To me it’s a lot like Ryan Pickett... lots of tread left. About the same age when he (prospectively) joined the team. Wants to win.
I don’t think they can afford to keep Cobb if they want Wilk...
packerboi posted:CUPackFan posted:It'd be pretty ridiculous if they kept Cobb and Jordy. With Adams new contract, it would give those three a total cap hit of $36m. The three are numbers 10, 11 and 16 cap hits at WR for 2018. No way that happens.
Correct. Unfortunately for Cobb, there is a slew of slot WR's who are free agents this year. And in Green Bay, they are also log jammed at slot WR with Monty, Cobb, the current version of Jordy and even Geronimo Allison.
Unless Cobb takes a major pay cut, I can't see him as a Packer in 2018. The Packers could easily find a younger, cheaper vet FA WR and wipe Cobb's inflated salary off the books.
When Ty Montgomery was placed on injured reserve halfway through the 2017 season, it looked like his days at running back were coming to an end, especially with Jamaal Williams and Aaron Jones taking over the position. But it looks like Montgomery is not going to change positions anytime soon. Mike McCarthy spoke to the media last week (per Rob Demovsky of ESPN) at the NFL Scouting Combine and he said Ty Montgomery will remain a running back in 2018.
You can call Ty anything. Just cause Cobb took some handoffs doesn't make him Reggie Bush either.
I don't mind Ty wearing a runningback number one bit, I just don't think he is best used getting more than an handful of carries out of the backfield a game.
He'd look good in Green N' Gold.
The #Jaguars have informed WR Allen Robinson that they won’t be applying the franchise or transition tag, I’m told. The team has until March 12 to work out a deal before he’s a free agent.
— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) March 6, 2018
packerboi posted:He'd look good in Green N' Gold.
The #Jaguars have informed WR Allen Robinson that they won’t be applying the franchise or transition tag, I’m told. The team has until March 12 to work out a deal before he’s a free agent.
— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) March 6, 2018
Yeah we need to spend more cap money on wide receivers...
Nope. Dump Cobb and Jordy. Sign Robinson. Make Allison your 3rd WR. Draft a couple WR's to refill cupboards. Robinson and Adams outside would make #12 pretty giddy.
Nothing like QB & WRs occupying 50% of the cap space. Oh, did you say you wanted a good defense too? Good luck.
Seriously, it is going to be a blend of 2nd tier FAs and draft picks this year if they don't create some more cap room.
Cobb deal was probably only slightly more generous than it should be, almost as bad as the A.J. Hawk.
You can blame Rodgers for that Cobb contract.
packerboi posted:Nope. Dump Cobb and Jordy. Sign Robinson. Make Allison your 3rd WR. Draft a couple WR's to refill cupboards. Robinson and Adams outside would make #12 pretty giddy.
And draft one of the top 3 TE on the board...(AR's nips just got hard).
Of course Rodgers wanted Cobb resigned. At that time, he was arguably the best slot WR in the game, and they were extremely productive together. And I recall him giving the Packers a hometown discount to resign.
Rodgers' relationship with Cobb is one of the things that concerns me when discussing the possibility of cutting Cobb rather than asking him to take less money. I know it is a business, and players generally understand that. But my understanding is that Nelson and Cobb are two of Rodgers best friends on the team. Rodgers stood up in Cobb's wedding. Would Rodgers be bitter if we cut Cobb? Would that impact the attempt to extend him?
I recognize that we are venturing into dangerous territory when we consider giving a player that much influence, and I'm not necessarily advocating it. But it is the reality of the situation (see, e.g., the displeasure Rodgers voiced after MM cut ties with Van Pelt).
Lambeau Lobo posted:Of course Rodgers wanted Cobb resigned. At that time, he was arguably the best slot WR in the game, and they were extremely productive together. And I recall him giving the Packers a hometown discount to resign.
Rodgers' relationship with Cobb is one of the things that concerns me when discussing the possibility of cutting Cobb rather than asking him to take less money. I know it is a business, and players generally understand that. But my understanding is that Nelson and Cobb are two of Rodgers best friends on the team. Rodgers stood up in Cobb's wedding. Would Rodgers be bitter if we cut Cobb? Would that impact the attempt to extend him?
