the field than have deep threat TEs.

So good job, Ted - on this one anyway.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

buckeyepackfan
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#33

I just smile wide reading that now it's only about the guaranteed money...there was nary a mention of guaranteed money until after the deal was announced. That is what is so funny, here. You looked bad with your fingered diarrhea on this forum and now you need to change course to deflect.

Actually, it's about the cap... yes, guaranteed money factors into that but his overall cap hit is what matters and it's long term effect on it.

You keep saying I think I'm so smart.... I don't recall ever saying anything to that effect on this forum. It must be some insecurity on your part. I can't help if I prove to be right and you wrong all the time.

There is no singular agenda. Although, it is quite clear I'm not drinking the Ted Thompson koolaid like so many here. I think he's got some incredible strengths and some incredible weaknesses leaving him a tad above average. I can tell you he is the wrong GM to be in charge of a franchise with a special QB as we have now. His move with Randall shows me a little something. I'm proud of him for keeping a young star. It would've been devastating on many levels for him not to have done so.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Done with you already.
Not going to let you spam this site at my expense.

The rest of the members who have posted on this thread have given their opinion of the deal.

You on the other hand have to take every topic and try and make it about how you would do things.

Of course you ALWAYS Have to have the last word.

How about a 1000 words on why Ted Thompson is the wrong man for the job.

We all miss those posts!

I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!

Yerko
Senior Member Topic Starter

9 years ago

#34

Cobb was being offered upwards of $11-12 million from teams that will not be in contention next year. Instead, he took a smaller contract to come back to his home team. Why can't people be happy about that?

Aside from his freak injury two years ago, has Cobb not proven to you that he is worth such a contract? If not, who are you comparing Cobb's production/contract to that would say otherwise?

sschind
Senior Member

9 years ago

#35

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker

I will go on record as saying there is no way in hell Cobb would have signed for 7 years. I think 5 would have been the max. BUT, had he signed for 7 it would have included a lot more money and most likely more guaranteed so it is not a given than the cap hit would have been less. If they went with the same average and same % guaranteed that would have been almost 30 million guaranteed which would have been a SB cap hit of almost 6 million per year (SB can only be averages over 5 years not the life of the contract.)

sschind
Senior Member

9 years ago

#36

Originally Posted by: musccy

The Packers don't seem to like back loading deals. Its not good for the players and its not good for the cap in the long run. Players know they won't see the end of those types of deals so unless the up front money is much better they won't go for them. You don't see the Packers with many cap casualties. By that I mean guys being cut just because of their cap hit. That is what you get when you see 5 year deals with base salaries of 2,4,6,11,13 million. they last two are generally not going to be seen. IMO players like Jones and Hawk were not cap casualties They were not cut because of their cap numbers they were cut because of their performance. Had their performance been a notch better they would have been considered bargains at their price. I would be very surprised if year 4 of this deal is one of those types of years. His cap hit may be near 11,12 million by then but I think it will fit in with the rising cap (we assume) quite nicely.

There are certain players that you might have to pay a bit over market price for but that does not mean it will kill your cap. You just have to make sure you pick the right ones to overpay for.

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#37

I would disagree about backloaded deals not being good for the cap - that's the reason why they happen. I would also disagree about them being bad for the player because almost always, they are accompanied by a fairly big bonus. You likely wouldn't see $2,4,6,11, and 13 million. You might, however, see $1,4,5,7, and 9 million with a $9 million bonus - the same $36 million in a more attractive way to the player and not bad at all on the cap.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

sschind
Senior Member

9 years ago

#38

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker

I should have been clearer. Back loaded deals are not good for the cap in the long run. Short term they can be great. Back loaded deals with large bonuses cause lots of dead money when the player is cut and the last two years of the SB accelerate. Back loaded deals force teams to make cuts based on salary cap implications rather than performance. Teams are forced to cut players they would prefer to keep simply because their large salaries make it impractical. Then when they are cut the SB acceleration kicks in and leave the cap hurting with dead money. So now, not only have you lost a talented player that simply couldn't afford to keep but you still have to count a large portion of his bonus against the cap. I'd prefer, to pay a guy early on when you are reasonably sure he will perform and then if his production slacks off you can get rid of him and not have to count a bunch against the cap. Also, a front loaded deal or a more uniform deal will allow a teams to retain a player in the later years even if his production slips a bit but not terribly so because he is not counting a ton against the cap. That's one reason why we got Peppers last year. I think the Bears would have liked to have kept him but by making his salary 13 million and adding more bonuses to the tune of another 5 million or so they simply couldn't justify the 18 million dollar cap hit so they had to cut him. As a result they still had to count 8 million against the cap. Had they paid him a little more in 2011 (when he was producing) they may have been able to keep him around in 2014. That is just one example and there may be more to it than that. I don't know what their cap situation was in 2011 so maybe they needed it structured that way or maybe.

IMO pushing large amounts of salary and bonus money into the future is not a good thing.

Also, another thing I didn't make clear but in my example I had assumed a signing bonus over and above the salary amounts since most multi year deals include a signing bonus. I was talking the 36 million as strictly salary. I just didn't make it clear. That is my fault for not specifying. You are right, on a strictly 36 million dollar deal your structure would make more sense and would be more realistic.

