No, the Packers Aren't Actively Shopping Randall Cobb

Any suggestions that the Packers are actively seeking trade partners for Randall Cobb are at best misleading and more likely flat out incorrect.

If you're looking for a great example of how misleading wording in tweets can make a big story out of nothing, look no further than the "Packers are looking to trade Randall Cobb" rumorfest of August 22, 2018.

The Ringer's Michael Lombardil said of Cobb on his GM Street  podcast, "I know his name's being shopped around." 

Of course, this report quickly blew up on Twitter and turned into a big digital game of telephone, to the point that the rumor became the Packers were seeking trading partners for Randall Cobb. 

This, of course, led to widespread fan speculation about whether the Packers were seeking to clear up cap space to bring in Khalil Mack, or if the Packers were even considering packing Cobb into a trade deal with the Raiders.

As we now know, none of this was happening. NFL Network's Ian Rappoport reported the Packers were not, in fact, "shopping" Cobb.

As Rappoport states, there are constant conversations happening among NFL GMs involving trades or particular players. There's a big difference between a GM asking about Cobb, and the Packers "shopping" Cobb, and it's unfortunate that poor phrasing and/or clickbait can stir up such commotion.

Needless to say, expect Randall Cobb to be a major part of the Packers' offensive plans in 2018. His experience and connection with Aaron Rodgers figures to be incredibly important to the Packers' offensive scheme, and neither of those attributes can be replaced by anyone else on the roster.

And while we're at it, don't expect to see Khalil Mack in the green and gold.

__________________________

Tim Backes is a lifelong Packer fan and a contributor to CheeseheadTV. Follow him on Twitter @timbackes for his Packer takes, random musings and Untappd beer check-ins.

0 points

Comments (40)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
jww061356's picture

August 23, 2018 at 06:58 pm

I would agree that moving Cobb would be foolish at this point. I still say trade Matthews or Perry and a first rounder for 2019 and you have the cap space and a greatly enhanced pass rush.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

August 24, 2018 at 02:03 am

I'm waiting with pleasure when you'll eat those words at the end of the season ... ;-)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

August 23, 2018 at 07:03 pm

One of the longest running game shows...
' The Price is Right "
If or when that Packer FO phone rings and the price is right, Cobb can/could be gone and Rodgers can be as pissed as he wants to be.
Personally, the offense will be fine without Cobb or with him. Much like with Perry on defense, there isn't a great variation of production with/without him on the field.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 23, 2018 at 10:10 pm

Idk. I just envision the annual injury bug hitting Green Bay hard (again). If Cobb is traded, Adams is a concussion away from extended time off (I believe he had TWO just last year), you're suddenly looking at Alison moving from our #3 to our #1, and a combination of rookies and unproven/inexperienced recievers (Kumero, Yancy, Davis - I know not all will make the roster). And I know we'd still have Montromery and Graham but I guess I'd rather hang on to Cobb at least for the season to groom the youngsters.

Then again, Dez would be pretty cheap right about now... (LOL).

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

August 23, 2018 at 10:16 pm

so would obi Melifonwu.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

August 23, 2018 at 10:36 pm

You think the roster should be set based on possible injury(s)....OK then.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 24, 2018 at 06:30 am

Well of course you have to consider experience and depth! You don't worry about depth in case injury happens? Especially in Green Bay when injury is a yearly reality. It'd be foolish to assume all starters will start every game of the season. This isn't fantasy football...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Jonathan Spader's picture

August 23, 2018 at 11:03 pm

I would not bank on Cobb being the WR that doesn't get injured. He's great when healthy but couldn't even make it to camp without wearing a boot. I agree with Taryn in that any player can be cut or traded at anytime. Cobb himself has said as much. It's the nature of the business.

How much better would the defense be with Mack vs. how lich worse does the offense become minus Cobb? Where do we have better depth? If Mack is a realistic possibility I'd put ESB in the slot and sign Maclin and let the 2 fight it out. Adams on one side and MVS, Kumero, and Allison can fight it out on the other side.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 24, 2018 at 06:36 am

Of course any player can be traded if "the price is right" and some team offers us a high draft pick or maybe a pro bowl safety. I doubt anyone would debate that. But I'm going off the assumption he's not worth that much seeing his injury history and his sharp decline in stats/numbers since his best year in 2014.