I recognize that we are venturing into dangerous territory when we consider giving a player that much influence, and I'm not necessarily advocating it. But it is the reality of the situation (see, e.g., the displeasure Rodgers voiced after MM cut ties with Van Pelt).
You nailed it...you cut Jordy and Cobb, or either one, you are gonna piss off #12. I wouldn't go there...They can afford to sign any FA they want, it's all about contract structure.
packerboi posted:Nope. Dump Cobb and Jordy. Sign Robinson. Make Allison your 3rd WR. Draft a couple WR's to refill cupboards. Robinson and Adams outside would make #12 pretty giddy.
That's actually a really good idea. I like it!
GreenNgoldBlood posted:Lambeau Lobo posted:Of course Rodgers wanted Cobb resigned. At that time, he was arguably the best slot WR in the game, and they were extremely productive together. And I recall him giving the Packers a hometown discount to resign.
Rodgers' relationship with Cobb is one of the things that concerns me when discussing the possibility of cutting Cobb rather than asking him to take less money. I know it is a business, and players generally understand that. But my understanding is that Nelson and Cobb are two of Rodgers best friends on the team. Rodgers stood up in Cobb's wedding. Would Rodgers be bitter if we cut Cobb? Would that impact the attempt to extend him?
I recognize that we are venturing into dangerous territory when we consider giving a player that much influence, and I'm not necessarily advocating it. But it is the reality of the situation (see, e.g., the displeasure Rodgers voiced after MM cut ties with Van Pelt).
You nailed it...you cut Jordy and Cobb, or either one, you are gonna piss off #12. I wouldn't go there...They can afford to sign any FA they want, it's all about contract structure.
It's business. AR understands that better than anyone.
I'll be surprised if Cobb or Jordy are released. I can see a deal restructure to reduce Cobb's cap number.
yes, I think they both - or at least 87 will re-structure, i think we keep both
Goalline posted:GreenNgoldBlood posted:Lambeau Lobo posted:Of course Rodgers wanted Cobb resigned. At that time, he was arguably the best slot WR in the game, and they were extremely productive together. And I recall him giving the Packers a hometown discount to resign.
Rodgers' relationship with Cobb is one of the things that concerns me when discussing the possibility of cutting Cobb rather than asking him to take less money. I know it is a business, and players generally understand that. But my understanding is that Nelson and Cobb are two of Rodgers best friends on the team. Rodgers stood up in Cobb's wedding. Would Rodgers be bitter if we cut Cobb? Would that impact the attempt to extend him?
I recognize that we are venturing into dangerous territory when we consider giving a player that much influence, and I'm not necessarily advocating it. But it is the reality of the situation (see, e.g., the displeasure Rodgers voiced after MM cut ties with Van Pelt).
You nailed it...you cut Jordy and Cobb, or either one, you are gonna piss off #12. I wouldn't go there...They can afford to sign any FA they want, it's all about contract structure.
It's business. AR understands that better than anyone.
No ****. WTF is with the super pals hand wringing?
YATittle posted:
Triplett is gone, too!
Hungry5 posted:I'll be surprised if Cobb or Jordy are released. I can see a deal restructure to reduce Cobb's cap number.
Even with losing a step, judging Jordy's worth on the basis of last season is pretty silly. When MM's (glorified OC) 3 year project is bunny hopping all around the pocket it's not much of a sample. The only pass Skippy Longstockings could make was a 5 yard out or a wide open Dainty Lady Ankles Adams, which is why Adams justifiably got paid.
Jordy taking a cut seems pretty logical and it doesn't sound like Nelson disagrees. Cobb, I wouldn't be surprised if he plays at the same number. Not saying I like it but I wouldn't be surprised.
SanDiegoPackFan posted:Bidness ?
Yes, in the correct parlance, BIDNESS.
Henry posted:Goalline posted:GreenNgoldBlood posted:Lambeau Lobo posted:Of course Rodgers wanted Cobb resigned. At that time, he was arguably the best slot WR in the game, and they were extremely productive together. And I recall him giving the Packers a hometown discount to resign.