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#39

OK, Sschind, I suppose I see your point, but I still see the process as more good than bad even considering the long term. If the guy is young enough and good enough, you can generally take the risk he won't end up cut at the end. Instead, when the last couple of years come along, you restructure in a more cap friendly way. It would work for somebody like Cobb but not for somebody older or not as good. I just wish Ted would push the limit to improve the team way more than he does. There is a large difference between "cap hell" and too far from the cap like the Packers have been.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

9 years ago

#40

Saturday morning, I told Jimmy to get it done. I was scared. No lie. I didn't know if Green Bay had given up on me or what, since we hadn't heard from them in two weeks, since their last offer. I was nervous. I said, ‘Get it done. Whatever I have to do to get back to Green Bay, just make it happen.’

Randall Cobb wrote:

You have to admire the brilliance by the Packers here. The best sales tactic is to have the balls to walk away and that's what the Packers gave the impression of with Randall Cobb.

And then there is this. Zing!

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Martha Careful (11h) : Z, could you please combine my thread with yours please. I obviously did not see it when I Created it

Martha Careful (14h) : Re: 'Kool-Aid' McKinstry. Other than Icky Woods, has there ever been a good NFLer with a childish nickname?

Martha Careful (15h) : Packers looking to trade up

Martha Careful (18h) : Flag?

Martha Careful (18h) : Sag?

Nonstopdrivel (18h) : It rhymes with "bag."

beast (26-Apr) : Family? That's Deadpool's F word

Nonstopdrivel (26-Apr) : Not THAT f-word.

Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : fuck

beast (25-Apr) : 49ers are Cap Tight

beast (25-Apr) : Fuck

Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : Kanata, I will be when I'm on my lunch later

TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : Love you NSD

Nonstopdrivel (25-Apr) : Huh. I guess the F-word is censored in this fan shout.

Nonstopdrivel (25-Apr) : Anyone who doesn't hang out in the chat probably smokes pole.

TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : GoPackGo Thinking CB is the pick tonight

TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : Anyone hanging out in the chat tonight?

Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : whoa...49ers have had trade conversations about both Deebo Samuel and Brandon Aiyuk

Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : I hope they take a Punter at 9th overall. Be bold!

Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : I may end up eating those words but I think they need a lot more talent then their 4 picks can provide

Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : I really hope they stand pat and Draft a WR

Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : @DMRussini

Mucky Tundra (25-Apr) : The Chicago Bears are very open for business at 9 and telling teams they are ready to move for the right price, per source

buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend Penei Soul 4yrs - 112mil

buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend St. Brown 4 years 120mil and

Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : Now look, trading up to 13 to take a TE might not seem like a good idea later but it will be later!

dfosterf (24-Apr) : (Your trade up mock post)

dfosterf (24-Apr) : Mucky- The only thing fun to watch would be me flipping the f out if Gute goes up to 13 and grabs Brock Bowers, lol

beast (24-Apr) : DT Byron Murphy II, Texas... whom some believe is the next Aaron Donald (or the closest thing to Donald)

Zero2Cool (24-Apr) : What? And who?

Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : *sad Mucky noises*

Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : @JoeJHoyt Murphy said he’s been told he won’t slide past pick No. 16.

wpr (23-Apr) : Just about time to watch Sonny Weaver stick it to the seahags. I never get tired of it.

Martha Careful (23-Apr) : *game plan

Martha Careful (23-Apr) : IMHO, not even close. He is not a guy you game play around.

Mucky Tundra (23-Apr) : is Aiyuk worth a 1st rounder?

Zero2Cool (23-Apr) : 49ers are seeking a 1st round pick in exchange for WR Brandon Aiyuk

Mucky Tundra (22-Apr) : Based on Gutes comments, now I don't feel as silly having 13 picks in my mock the other day

Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Zach Wilson to Broncos.

Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Gutekunst says he'd love to have 13 or 14 picks. He's trading back huh lol

beast (22-Apr) : Someday we'll have a draft betting scandal

beast (21-Apr) : Sometimes looking extremely amazing, sometimes looking extremely lost

beast (21-Apr) : I haven't looked into the QBs, but some have suggested Maye has some of the most extremely inconsistent tape they've seen

beast (21-Apr) : Well it also sounds like Patriots are listening to trade offers, not that seriously considering any, but listening means they aren't locked

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Maye needs to be AFC

Mucky Tundra (21-Apr) : Not liking the idea of the Vikings getting Maye

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Vikings HC joked that he may or may not have sent flowers to Bob Kraft. That's where rumor came from.

beast (21-Apr) : Can't tell if this is real or BS, but some rumors about a possible Patriots/Vikings trade for #3 overall

dfosterf (21-Apr) : One playbook to my knowledge. I was shooting for facetious.

beast (20-Apr) : I'm not sure they have different playbooks for different OL positions, and Dillard run blocking is supposedly worse than his pass blocking..

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2023 Packers Schedule

Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM

Bears

38 - 20

Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM

Falcons

24 - 25

Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM

SAINTS

18 - 17

Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM

LIONS

20 - 34

Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM

Raiders

13 - 17

Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM

Broncos

17 - 19

Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

10 - 24

Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM

RAMS

20 - 3

Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM

Steelers

19 - 23

Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM

CHARGERS

23 - 20

Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM

Lions

29 - 22

Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM

CHIEFS

27 - 19

Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM

Giants

22 - 24

Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM

BUCCANEERS

20 - 34

Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM

Panthers

33 - 30

Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM

Vikings

33 - 10

Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM

BEARS

17 - 9

Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM

Cowboys

48 - 32

Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM

49ers

21 - 24