Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Film Review: Should the Packers Keep Randall Cobb?

By Category

Film Review: Should the Packers Keep Randall Cobb?

The topic everyone seems to be talking about this week in Green Bay is whether or not Randall Cobb is ultimately worth the remaining $12,718,750.00 that he is set to make in the final year of his contract. Should the Packers release Cobb they would still owe him $3.25 million, but would save almost $9.5 million that they could use to help bolster the roster elsewhere.

This will be one of the first major decisions of new GM Brian Gutekunst’s career. No matter what decision he makes, the response is likely to be divided. I did a quick poll of five of the more respected Packers’ Twitter film reviewers; three were in favor of keeping Cobb while the other two thought he should be released.

I did the same with the CheeseheadTV writing staff, and the result was much more in favor of keeping Cobb with 9/10 writers voting to keep Cobb at his current contract. The staff over at 107.5 The Fan seem to be more on the side of releasing Cobb, as you can hear below as we dig into today’s film review and our topic for the Friday Film Room:

Before we get started, there’s some great content out there already that you should familiarize yourself with:

Chris Peterson wrote that Green Bay can’t stand pat at WR:

Zach Jacobson wrote how Aaron Rodgers could be vocal in keeping Cobb/Nelson:

Brian Jones wrote about the difficult decision the Packers face with Cobb:

Zach Kruse wrote about how one NFL Insider would be surprised if GB kept both Cobb & Nelson:

Gregg Rosenthal listed either Cobb/Nelson as the 2nd most likely candidate for release this offseason:

Jack Wepfer just recently wrote a great article examining the Cobb decision:

Lastly, Freddie Boston wrote about expectations for Cobb in 2018:

As you can see there is plenty of information out there about what the Packers could/should do with Randall Cobb. If you’ve been a frequent visitor to Twitter, you’d have likely seen a lot of discussion and video there as well.

Any video review for Cobb should start with Dusty Evely’s great thread here:

While obviously that video isn’t all from the 2017 season, it gives you a great idea of what Cobb has brought to the table throughout his career in Green Bay.

Aaron Nagler also has had some great highlights from 2017 posted:

Here’s a few more videos from 2017:

While all of these are really good videos to watch and show what Cobb is capable of, I wanted to take a deeper dive, I wanted to see what Cobb looked like with a healthy Aaron Rodgers against a good secondary. I wanted to review the full game and see exactly what it looked like in 2017. With that in mind I put together a full cut-up of the Seahawks game from Week 1 to see exactly what Cobb brought to the table:

Part 1

Part 2

This is where you can see exactly what Cobb is, what he isn’t, and what he can bring to the table. You’ll see plays where Cobb gets open deep, where he’s triple covered, where zone coverage covers him up and gives him no chance, plays where he’s triple covered, where he gets tackled easily, where he makes people miss, and much more. You see a little bit of everything from Cobb.

Here’s what I saw in my full film review from Cobb in 2017. Green Bay is better with Randall Cobb on the field than without him, full stop. He makes Aaron Rodgers better, and he makes the offense better. He knows the system, he’s adept at coming open after the play breaks down, and he still shows enough juice in his legs to be able to work himself open on key plays throughout the course of a game and season. He’s reliable, he has great hands, he’s still quick out of his breaks, and while he rounds his routes a bit, he’s a solid overall route runner.

What Cobb isn’t is a game-breaker or a consistent game-changer. As we talked about a bit with Jordy Nelson, the wide receiver position is a position that is made up of playmakers who can make explosive plays and get huge chunks of yardage in a single play. Over the course of the past 3 years, Cobb hasn’t been that. He’s had three plays over 40 yards in his last 47 games. He’s had 0 plays over 50 yards over the same time period. Does the offense get considerably worse if Cobb doesn’t play; I’m not sure it does.

I believe at the end of this debate, Zach Kruse put it best with these two tweets:

Zach of course is right, it’s not just about whether or not Randall Cobb is a good player, or whether or not he makes the Packers marginally better, it’s about limited resource allocation and finding the absolute best way to build a roster given the resources available. If releasing Cobb frees up almost $9+ million to be able to use on a more explosive player, or a corner such as Trumaine Johnson, than to me that’s the way to go.

Juggling a roster is difficult. It means constantly recalibrating the roster to try and find the best pieces to help the team ultimately win a championship. For as successful as Ted Thompson was, he didn't do enough of this for my liking. I understand it's difficult because it means having to let go of players who have been developed in Green Bay, who have been loyal to the team, and who have been fan favorites. But if that's the cost of winning championships, than those are decisions that need to be made.

For my money, the resources currently allocated to Randall Cobb could be best used to help build a better, faster, stronger defense. Or to get a weapon on the outside who can create those explosive type plays.

Green Bay is better with Randall Cobb than without him, but Green Bay would be better with Trumaine Johnson, Aaron Colvin, Marquise Lee, and a plethora of other free agents as well.

It’s not a bad decision to keep Randall Cobb at his current cap figure, but it’s a better decision to move on and use the money more effectively overall. Brian Gutekunst has an unenviable decision to make; and his decision will go a long way in shaping the roster in 2018.

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 5 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (113) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Lphill's picture

Great work on the article and film , I hope they find a way to keep him he is still young and when healthy can be productive .

Turophile's picture

Great stuff on the video clips, Andrew. Very informative as always. I very much enjoyed looking at them.

I guess the bottom line with Cobb is performance to price, and whether a replacement is in the pipeline.

My WAG on the price, is that he is a definite keeper at $9m, not so much at $12m, but that is only half the story. The other half is that there is no replacement in the pipeline. Don't think of Montgomery as an alternative, he is much better at RB. I doubt any imported veteran WR will be any better than Cobb, they might be cheaper, but not better.

Personally, I'd keep him over Jordy (if it came down to losing one of the two) as he is half a decade younger and is not at the point where age slows you down (which Jordy is). It is a shame to have to say that about Nelson, he is a great fan favourite after all, but age always gets you at some time.

My favourite scenario would be for Nelson to take a substantial cut, and Cobb to take a smaller one, with a second round pick spent on getting Jordy's eventual replacement this year. Cobb's pay cut is somewhat optional though, I'd still tend toward keeping him, even if he refuses any cut.

Cobb's contract is up next year anyway, so the Packers could keep him through this year, and re-evaluate (and if they still like what he brings, re-negotiate) at that time. If they feel they should let him go then (due to stacked injuries, for example), then they can go to a new draft (the 2019 one) for his replacement.

nigrivasilayesrej's picture

This article is terrific! Unfortunately, all of the energy invested in writing the above linked articles, & studying all of the corresponding film was unnecessary. We could have saved ourselves a lot of time/effort, if we had simply asked John Kirk if Randall Cobb passes his eyeball test. Johnny Boy?

John Kirk's picture

I appreciate the respect. (sarcasm) He is one of my all time favorite Packers.

The best argument for keeping him is he's in a contract year. That's when guys put their best foot forward and play through injuries. I heard Charles Haley talk about this once about how never to let anyone tell you otherwise that guys aren't playing harder in contract years. Cobb's best is worth a lot.