Rodgers' relationship with Cobb is one of the things that concerns me when discussing the possibility of cutting Cobb rather than asking him to take less money. I know it is a business, and players generally understand that. But my understanding is that Nelson and Cobb are two of Rodgers best friends on the team. Rodgers stood up in Cobb's wedding. Would Rodgers be bitter if we cut Cobb? Would that impact the attempt to extend him?
I recognize that we are venturing into dangerous territory when we consider giving a player that much influence, and I'm not necessarily advocating it. But it is the reality of the situation (see, e.g., the displeasure Rodgers voiced after MM cut ties with Van Pelt).
You nailed it...you cut Jordy and Cobb, or either one, you are gonna piss off #12. I wouldn't go there...They can afford to sign any FA they want, it's all about contract structure.
It's business. AR understands that better than anyone.
No ****. WTF is with the super pals hand wringing?
Of course we all wish it wasn't so, but in many cases, it's the reality of the situation. If that wasn't true, then why was Rodgers apparently irritated about the Van Pelt ,and why did he go public with his thoughts? See here: Rodgers on Van Pelt
Two takeaways from from that situation: (1) relationships matter, and (2) communication is critical, especially if you're going to take action that impacts key relationships.
At the very least, Rodgers' thoughts on the Van Pelt move suggest that the Packers' new front office should at least keep open lines of communication with him. I'm not saying that moves need his approval, but explaining the collective vision to your franchise player could be a productive exercise.
*Cue comparisons to the latter part of the Favre era*
Correct. Which is why the Packers will need to heavily re-structure 87 and 18. Or even 52. Or release Cobb/Nelson.
In today's @WiStateJournal ~ Pursuing Wilkerson and having an 'aggressive' free-agent mentality may be exciting, but #Packers need more cap space to make those things happen. https://t.co/ZOGtE2V5P0
— Jason Wilde (@jasonjwilde) March 7, 2018
Lambeau Lobo posted:Of course we all wish it wasn't so, but in many cases, it's the reality of the situation. If that wasn't true, then why was Rodgers apparently irritated about the Van Pelt ,and why did he go public with his thoughts? See here: Rodgers on Van Pelt
Two takeaways from from that situation: (1) relationships matter, and (2) communication is critical, especially if you're going to take action that impacts key relationships.
At the very least, Rodgers' thoughts on the Van Pelt move suggest that the Packers' new front office should at least keep open lines of communication with him. I'm not saying that moves need his approval, but explaining the collective vision to your franchise player could be a productive exercise.
*Cue comparisons to the latter part of the Favre era*
It's the reality in your head. Rodgers making comments about Van Pelt are just comments, about a coach, who doesn't have the same contract status or affect the cap like a player.
It's a business and if Rodgers were to be that petty then it's time to trade him because he'll bleed the organization dry, which I don't believe to be the case.
While Rodgers had a relationship with Van Pelt, Van Pelt was directly connected to Ding Dong Pocketrunner. So if MM is going to take heat, like he should, Van Pelt should take even more heat considering he was the ****ing QB coach.
The last paragraph is a hell of reach. You don't think the "lines of communication" had anything to do with the **** show on defense? Christ, we all know Rodgers is the most important player on the team but if you think those changes were solely made based on him then the entire coaching staff should've been fired. There's a limit to what any player can pull, even Rodgers.
If Murphy is such a spineless twit then the future doesn't bode well.
packerboi posted:Correct. Which is why the Packers will need to heavily re-structure 87 and 18. Or even 52. Or release Cobb/Nelson.
In today's @WiStateJournal ~ Pursuing Wilkerson and having an 'aggressive' free-agent mentality may be exciting, but #Packers need more cap space to make those things happen. https://t.co/ZOGtE2V5P0
— Jason Wilde (@jasonjwilde) March 7, 2018
Since Gutekunst is claiming to be more aggressive in FA the question becomes what is the balance of jettisoning Cobb and/or Nelson vs. what's a available in the FA market? You lose those two and you have Adams and Monty as a utility guy with a bunch of questions marks behind them. That's why I think Cobb could stay at his current contract number considering he's still young and has played well in the past. Again, I think he should take a cut but as fans we fantasize more about what should be and not who has leverage.