But I don't know if this article even brought up Mack as part of the trade rumors for Cobb. If Mack is part of that, then that changes things in my mind f the deal is fair.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DraftHobbyist's picture

August 24, 2018 at 07:42 am

I get your point, although I'll say that concussions often don't take guys out for extended time. We would also still have Jimmy Graham and Marcedes Lewis, so in your scenario, especially if none of the rookies really caught on, we would probably go to more of a balanced set using a lot of RB's and TE's.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 24, 2018 at 09:00 am

I guess all this talk is assumptions and rumors anyways. If teams offer a first or second rounder for Cobb or a quality starting safety or young stud right tackle or something for Cobb, then of course any/all teams will listen and take the offer if it's really good. But if a team is low balling us or offers a mid to late round pick, then I think we have to keep Cobb. Personally, for what it's worth, I think he will have a bounce back year with most attention going to Adams and Graham. He should thrive in theory. Plus players always have a funny way of playing a bit better in a contract year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Andrew Lloyd Peth's picture

August 24, 2018 at 09:23 am

If a team offered a mid to late round pick to take Cobb's salary off our hands, I'd jump faster than a rabbit on hot asphalt.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 24, 2018 at 01:43 pm

The Packers might get a decent comp pick if they retain him this year and they let him go in FA next. He might fetch a 3rd or 4th. They always consider comp picks as well so don't forget that. But we have room cap-wise to keep him this year (unless they are trying to make cap room for Mack), so unless a team gives us a 3rd or higher, i'd just keep him and let him have a great bounce back year. My 2 cents...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

August 24, 2018 at 12:22 pm

I suspect you are right!

I like Cobb but the Pack has a lot of options now at WR. Could there be a few growing pains at the start of the season? Probably but not earth shattering and by seasons end the offense would be unstoppable.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Lare's picture

August 23, 2018 at 07:12 pm

Can't imagine why the Packers would consider getting rid of the 53rd ranked WR in the NFL with his $12.7 million salary cap hit.

It's time for the Packers to move on from all the poor decisions made during the Ted Thompson era.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DukeDivine's picture

August 23, 2018 at 10:22 pm

That's a big cap hit. I'd be ok with cutting Cobb, give Raiders 2 first round picks and Cobbs Salary for Mack and let Arodge make the young receivers get really good... I've seen enough out of those young WRs, the TE's and RBs to make a franchise changing move like that.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

August 23, 2018 at 10:41 pm

I'll trade Cobb and one 1st rd and a 4th rd and keep half of Cobbs salary for Mack even if for just this season. The offense will survive losing Cobb and the defense will get what it needs to be the SB appearance reality.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

August 23, 2018 at 10:30 pm

Khalil Mack is the best edge rusher who has never been in my kitchen. Refute that, Twitterverse!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

August 24, 2018 at 05:21 am

Cliff Clavin agrees!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

August 24, 2018 at 07:23 am

Bingo!
I’ll see about getting you a cookie.

(Hey, Since 61,,,,)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

August 24, 2018 at 02:06 am

I see that some still expect from Packers to kidnap Mack from Raiders .

What did you do not understand: "Raiders are not interested in trading Mack!"

Oh, my God....

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 24, 2018 at 06:45 am

I'm not disagreeing, and I was on the Mack fan wagon like many, but teams do play game in the media. 100% sure of that. They all have very savy pr departments that know exactly what to release to the public and why for thier benefit. It could be true. Or it could be posturing to get teams like GB or the Jets to anty up more than whatever was offered to this point. It happens all the time in the NFL. So I wouldn't believe so surely in what you read coming from teams. Especially in regards to things like this.

The facts are the Raiders haven't even negotiated with their best player , Mack hasn't showed up for a practice once yet and the season is weeks away. He has been willing to miss out on over a million dollars in game pay checks already. Gruden hasn't even talked to the guy yet! If this goes into the regular season, I'm guessing the quote "the Raiders are not interested in trading Mack" will change very quickly "who wants Mack?"

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

August 24, 2018 at 07:18 am

Or just stand firm, and let KMack learn about how signed contracts work. Oakland holds the cards and says no talks if Mack is going to hold out. Eventually Mack will call his GM if he wants to play football again.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

August 24, 2018 at 08:08 am

And I believe if Mack will sit this season, he will become RFA, so Raiders can get him on the bench for another year, but with minimal cost!

You may not be happy with the contract, but you were able to inform yourself before you enter draft and signed that contract what everything means.