He's had a season of almost 1300 yards with 91 catches and 12 TD's.

James Jones said in his radio spot with Wilde and Tausch from earlier this week that Cobb is vital to all the packages the Packers run. I'm sure MM loves him like 12 does.

Sentimentality is no way to run a football team, though. Cobb hasn't produced anywhere near justifying his upcoming salary. He has prior to the big money. I have no doubt he'd put up a big season because it's his contract year. Adams got his. Jordy doesn't need his. Sounds like Cobb's time to shine, but I wouldn't pay him that. He had 3 years to validate himself after the money and he didn't.

It's a little ironic that Cobb and Nelson are in the positions they're in now. It wasn't that many years ago this debate raged about which one we should keep? Turned out that Ted kept both. Jordy did the org a favor with his deal back then and he's going to do it again. Does that mean that Brian will do what Ted did and keep them both? There was no 3rd guy getting a prodigious contract back then, though. Now, there's Adams with his 14.5 million AAV. I say no way they pay all 3. Someone has got to go. I'd let Jordy go and sign an outside guy in FA, and extend Cobb to a much cap friendlier deal, if not releasing him to make both gone. One of them always had to's just been delayed by several years and Davante has now made that certain.

nigrivasilayesrej's picture

A simple "yes " or "no" would have sufficed. No need to ramble.

Nick Perry's picture

Thanks John...I appreciate your "Rambling" most times being a bit of a "Rambler" myself. Because if you read the comments more times than not you make excellent points. After all isn't that what CHTV is for? It's the absolute best site for fans to be able to come and express their opinions.

carlos's picture


John Kirk's picture

Thanks, NP... I always look forward to reading your well put together thoughts. There has never been a comment that was TLDR for me.

Since '61's picture

Nick - as a bit of a rambler myself (see my post below)from time to time I couldn't agree more.
Good post. Thanks, Since '61

John Kirk's picture

Lord, I was born to be a Packers fan... visiting CHTV and typing comments the best I can

When it's time for posting, l hope you'll understand that I was born a ramblin' man...

nigrivasilayesrej's picture

I hope the 3 of you brought your kneepads....

Jonathan Spader's picture

I wonder if the Packers go after a guy like Trumaine Johnson and if he'll sign for the right price use that as a determining factor on whether or not to keep Cobb. I don't envy Gute having to make this decision.

BigCheese2's picture

Dream signing. A shut down (island) corner and a perfect veteran presence and style match for Kevin King’s growth.

Bure9620's picture

Yup consistently creates separation and does so by being sudden at the top of routes.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Yes, and we also run a ton of picks and natural rubs for Cobb.

Denver's picture

I feel as though I watch entirely too much football year after year and am pretty knowledgeable on the subject. Therefore, it pains me to ask, "Who is Aaron Colvin?" Seriously, I have no clue.
Oh, and I'd vote to keep Cobb. I know that guy and want him on my team.

Bure9620's picture

Jax Corner opposite AJ Bouye

John Kirk's picture

I always think about the pass rusher from Purdue when I hear Colvin.

This Colvin plays CB for the Jags. He's not Jalen Ramsey or AJ Bouye but is getting a lot of love.

Aaron Colvin has no interceptions in his 4 year career and 14 PD's.

EnemyTerritory's picture

I'm no football expert but I'd keep him and Jordy. Maybe try to extend Cobb at a cap friendly deal out a year or two, same with Jordy. Cut Janis. If Cobb is a third or even 4th WR I think we'd be deep. Draft a speedster for the outside.

Cubbygold's picture

How does cobb become the third or fourth reciever? If you're paying him $12M he better be the clear #2 this year

HankScorpio's picture

Cobb has produced 1000 yards in one of his seven career seasons. He's got talent but he doesn't turn it into production. At least not the kind of production you want from the salary.

cuervo's picture

"Cobb has produced 1000 yards in one of his seven career seasons. He's got talent but he doesn't turn it into production. At least not the kind of production you want from the salary."

Agree 100%...this is no time for sentiment.

Danny Amendola is a better slot receiver than Cobb and is paid 1.5 mio/season. Edelmen is twice the player Cobb is and is paid 5 mio/season. Cobb is nothing special, and can be replaced with a plethora of players that can catch 60 balls averaging 9.5 yards from Rodgers.

If he stays with the Packers at his current salary, the Packers are essentially throwing in the towel for 2018. They need cap room if they want to improve the team, and easiest way to that is cut Cobb and replace him at 1/3 the cost.

If Cobb was paid 3-5 mio/season nobody would be questioning his worth....he's vastly overpaid.

Cubbygold's picture

Good comment. Has anyone projected what cobb would recieve in FA? Would he be looking at a 4 year $20M contract or something like that? Having that to reference wouldbe really helpful and I can't imagine he'll be getting anywhere close to $12M AAV. Even if its $5M like edelman, i think GB would be happy to sign a 3-5 year deal at that price

carlos's picture

That really puts it in perspective. He does seem over paid compared to other slot receivers.

BigCheese2's picture

Edelman isn’t half the player Cobb is. Different offense reliant on cross formation crossing and choice routes.

CheesyTex's picture

Cobb is a good receiver with one excellent (contract) year. IMO renegotiate to a favorable contract or goodbye and thanks for one special year.

stockholder's picture

I'm All for keeping Cobb. Homegrown talent, and still a fan favorite. Everyone says he's young, talented,tested, and a good teammate. Time to change the subject! A-Rod has not lived up to his contract by getting hurt. Does that mean we should let him go because we think he's going to get hurt? Had he stayed Healthy this team was super -bowl bound. LETS Draft younger and let the trouble makers wreck the team. After all; we could use that money to build a better team. Players are not MCDONALD TOYS and made in China. Cobb has done nothing to be put under the microscope. This is A-rods team. He gets paid to make sure players like Cobb get the ball. Hundley is not a A-RoD clone. The OL sucked. And if cobb ran the 40 at 4.34 , Hundley still couldn't get him the ball. Run down the field and throw the hail marry. Cobb will be in the end zone. But you guys want some zombie that will do a Bennett.

Worztik's picture

Hundley should have been replaced after his 2nd loss at Lambeau...!!!

Cubbygold's picture

"throw the hail mary"

Someone must have skipped the section of the article mentioning that Cobb has been terrible in the big play department. If GBs running the hail mary, cobbs unlikely to be the guy coming down with it.

dobber's picture

Yep...never gonna happen. ;)

Cubbygold's picture

Good memory, not exactly an example of his superior speed beating the defense, but he did catch the pass.

John Kirk's picture

...but a great example of a push off. :) The angle from the NFL promo is so much better than this TV copy but you can still see RC18 push off before he catches that one.

dobber's picture

Your sentiment is well-taken, though, Cubby. We don't think of 5'10" slot receivers typically catching the hail Marys.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

The issue isn't whether Cobb is still good or if Jordy is still good. The issue is money. We don't got any.