If they clear that kind of cap space I would hope it's for two substantial signings on the defensive side of the ball but then you're relying on the draft for WR. That definitely puts the pressure on Adams. Not that a rookie can't be successful but when playing with a technician like Rodgers we've seen young guys struggle at first. I guess a mid tier WR would help balance it out. Not sure how ready Allison is to take the next step.
mrtundra posted:YATittle posted:Kirk Triplett is gone, too!
Jeff, but yeah!
@Henry if I am reading it right, we'd gain about $18M by cutting both, and eating about $5m...not bad if true. Kind of a no brainer.
Don't forget about the possibiliy of cutting Bulaga. That's about another 4 million (net).
If I'm Gutey, I approach JN, RC, CM about restructuring. If you can get all three to do it and you cut Bulaga, there is plenty enough cap room to be "aggressive" if all three say no, then you have to cut at least one of them. In terms of age that would be Jordy.
If you had any idea how long AR would play/be awesome, the best thing in the long run for this team would be to cut all four. Be aggressive in FA, draft a reciever and a pass rusher, then hope that your offense can still be productive with DA and GA as your top wideouts.
Guke will no doubt have to make some tough decisions, but indeed if he wants to add a couple of instant veteran difference makers at say CB, DE, or even WR or TE, he's got to be willing to cut some of the bloat on this roster.
Wilde even mentioned Perry as a possibility despite signing his new deal just last year.
Another possibility: GB has 12 draft picks. I can't imagine that the Packers will in fact draft 12 players. And if they did, what are the chances of all 12 making either the 53 and/or practice squad? That leads me to wonder if teams like Seattle who needs picks or another team with say 5-7 draft picks coming up would be willing to be trade partners with GB.
Is there a young vet CB or OLB or ? sitting on someone's roster buried in the depth chart that could be traded to the Packers for say a 4th or a couple of 5ths?
One other thing to consider. If the Packers do in fact sign Wilkerson, that would leave a rotation of Kenny Clark, Daniels, and Wilkerson. So, what does that do to Monty Adams and his development? The Packers spent a 3rd rounder on this kid.
Not saying GB shouldn't kick the tires on a Pro Bowl veteran, but that move would bury Adams pretty deep in a position that the Packers seem to be well stocked to begin with.
#Seahawks CB Richard Sherman has told teammates goodbye over the past 24 hours, sources say, and that he won’t be on the team. Those close to him say nothing is set in stone and there has been no official word. But clearly bears watching.
— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) March 7, 2018
Joe Thomas is considering retirement. Last chance for a trade.
packerboi posted:One other thing to consider. If the Packers do in fact sign Wilkerson, that would leave a rotation of Kenny Clark, Daniels, and Wilkerson. So, what does that do to Monty Adams and his development? The Packers spent a 3rd rounder on this kid.
Not saying GB shouldn't kick the tires on a Pro Bowl veteran, but that move would bury Adams pretty deep in a position that the Packers seem to be well stocked to begin with.
I don't disagree but all four of those guys have injury history and it is likely one if not more will miss a game or more. Can't have enough quality depth at any position. If Wilkerson is affordable you have to consider bringing him in.
packerboi posted:Guke will no doubt have to make some tough decisions,
The #Eagles had a deal with the #Seahawks yesterday morning for DL Michael Bennett. Then a third team jumped in and the deal stalled. Last night, it became clear it was happening, though Philly officials were still researching. Now it’s happened.
— Ian Rapoport (@RapSheet) March 7, 2018
The rich got richer with that Eagles trade for Bennett.
Looks like Seattle is in full rebuild mode.
packerboi posted:Looks like Seattle is in full rebuild mode.
Agree. They needed to anyway with that OL. They weren't going to restock in just one year to address the OL and keep all the Legion guys. Best to let the aging vets go elsewhere, use the $$ to build an OL, and restart the D with younger guys.