I do not see NFL will bow in front of Mack. No way...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DraftHobbyist's picture

August 24, 2018 at 08:14 am

I don't think so because if he sits out he still counts against the 53.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

August 24, 2018 at 09:12 am

I think there's a "reserve/did not report" list they could put him on which does not count against the 53. It also would force his contract to toll another season, and he'd be right back on his current deal, I think.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

August 24, 2018 at 12:26 pm

In my business a signed contract legally binds you but interestingly how you always have some who want/feel they should breach it. NFL players are no different.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

August 24, 2018 at 01:37 pm

In my business a signed contract legally binds you but interestingly how you always have some who want/feel they should breach it. NFL players are no different.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

August 24, 2018 at 05:32 pm

Mack has to play a substantial number of games to qualify as having played out his 5th-year option. 10 games would do it, probably fewer. A legally binding contract requires Mack to play for the pay designated in the contract, but it doesn't require the person to play, just to accept the financial consequences. The efficient breach concept is in play here. Substantial performance is all that is required on Mack's part.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Mibster's picture

August 24, 2018 at 03:19 am

Keep or not keep, that is the question... My opinion is that you should postpone the question to next year after Packers win the Superbowl! I agree that Mack would be a great addition but is a non issue when no negotiations is on the table. There is a lot of players that would be great to have (give me Gronk and JJ Watt please)..

Me for one just lay back now, take it easy and waiting for the opener against the Bears :)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

August 24, 2018 at 08:10 am

Why not Sherman and Wagner, maybe Wilson as back up QB. Than why not Julio Jones, and Aaron Donald and (please, continue the line...) ...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

August 24, 2018 at 06:06 am

Earlier in the offseason, I would have bought into the notion that the Packers were ready to move on from Cobb, with the caveat they would add a different vet at a cheaper price.

At this point, I think the die is cast and they are counting on Cobb to play a lot of snaps and produce. Especially with the reported struggles of J'Mon Moore. Even if St Brown and Valdes-Scantling are doing more than projected.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 24, 2018 at 06:53 am

Agreed. I wouldn't count out Kummero either. I know he hurt his shoulder rolling into the end zone (ugh... not a good sign from the injury bug already!). But he clearly has the trust of Rodgers and the other qb's for having good hands and being exactly where he needs to be. If they get a great trade offer for Cobb, that would ensure they can keep their youngsters. GB also has a way of putting players on IR to hide them from other teams (maybe Kummero?). Also people forget Alison and Yancey. Personally i think we have to roster all 3 rookies. Moor will come around. I remember Adams used to drop everything and fans wanted his gone. James Jones and Nelson each had their years of drops. Gotta trust coaches can do what they did for them to Moore. He's wayyyy to skilled to let go IMO. Should be interesting to see who they try to stash on the practice squad.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
cpitt's picture

August 24, 2018 at 08:27 am

Cobbs going to have a big season. Wouldnt shock me if he has 1000 yds and 10tds. He can still seperate.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PatrickGB's picture

August 24, 2018 at 09:08 am

As fans we rely on the media. But today’s media has a lot of outlets and sometimes it seems that anybody with a twitter account or internet access becomes a “reporter”. And out of need and ignorance we believe that person. So, in some ways it’s our own fault. Experience, intelligence, diligence and trust is needed as fans. In short, know your source.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

August 24, 2018 at 09:16 am

Agreed. You have to read those reports very carefully for context and wording. Too often the 'trade/free agent rumors' aren't really about actual contact between teams and representatives, but by people who are just f'rinstancing or playing matchmaker, "Hmm, team X has a need at OLB. Team Y has a glut of OLBs. Wouldn't this be a good match?"

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

August 24, 2018 at 09:18 am

I can't even comment or speculate anymore, I'm brain drained, c'mon season. The packers will kidnap Jordy tonight, take him back to GB in an equipment bag. Then they'll put him in a tanning booth for 2 weeks and change his name to Lajordan Nelson.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maddygirl1's picture

August 24, 2018 at 01:46 pm

Ha, I hope they kidnap Mack and bring him back to GB!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PAPackerbacker's picture

August 24, 2018 at 02:28 pm

Trading Cobb this year would make no sense. He has a great repertoire within the system in Green Bay and also with Rodgers. Plus he can mentor the younger players. His experience and chemistry with Rodgers is an invaluable asset. It would take time to develop that kind of relationship with the younger, inexperienced receivers. Keeping Cobb makes more sense than trading him at this point. Give the younger players time to develop and then see what happens. Go! Pack! Go!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Samson's picture

August 24, 2018 at 09:07 pm

I've always liked RC but the bottom line numbers for Pack "O" will still be the same with or w/out Cobb. --- The offense is AR. -- RC is better than a rookie, that's all.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment 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.