Sportrac say our cap space is $19.257M and OTC says it is $16.94M. I think we have $17.299M in cap space. We should then deduct $3.6M to sign draft picks = $13.699M to spend on FAs, using the rule of 51, which is what every source is using at this time. Obviously, in Sept. when cutdowns happen, all contracts count. We will have 10 PS guys ($1.29M min) and 2 more on the active roster ($960K min) for another deduction of $2.252M. So, about $11.447M to spend on FAs using that scenario, minus any rollover into 2019 you’d like to keep, and AR’s extension (which could add or subtract from our 2018 cap space). If you want to rollover $5M from 2018 into 2019, we can spend a grand total of $6.447M on free agents. That ain't sh$t.

So, IDK who still has it, but if Gute wants to sign more than one FA who costs more than chopped liver, he needs to prune some cap from Nelson/Cobb/CM3/Bulaga/Dix/Kendricks/Ryan, or convert some base salary or roster bonuses due to Bakh, Daniels, Perry, to a signing bonus because that’s about it for gaining space.

[I wrote the above on APC yesterday, so I guess Zack and Andy and I think alike. Don't tell me which FAs we ought to sign because there is practically no money to use, unless you also specify how you are procuring that cap space. We can fit one or two first year cap hits in under our cap space if necessary on one or two mid-tier guys.]

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

To use an analogy, GB fans talking about which FAs to sign is like going to a strip club: you get all excited but you still have to find a girl (woman/partner in these PC times).

CheesyTex's picture

Right on. And since this article is about Cobb, it just doesn't make sense to use so much cap space on a player that's just "good".

HankScorpio's picture

Has anyone heard an update on the Packers recovering Martellus Bennett signing bonus money? While I would enjoy the punitive effect on that tool, I'm really more concerned about getting back the cap space (about $4.2 mil)

carlos's picture

And putting the screws to him like he did to the Packers.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

No, I have no idea when that will be determined. I google searched it two days ago and nothing came up.

carlos's picture

Agree with you. Cap space is tight. How can the Lions sign Stafford to a big contract and still have so much cap space. Tough to compete against that. Isn’t Ball a cap expert? I hope his wheels are turning.

carlos's picture

How can the Lions pay Stafford so much money and still have a ton of cap space? Isn’t Ball a cap expert? I hope his wheels are turning.

carlos's picture

Sorry. I posted twice. I bad.

Tundraboy's picture

I dunno, saving $9M is awfully tempting. I value what he brings as I do Jordy, but we need more quickness and speed after Adams. Need real speed and length, and a true deep threat. Cut Davis, Allison sure, but we need someone experienced to plug in right away, so a FA WR is a must. We also have to find one in the draft. I'm tired of watching Rodgers play without a deep threat and TE. So, so frustrating.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Precisely. And I don't want to stick that $9.5M in a mattress, but use it to get better talent so we are real contenders in 2018. [Real contenders means we can win a super bowl with AR being really good, not superman.] Take the $9.5, add maybe $3M we get from Jordy ($12.5M) and buy a deep threat with speed. That player's first year cap easily could be say $6M if it is Richardson or Marquise Lee, less if it is Wilson or Moncrief. We'd still have $6.5M (or more) to deploy to shore up TE, RT, RG. Then we have our own cap we've been talking about, roughly $13 or $14M to spend, that can be used to acquire a veteran CB, and/or a low end safety, ILB for depth, whatever Gute thinks is best. Then we hope for a quality draft, maybe with some immediate help for a change.

Standing pat with the contracts of Nelson/Cobb,CM3/Bulaga/Dix and to a lesser extent, Ryan/Kendricks (we should probably keep Ryan and Kendricks, but there just aren't any other players who produce much of any cap savings), imo, means not much chance in 2018.

HankScorpio's picture

Boy, you're really scraping the bottom of the cap barrel to talk about cutting Kendricks and Ryan. But you're right about the limited cap space making those conversations legitimate discussion points. That's about $1.5 and $1.9 in cap savings, respectively. And they you have to fill their roster spots. In order to realize any actual savings, you need to do that with rookies, really. Basically, it boils down to whether you think they can be replaced by any warm body.

I'd be inclined to think you won't do better than Kendricks, who I hope can still show at least a little something with Rodgers back. I concede there is not much evidence for that opinion based on 2017. Ryan is too slow to be a productive player. I'd move on from him.

John Kirk's picture

I just don't believe they gave Adams that extension without having a plan in place. Org knew Ted was done long before they gave it. Well, maybe they didn't have a plan if they didn't know who was GM at that point? Very unfair to saddle the new GM to be with Adams deal considering everything else out there.

With all this cap talk related to Cobb, our paltry space hasn't taken into account Aaron Rodgers extension. That's the elephant in the room besides all these great points here.

Spock's picture

I disagree about "Very unfair to saddle the new GM to be with Adams deal considering everything else out there." comment. I suspect the new cap FA deals will be higher than advertised and doing the Adams and Linsley deals dropped their over-all cap hits. Ball got his new title, let him earn it!!

John Kirk's picture

I thought Vulcans were logical? :)

If you were hired for a new position in your company and a decision was made right before you took over that potentially changes how you would proceed in your new role, you might feel hamstrung. IE: If Brian is a big believer in Randall Cobb rebounding and is part of his long term plan, and he thinks Jordy has a few good years left because he was just banged up last year, he is now in a quandary because of Adams contract. Had Davante not been given the money he's freed up to not extend Davante and keep Cobb and Nelson. I'm not saying that would be the right move, but we don't know what Brian would have chosen had Davante's deal not been done right before he got hired. I'd be livid.

That decision...and I still wonder who made it, because I don't believe it was Ted...was a big one. I wonder if old newly appointed owner, Mark Murphy, asked everyone unilaterally for their opinion on Adams, or if he just had Russ do it thinking he was going to be the new GM anyway? There is a lot of things we don't know, and who decided to give that contract to Adams is something I'd really, really, like to know. You don't let a health impaired GM on his way out the door make that decision. I refuse to believe Ted made it...but somebody did and that was awful to do right before Brian got to come in to do things his way. His way is now greatly compromised by that move. What I'm really saying is, they should've had the GM in place before they committed to Adams, and Linsley. Brian already came into this weak enough having his hire and fire power stripped right before it was offered. Now, he has to navigate a cap situation that wouldn't be as glaring had those moves not been made.

Spock's picture

It's a screen name, but I AM logical which is why a high school teacher gave me the nickname (I think your "health impaired" comment is pretty sad, by the way.). Giving Adams and Linsley contract extensions last year spread out their contracts. How is it not logical to see that? I get that you don't think Adams is worth the contract; that's your opinion and we can agree to disagree about that as I feel Adams will continue to be an excellent player. I think Gute being "now in a quandary" over those two contracts is hyperbole to the max. I doubt very much that " His way is now greatly compromised by that move." Again, logically :), their contracts are only a part of the cap. I'm not buying what you're selling any more than I would anything Harry Mudd was offering the Star Trek universe. Spock to Kirk. Out.

John Kirk's picture

I know it's a screen name. i don't believe "Hank Scorpio" is a real name of a poster here, and the avatar kinda seals it. :) I'm not sure how i offended you? I was just poking fun at our Kirk Spock thing that you first brought to my attention.

The question you aren't looking at it is...What if Brian didn't want to extend Davante Adams? It doesn't matter now because he already is and that extension impacts what Brian does going forward. It wasn't his was someone else's. No hyperbole. Did Adams have to be extended? No.

As for Ted, I'm sorry if that offended. I don't see that any differently than speaking to Dom being half asleep in the press box. Ted showed clear signs of some form of impairment from my perspective and McGinn wrote about his declining health. It's not a slam on Ted. It's a slam on the org. Dementia, Alzheimer's, CTE, etc. are very serious and sad things to have to deal with.

marpag1's picture

"There is a lot of things we don't know."

Oh, so very, very many things we don't know. And yet you continue to talk about Ted's "dementia" anyway.


John Kirk's picture


Spock's picture

Not offended, just don't get why you feel my comment wasn't "logical". Since these deals were done before a new GM was in place they are no different than other deals done during TT's reign as GM. You gave an IMO disparaging remark about another human being (Ted), that doesn't mean I'm a huge defender of his GM moves. I try not to judge other people (try) based on how they appear to me. That's all I was saying about your comment. THAT offends me, not any personal comments you would want to throw at me. :)

John Kirk's picture

The Packers made the decision to remove Ted long before the extensions of Davante and Corey were given. Ted was at very very best the lamest of ducks. You made the point about other contracts Brian having to inherit and lumped them into the same realm as the most recent extensions.

The Linsley and Adams extensions were made official December 29th. Brian was officially named GM, January 8th. That's 10 days later. TEN! Our new GM has to deal with what was done 10 days prior that didn't need to be done. He may not have wanted to do what was done. We will never know. It's not disputable that those moves made ten days prior didn't have to happen. I'd like to know who made them. I do not believe it was Ted.

As to the issue that has caused anger. If I was to say, I had to go visit my dad to make sure his car keys were taken away because he had some health impairment that made him unsafe to drive and might have hurt himself and or others is that terrible? Ted needed the keys taken away. Anyone who thinks otherwise sees it very differently than I do. I was worried about Ted for the last couple of years. There is no mockery of him whatsoever pertaining to any health related issues. I'm very disappointed the org didn't remove him long before they did for performance reasons and health reasons.

zeke's picture

It depends. Do you refer to him as "mouth agape dad"?

John Kirk's picture

You're 100% right. That was awful and I apologize for that. I'd forgotten I'd typed that. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. A bad moment.

marpag1's picture

You do realize that Ted Thompson continues in the employ of the Green Bay Packers, right? Senior Advisor of Football Operations?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Packers are giving a top-level front office job (or even a patronizing, honorary title) to an old, senile, “mouth agape” Ted Thompson, who apparently needs the Packers organization to be eternally vigilant just to make sure that ol’ Ted never gets hold of his car keys? You say that you have been “worried about Ted for the last couple of years.” LOL. Do you honestly believe that the Packers somehow missed the supposedly obvious signs of declining health that only you and Bobby McGinn were able to perceive from afar, or that they inexplicably allowed someone so enfeebled with dementia as you imagine Ted Thompson to be to continue in the general manager’s chair while 60 million dollar contracts are being handed out?

Dude, that’s just painfully stupid, not to mention arrogant.

John Kirk's picture

First...YES. I 100% believe what you call "painfully stupid" and "arrogant".

You can laugh and mock all you wish. I'm sorry you never saw the signs that were obvious to some of us.

Here's Zach Kruse from twitter:

Zach Kruse
‏Verified account @zachkruse2
2 Aug 2017

Watch any Ted Thompson presser from the last 1-2 years and it's not difficult to understand why the questions about his future keep coming.

---I had conversations with people who follow this team who make a living doing so. I was told that all the media who covered the Packers knew there was something wrong with Ted but nobody would go on the record or even talk about it.

Further, I saw several moments with Ted that weren't "right" where you could tell something was wrong with him over the last couple of years. There was an interview he gave in Arizona at owner's meetings a year or two back that was really bad. You could tell something was wrong with him.

You can call me stupid and arrogant all day, and I would reply that you missed obvious signs that some of us didn't.

Can you answer why Ted is no longer GM of this team? Are you going to give me the CEO's answer? I find it funny so many Packers fans are so quick to write off Bob McGinn just because he doesn't write feel good stories. Are you saying Bob McGinn, an award winning journalist, just made that up? Long before Bob put out that piece on Ted's health I was asking questions and getting answers that there was something wrong. How do you explain Zach Kruse's tweet? Nothing was wrong?

There is not a single shred of doubt in my mind Ted was hidden by this organization. Do you want them to admit they let someone in his condition run the franchise? You think that's ever going to happen? You easily dismiss Bob's report that many on the board wanted to avoid further embarrassing shots of Ted like the one against Minnesota on SNF? There is much more going for Bob's reporting than there is for your dismissal of it.

EDIT: This was talked about here 15 days after the Kruse tweet...

What's the Deal with Ted Thompson?
By Jason Perone on Aug 18, 2017 with 54 Comments

Green Bay Packers General Manager Ted Thompson spoke on Thursday and every time he does, it leads me to ask: "What's the deal with Ted Thompson?"

---You're calling me stupid and arrogant while there were many who saw a man with obvious health issues? It's some terms I won't type to have not seen this and further to suggest that it's stupid and arrogant to think the org hid him? Again, I'll ask...Why do you think what happened to Ted happened?

Here's PackerReport's Bill Huber replying to a question of whether he thinks Ted is okay?

Packer Report‏ @PackerReport

no I don't. But what it is is anyone's guess. And no one will talk about it.

---a little over 4 months later Ted is out as GM after Murphy said Ted could GM as long as he wanted? You aren't putting the pieces together.

marpag1's picture

LOL. How do I explain Zach Kruse's tweet? Seriously, that's what you've got?

I explain it the same way I explain the crap you write. He's just another dude on the internet who doesn't actually know what he's talking about. As for your other questions, which you seem to think are so, so difficult for me to answer...

"Can you answer why Ted is no longer GM of this team?"
No. I assume people weren't happy with his job performance. Does that imply Alzheimers? No. Of course not.

Are you going to give me the CEO's answer?
Again, no. Neither am I going to give you the "wildass, crazy-eyed conspiracy answer." Someone already beat me to that.

"Are you saying Bob McGinn, an award winning journalist, just made that up?"
Made it up? Not exactly. I think that Bob is convinced in his own mind, as you seem to be in your own mind, Bob, that he is somehow able to identify dementia in Ted Thompson's pressers. That doesn't mean he did. Bob also seems to believe that somehow he was able to see the self-evident signs of dementia, yet the Packers, who work with Thompson every damn day, didn't see it. Okey dokey, stud.

Oh, and I also found this humorous: "There is not a single shred of doubt in my mind Ted was hidden by this organization. Do you want them to admit they let someone in his condition run the franchise?" IN HIS CONDITION, huh? LOL. So now we are using "his condition" to prove "his condition?" That's even dumber than "Oh, but I read it on the internet."

So how about you answer a question: Why is Ted Thompson currently serving as the Packers' Senior Advisor of Football Operations?

John Kirk's picture

I went back and read the comments to Jason's piece from August. You were going off on him like you are on me right now. You particularly didn't like this one:

***But when I listen to Ted over the past few years, it's painful. He sounds slow, sometimes aloof and, for lack of a better way to describe it, drunk. It's not lost on me that Thompson may have or may still be dealing with health issues leading to some of what we see and hear. That he's still Packers GM leads me to believe that those issues can't be life-threatening but how much might they be affecting Ted? ***

All Jason did is give his opinion based on what he himself saw with his own eyes and heard with his own ears. It's not his fault that you don't see the same thing. Your responses to him were as uncalled for as yours are toward me.

Why is Ted in the role he's in now? Is it not correct that the org would still be paying him whether they fired him, or not? I think the answer is found within your reactions to the suggestion that something was even wrong with him in the first place. If you can't properly process that part of it how are you (and the majority of the fanbase) going to process the idea that the org knew he was unwell and let him continue as GM whether that was nominally or not?

Can you give me another scenario in any sport at any level where a person was GM for a franchise for 13 years and then just disappeared never to be seen again? You don't find it odd that Ted never spoke to the change that he supposedly wanted? This was something that he wanted to do so why wouldn't he address the media? Go back and watch Mark Murphy's attempt at explaining why Ted wasn't there when the announcement was made he was moving into a new role. Yeah, that was comfortable.

I've already said that I don't believe Ted was running things this past offseason. What we did was completely out of Ted's character. You think the leopard changed his spots after 12 seasons on the job here and then told Murphy he just wanted to sit at a desk but never spoke to the media? Supposedly, per Murphy Ted was rejuvenated by this new role. He hated speaking about things with the media but he did it. He finally has something to talk about that he actually wanted and felt rejuvenated over and he decided not to speak about it? You insult me with your commentary on how stupid I am?

Again, Ted no doubt in my mind was hidden by this organization. I haven't heard a thing from you or anyone else for that matter that would even start me leaning that way. What else do you have on this? Tell me more of why I'm stupid and arrogant and you have the correct understanding. I love great debate. I hope you deliver some.

Oh, let's delve deeper into McGinn...first you wanted to dismiss him, and when questioned on whether he made it up on Ted, you replied..."not exactly" Did you read his piece? You claimed he was convinced in his own mind? Why would that be? He spoke to concerns of those within the org. If he didn't conjure them like you admit he didn't there has to be substance to them? Your commentary makes it sound like this was all just Bob's opinion. I invite you to read Bob's piece to refresh yourself. If "not exactly" truly is not exactly then you have to go back and realize that Bob quoted people and said executives with the team were telling him things to support what he wrote. Were those sources fabricated? For me, this is easier, because I saw the signs of decline personally before anybody wrote about them. To have Bob write what he wrote was just confirmation for me where if there was a debate someone couldn't just say you're stupid and don't know, that's just your opinion. Well, Bob buoyed the position with his piece. BTW, that piece never gets written if Bob isn't outside the typical media. Nobody was touching the story. That is a usual thing. I'm thankful Bob isn't constrained by his old job and is freer to write things he wishes. He was extra good on the Ball stuff that Wilde stated he was "too chicken" to write. There is so much we don't get to hear because our media just won't go there. I guess it's because there are many like you who don't want to hear things like that and get very unruly when they do.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

"Why is Ted Thompson currently serving as the Packers' Senior Advisor of Football Operations?"

Because he is under contract. Have to pay him either way. Even if he has a touch of dementia, even if he no longer can handle the full responsibilities of a GM, it doesn't follow that he can't do other things, like scout.

Moreover, we have no idea if he is actually doing anything. I see no reason to not give TT a courtesy title even if he is of no use, and mind, he might still be very useful.

marpag1's picture

I stand corrected, TGR. Old age has definitely pickled "Mouth Agape" Ted Thompson's brain. Photographic proof attached.

You say, [TT serves as Senior Advisor] Because he is under contract... Even if he has a touch of dementia, even if he no longer can handle the full responsibilities of a GM, it doesn't follow that he can't do other things, like scout."

Congrats on beating the hell out of that straw man. But yeah, you're right. When the Packers gave Ted Thompson a high level, senior advisor role, it certainly did not prove that Ted was useless. Who would ever suggest that a high level hiring would be proof of incompetence?

You know what else Ted's role as senior advisor most certainly doesn't prove? That Ted suffers from dementia.

John Kirk's picture

It was possible Ted would ultimately have no role within the org. It took Brian getting the GM gig for that to happen. They're buddies. Surprise.


***Thompson himself was unsure exactly what he should be doing for the first part of January because the specifics of his new role weren’t agreed upon in advance, according to a source. His level of future involvement truly hinged on whoever would be chosen as successor, and nobody knew what would happen if the Packers selected an outside candidate.***

You are making a huge deal out of his title. From the above, you can see how little that really meant. Ted was unsure what he should be doing??? Yeah, that sounds like a solid move there "willingly giving up the GM gig" for it. Ted told Murphy he wanted out of the GM position so he could be put into limbo as far as what he would be doing for the org? No.

If the man is 65 and burned out why did he get on planes flying around the country as soon as his position was figured out when his friend Brian got the job? He was reportedly off to Texas and California. Is any of this true? Do we know? Anyone seen him? If he's a scout maybe we'll see him in Indy? The piece at spoke to him putting in long hours in the tape room. What? A guy who is just overwhelmed and burned out is going to be flying around spending long hours in tape rooms. Ask yourself the question...Why would he be "burned out"...what could that possibly be a euphemism for? Consider the voices who have said he's suffering health wise. No possibility that Ted is physically unable to perform anymore? Why would that be? Marv Levy returned at 80 to GM the Bills.

You have glossed over a lot here to type your own narrative. That's not debate. Is there something wrong with Ted? You seem to indicate there isn't but I don't want to speak for you. How does nothing being wrong with him square with Murphy saying he wanted Ted to GM as long as he'd like just before last season started? No possibility that's a cover for later saying...Ted came to me and told me he didn't want to GM anymore and wanted to just scout? Give me an example of this ever happening...and then throw out the fact that the person who did this never faced the media to speak to the change that they supposedly wanted after 13 years in a prominent role within an organization.

Ted was already out of a lot of the admin stuff of his job per packersnews:

***Q: How much non-football administrative work do you still do? How much have you been able to farm out to Russ Ball, your vice president of football administration/player finance?

A: I wouldn’t call it farm out. When we first were able to get Russ here we set up a system so he was going to be in charge of some of the administrative stuff, most of the classic administrative stuff. Also within this organization there are certain things that come to me that I have to answer for or I have to make a decision on. Russ and I work together on those things, and he represents me at senior staff meetings – there’s a senior staff meeting going on right now. Everybody knows that, so it’s not that big a story. He does a great job of that, but I don’t take advantage of that, and I’m always involved in the decision itself, in that he and I are going to talk about it, whether it’s on the phone if I’m out scouting, or whether it’s here in the office because we can get together and talk about it before we decide on what’s the best way to go about it. But we always weigh in.***

---BTW, the above lends credence to the idea that Russ was going to be named GM, but I digress.

If Ted already had administrative duties handed over to Russ and he was already scouting and watching tape and missing out on Sr. staff meetings, what did Ted do as GM? It sounds like the only real change is...instead of getting final say, now, he only has input into someone else who has final say. How did this change reduce anything for Ted as far as his workload to avoid that burnout factor? He just doesn't make final decisions. Wow. Too old and worn down to do his job but now he does exactly as before but just doesn't make final decisions? Oh, and of course...the more media! My goodness, all that energy he expended doing an interview or two a year with his robotic answers. I can see why he needed to step down?

Ted was hidden. SNF vs. Minnesota was not a good look for any organization or business. How in good conscience could you leave someone looking like that in charge? Now, they don't have to worry. He's hidden. You have to recall, I've never said I know exactly what Ted's issue(s) is. I'm not a doctor, but I also understand when there's something wrong. See something say something. Many have. Ironic that as those moments happened more and more frequently Murphy says he's burned out and wanted a change.

So, let's talk... You believe Ted went to Mark Murphy and told him he just wanted to scout?
You believe there is nothing wrong with Ted's health?
You believe it's normal after 13 years to basically disappear?
Can you cite a single example of what just happened with Ted happening with any other GM in any sport on multiple press...not the GM...but will be advising the GM in an unseen advisory role?
Will you explain what parts of Bob McGinn's story are true and which are false because I'm not exactly sure what you believe there.

marpag1's picture

Dude, you're blubbering. Just stop. No, of course I'm not going to answer 8 million stupid questions that don't apply here anyway, like "Why was Ted flying around on airplanes?" or "What other GM did something like this?" It's amazing how many people on the internet are utterly incapable of understanding that you can put forward as many wildass theories as you want and they still don't add up to proof.

You say you're not a doctor and you don't know what the cause of Ted's dementia is. I'm not a doctor either, and I don't know what the cause of your dementia is. I'm not interested to find out.

John Kirk's picture

Dude, as I suspected. There is no debate you can bring to the table so now you will do as the Packers org did to Ted.

Blubbering? Rich. Just gold. Crying, you say? I knew you'd quickly lose interest in this and turn to insults. That is exactly what one does when they can not debate.

You've been checkmated by your own replies and you were wise to just give up the king.

I have dementia? Nah, I can cogently form thoughts and express them and I'm thankful for that, as I could lose that ability at any time.. I'm sorry you reached the end here and had to tap out. Oh, btw, I never said Ted had dementia. I have no need to insult you as your own actions are enough insult here.

It's disappointing you white flagged this. I was about to say..ready, or not, here I come.

marpag1's picture

LOL. Enjoy your perception of victory. If you figure out why Ted was flying on airplanes, be sure to let us know.

John Kirk's picture

No victory celebration. You forfeited. I was looking forward to an engaging point counter point but you obviously didn't feel you had the goods to keep it going. That is disappointing.

We don't know if Ted has been on a scouting trip, or not, or if he does go, if he needs someone to go with him to provide assistance.

Let's see if Ted is there in Indy. He should be, right? He is solely a player grader now. Should be absolutely no reason for someone not to get a glimpse of him at Lucas Oil over the next week.

The TKstinator's picture

When using an iPad, a large number of subsequent replies (as is the case here) results in a teeny tiny narrow column which I find amusing. Furthermore, I made this post just to get in on the action. (Kind of like BA Baracus.)

zeke's picture

The longer this argument goes on, the less cromulent it becomes.

John Kirk's picture

Gold star from Mrs. Hoover. Simpson's fan, eh?

Would you like to take over for marpag? This is an incredibly interesting topic. It's the 1265 version of the Bermuda Triangle.

John Kirk's picture

Ted isn't in Indy with the Packers contingent. Shocker! :)

carlos's picture

Not a fan of Kendricks. Backup maybe? Like Roger’s hands better. We talk about Cobb being overpaid, but I hear no one comment on if Nick Perry is living up to his contract.

HankScorpio's picture

"but I hear no one comment on if Nick Perry is living up to his contract."

It's mentioned frequently enough. There is no talk of cutting Perry because it would cost them more cap space than it saves.

carlos's picture

I don’t want Perry cut, but just wanted to comment on his contract due to being injured so often. I guess I didn’t explain or go into detail enough. Makes sense not to cut him. Just hoping to see him step up and stay healthy because I think he can be an all pro player. Hopefully Pettine can pull that out of him.

Tundraboy's picture

Thanks TGR. A team with Rodgers should have the best WR talent and a TE for Christ's sake, Why is this so hard to grasp. Saving cap money for a rainy day is wasting opportunity.

Cubbygold's picture

I don't think anyone is advocating for saving the money, the argument is that the money can be better spent. The savings on Cobb could potentially allow the team to land an outside WR with more speed and a better TE, giving Rodgers more weapons than he currently has. If Cobb was being paid a more reasonable salary, nobody would be talking about him.

dobber's picture

I think you (and others) have spelled out the way we need to look at this. The Packers can likely get 50-60 catches, 600-750 yards, and a 4-6 TDs on the open market for less than the $9M they'll save on Cobb...they might be able to do that on $6M and use the other $3M to land a player on a one-year deal who might start at RG...or someone who could be the 3rd CB...or the backup QB.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I didn't mean to shift the focus to Kendricks or Ryan: I just listed everyone on the roster who has over $1M in cap savings if cut. And there are only 4 or 5 guys who we could convert salary and/or large roster bonuses due in 2018 to a signing bonus to generate cap savings this year.

I think the way to go is to cut either Cobb or Jordy outright, but it might be possible to get $3M back from Jordy, extend Cobb and CM3 to get some relief of perhaps $10M or $12M. If we do that, if has to be negotiated probably early, by mid to late March, unless we are going to wait for May when comp picks no longer are an issued. Interesting times.

Spock's picture

TGR, I would be shocked if we don't see CM3 getting an extension soon to drop his cap hit. THAT has kind of been left out of the WR discussion, but really the WR discussion is about the cap and the overall cap hit discussions haven't been as intense about Clay's contract since he's defense not offense. We will see what Gute is about very soon. Personally, I don't expect to see a whole lot of FA moves that will excite Packer fans too much. Realistically, the Packers will be doing later day FA moves (hopefully a few more than TT was open to) if they do any. I don't get too excited over FA's because I believe more in the draft, but I do enjoy learning about the options out there. As always I appreciate your take on the cap money as it's something I just don't spend any time on researching. :)

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Hi Spock. Here is a link to Tex Western's suggestions at APC on extending CM3 to produce $4M to $5M in extra cap space for 2018. The $4M option seems possible, but then, IDK what CM3 thinks his value is.

EDIT: Didn't see your post and John Kirk's responses. I too have wondered if teams think the cap is going up more than generally supposed. It would make Adams' AAV more understandable. I can't believe that Jarvis Landry - a slot WR - is going to get a franchise tag at around $16M. Mind boggling to me.

Spock's picture

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out!

RobinsonDavis's picture

Finally! Thank you, dobber & TGR!!

If the idea is to cut Cobb so as to pick-up another slot receiver, I am not for it...there are so many other holes to fill. If Cobb is cut, I feel Nelson and/or Montgomery COULD perhaps fill-in at slot (though I love Randall's play). Likewise, many F/A outside WRs appear too expensive for our cap even with a Packer renegotiated contract. There are interesting free agents at WR, but also, a number of teams looking, thus increasing their projected values IMO. Summarizing: There is no doubt our contract situations need to be handled one way or the other. What to do with the money is the tricky question, as we have many needs with TE, OLB, O-line, & perhaps Safety, all lacking dependable depth as well.

RobinsonDavis's picture

I posted this under the other recent article regarding free agent WRs. Based on these alone, Cobb is still among the top at his position. He ranks #2 in the league out of all WRs in separation, #5 in catch %, and one of the best in drops per catch. Look at the drops for the other slot receivers who are free agents is appalling.

Player/Separation upon catch/catch percentage per target/YAC per reception/drops per catch.

Cobb 3.7yds 72% 6.6yds 1 drop for every 33 catches
Nelson 2.7 60% 2.2 1/26
Adams 2.8 64% 4.7 1/15
M. Lee 2.7 59% 5.1 1/7
R Grant 2.9 70% 5.1 1/22
J Brown 2.4 39% 2.7 1/31
Watkins 2.5 56% 5.0 Zero drops
Moncrief 2.2 56% 2.9 1/13
Richardson 2.4 55% 2.9 1/7
Gabriel* 3.0 65% 6.5 1/11

Slot Receivers
Wilson 4.1 68% 7.7 1/10
Ellington 2.9 51% 2.3 1/10

fastmoving's picture

all this stuff comes down to the question: will Jordy and RC be performing the upcoming season anywhere near the money they get for it? there is no sure way to know, but I would say the chances therefor are less than 30 percent. Jordy doesnt get any younger and cobb doesnt get any quicker or more shifty.
So I would cut both for sure.

dont know the exact numbers......but if AR gets 35M...than the QB and his 3 WRs gets around 75M or the half of the SC. thats sounds not like a good idea to me.
if you take than the other double digit M-guys (CM3, Perry, Bak, Bulaga and Daniels) out, the other 44 players on the roster make well under a Million (500 000?) on average. good luck!! or maybe I did something wrong with the math....hopefully.

And I hope Janis lands somewhere where he got a chance to play WR, I still believe he can be a good one. He is fast, tall and smart. Dont know about route trees and his hands (they have to give some explanations why they dont play him).....but when he got a chance, he always delivered.
Just would love that he got more chances with Philbin in charge now, but I dont think it will happen with AR and MM.

Jonathan Spader's picture

It's obvious that Janis is tall and fast. What makes you throw smart in there? Not trying to be condescending just genuinely curious. He has become an elite gunner in the NFL. However if he's smart or at least football smart why haven't we seen improvement in his route running?

How important is being smart to a football player? Blake Martinez was said to have a high football IQ and considered smart. He knows where the play is developing and translated that into a ton of tackles. If Janis was smart wouldn't he be in the right position to make a catch rather than seeming out of place more often than not?

fastmoving's picture

has much more to do with how he gets used. he got a higher wonderlic that all our WRs who considered smart.
if you listen to him and watch how he carried himeself, you know he is smart.
not sure if the route tree story is true, just because the guys here use it as reason?? Its more a thing that he is not on the same page with AR for whatever reason. If AR has to use him, he was really good actually.
the only solid argument is tht he does a little bit too many bodycatching, but thats not that a big of a deal. maybe he has a couple of drops more, than others but he is also much bigger and faster.
like I said before, he may be more productive at the and of the upcoming season than Jordy.......on another team that use him to his strenghts.
they refussed to play a lot of guys (for whatever reason) till they have to, who turned out pretty good here or somewhere else

Hematite's picture

The money factor alone tells me that cutting Cobb would be a good decision.
I'm glad that I don't have to be the one making that decision.
There is certainly no win win situation here.

Cubbygold's picture

Just curious, given that GB is going to have something like 11 draft picks, wouldnt it be possible to improve the cap situation further by making a trade rather than just cutting cobb? If GB cuts cobb, there's something like $3.5M still on payroll that limits the team right? Wouldn't a team like the browns be happy to take on salary in exchange for picks like they did with the Texans QB last year? Would a 5th round pick be enough to send cobb to CLE, clearing all $12M+. Since GB will have 4 5th round picks, i think thatd be worthwhile to burn one and free up that full space

Cubbygold's picture

To clarify, Id fully expect the browns to then release cobb since they're not in win-now mode. But they'd basically recieve a 5th round pick in exchange for retaining that $3.5M in dead cap weight.

If GB can sign a Moncrief for the space cleared by sending away a 5th round pick, that seems like an instant upgrade

SconnieSports's picture

The 3.5mil is signing bonus so Green Bay would have that hit against their cap even if they traded Cobb to another team. The only way it works to trade picks to shed salary is if the guaranteed money is part of the base contract. Good idea though!

Cubbygold's picture

Dang! Ok, thanks for clarifying

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

No one has tried to do what you suggest, Cubby, but there has been some discussion about whether the NFL would allow a team to trade a player or a draft pick for cap space. Cobb's $3.25M prorated signing bonus is not tradeable, but the concept remains, and a team can trade a guaranteed salary/bonus if it hasn't been paid yet. For example, Bakh has a $6M roster bonus due 3/16/18. Even if it is guaranteed, we could trade Bakh prior to that date and the new team would have to pay it and it would go on their cap not ours. Once it is paid by GB, that amount stays on our cap no matter what. GB has a policy against guaranteeing stuff in year two of most contracts (only AR has broken this rule IIRC), so this is difficult for GB to do in general.

When Osweiller got traded, the terms were gussied up a bit so it wasn't strictly offloading cap for a pick.

Chuck Farley's picture

Receivers are a dime a dozen. I don't think we have a replacement now but we can get one for way less than 12 mil. This guy has been oft injured to. The team needs some playmakers on d and that ain't coming cheap. Just hope mm doesn't play his trump card that Cobb knows his system. Ya so do all the d coordinators too.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Well, maybe they are a dime a dozen, but Janis, Davis, Yancey, Dupre make me think there is a difference between a good WR and ones that can't play WR.

Spock's picture


Savage57's picture

Packers 2018 WR cap hit is somewhere around $36M, 20% of the team cap. Add in AR's $22M and the four guys who play pitch and catch account for one-third of all the money you have to spend on your entire team.

Whether that makes sense or not is for the guys making north of $5M per year to decide, but looking at that, does anyone really wonder why this team's defense sucks out loud every year?

Tundraboy's picture

Makes sense when your team has Rodgers, WRs and LT, are the first priority. Get a decent TE, and take advantage of our young RBs and favorable contracts and we're set on O

Cubbygold's picture

Exactly. And when discussing a raise for Rodgers, that % gets even larger. It would be interesting to see what % of each teams salary cap is dedicated to their QB, top 3WRs, TE and LT. We could argue that since Rodgers is so great, that surrounding him with top talent makes the offense unstoppable. We could also argue that since Rodgers is so great, we could surround him with average talent, save money, and still have an above average offense with the resources to build a good defense. Which approach best positions the team to win a SB? Like you said, thats for the leaders to decide.

Personally I think Rodgers makes average WRs look good, but a great TE would enhance his ability to do great things. I'd spend to get the best TE available and reduce WR pay before giving 12 a raise

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Cubby, I agree but then I wonder. Certainly AR made washed up James Jones look good (890 receiving yards). OTOH, AR has generally had good receiving talent. And when he didn't have good talent (Nelson out, Adams not ready yet, Cobb not up to being a #1), our offense really struggled.

I can make both arguments, and I don't know which is correct.

Jonathan Spader's picture

Like anything in life TGR the truth is always somewhere in the middle. Look at 2016. Rodgers wasn't playing great and claimed the Packers could run the table. He played incredible football for the rest of the season and elevated the offense.

When WRs have left GB how have they fared? In the past we saw James Jones and Greg Jennings disappear when they left GB. The most recent example was Jared Cook who was really just a WR who lined up at TE.

How did Cookie look in a Raiders uniform? Still explosive when healthy. Not as explosive as he was with Aaron but man did he have slme highlight plays in 2017. How did Kendricks and Bennett fair? Can't really compare it because Cookie looked way better in the playoffs than he did in the first few games with Rodgers.

Tom Brady lost Randy Moss and Wes Welker and got Edleman and Amendola. He didn't really lose a step. On the flip side how did Eli look this year without OBJ?

Bottom line I think the WR position could use an influx of talent. And there's a few players worth a flier. At TE the market is pretty bare so I hope we draft one with potential. In the meantime use Monty in that role like the Saints used Kamara.

carlos's picture

A true TE can line up and the defense doesn’t know if he’s going to block, run a pattern or both. It would be obvious what Monty would do. It would be fine in obvious passing situations.

Tundraboy's picture

Exactly. A true TE by being that threat makes the WRs that much more effective and the O deadly.

Since '61's picture

It seems to me that TT and Ball who were alleged to be great cap managers have left us with quite a mess in our salary cap. We have overpaid aging players and very little depth to step up when those aging players are injured or can longer perform to their contracts. On top of all of that we have ARs contract coming up.

Gute needs to prioritize his needs and simultaneously decide what are the highest impact moves he can make in terms of cap space while improving the roster. I hate to say it but we need to release Jordy and draft or sign a FA speed WR to replace him. Then we need to renegotiate Cobb down to $5 -6 mil per year or release him if he refuses. IMO we need to use the available cap space from Cobb for a TE. Bulaga and CM3 may need to become additional cap space casualties to enable the Packers to sign a CB and/or pass rusher.

I would not like losing any of these players but every group of core players reaches their peak and then go into a period of decline. For Jordy, Cobb, CM3 and Bulaga their peak time was the 2014 season or maybe the range of seasons from 2013 - 2016. It happens with every team and every group of core players.

The NFL is a heartless business and we all have our favorite players but the fact is that after a player like Aaron Rodgers, or a Brady or a Favre or Woodson, or a Peyton Manning we are all just rooting for the uniform now.

With the exception of Tom Brady the Patriots have gone through players like spare parts replacing them as often as necessary to maintain their success on the field. James Harrison is just the latest example in a 15 year player revolving door.
The Packers have been draft and develop and keep your own. I believe in that as well but except for the franchise QB how much and for how long can a team expect to pay all the players they develop. It can't last for more than a few seasons.

For the Packers the time has come to move on from their existing core players and create a newer, faster, healthier and less expensive core group. AR needs to be willing to move on from Cobb and Jordy if he expects to win another SB over the next 2-4 seasons. It's difficult but the Packers have too much money tied up in declining performance. Thanks, Since '61

Cubbygold's picture

Agree with everything you've said here. In addition, the turnover in management makes this offseason the time for these changes.

Since '61's picture

Yes, a good additional point. Thanks, Since '61

flackcatcher's picture

The whole TT, Ball, Murphy story is one that will come out someday soon. It is too big to keep hidden for long. As for the cap, the Packers know what they have, and that will dictate their actions this year. Depending on how many draft choices they have next year, we could see not a overhaul, but a complete rebuild. I think we all know that that means. Hard choices ahead, for the new Packers GM, in all football related areas. The one hard fact that can not be overstated. There is going to be new personal at 1265 by 2020. We fans are looking at a new generation of leaders for the Green Bay Packers. How deep the change goes is unknown at this time, but none the less, it's coming.

Royalty Free GM's picture

Good points. All these moves are doable:
-Release Jordy or/and Cobb
-Renegotiate if we keep Jordy or Cobb

-Draft speedy deep threat WR1 with 1st round pick. Even trade up couple spots to get Ridley.
-2nd-3rd round picks; Pass rusher/CB/TE

-If we want quality FA; CB, WR, TE, Pass rusher... get more cap(Jordy, Cobb, Bulaga, CM3). I would like to see WR Richardson and CB1 Trumaine Johnson wearing Packers jerseys.

Tundraboy's picture

Agree. One or both must go this year, Need to reset the WR position and redeploy resources to finally address the holes at TE, and of course the Defense. Hard decisions but the right ones.

jyros's picture

Very well researched piece. If Cobb expects (absurd) Jarvis Landry money then he won’t be affordable. However, he has proven to be a versatile, tough, consistent and reliable slot receiver. Cobb often makes clutch catches that extends drives and as such, to me, are game changers. I hope Cobb stays.

TXCHEESE's picture

I believe they can get Cobb to lower his price. He's not going to fetch 10M on the open market. He can stay here for something in the 5-8M range and still make a great contribution to the team. He is a great utility type player (think returner, backfield). If Davis were to get cut or go down to injury, Cobb would be my first choice for the punt returner. Hell, he's my choice for punt returner, even with Davis healthy. Plus he is very good in tight traffic inside the 10.

RobinsonDavis's picture

Great work, Andrew!!

Royalty Free GM's picture


Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Dear Marpag,

First, that's a great photo.

Second: It is my fault due to my poor choice of words, but I didn't mean to imply that I think TT has Alzheimers or Dementia, but I can see why you inferred it. There is a difference btw Dementia (my father) and Alzheimers (mother-in-law). I remember about in 2006 asking my father a question about debentures. Now, he graduated from law school in 1959 and had retired 23 years earlier, and he never dealt in business law. His answer came after a considerable pause, but he had been blessed with an impressively capacious memory and when it came, it was accurate and reasonably thorough. Hell, I was in my forties and had to go re-invent the wheel on the subject the next day at the law library. The only thing I remembered was that they were a debt instrument of some kind.

I've written elsewhere that I see no reason why Gute shouldn't consult TT on which WRs and OL to draft, particularly in the 2nd to 5th rounds. I meant to imply that even if (which I don't know to be the case) he has slowed down, it doesn't mean TT can't be a valuable resource for Gutekunst. TT also has been involved in signing some big FAs, which I suspect has some good poker players involved. No reason why he and Ball can't act as institutional knowledge in that arena.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook



"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"The Bears still suck!"
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."