Official Randall Cobb FA Thread

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Cobb's lack of size and lack of elite speed makes him much better in the slot than outside. I think he'd be overpaid at 12 million, but it might happen.

12 million a year is out of the question imo. No way can I see TT paying him 2-3 million a year more than Nelson based off one good year. One in which he actually didn't play that well the first few weeks. 9 million a year is even a lot. If Cobb wants to play for the packers he better be reasonable or he's going to Greg Jennings himself out the door. How is that working out for him? Probably won't finish his contract and will probably get low balled on his next one.

[denverYooper]

$12m for a slot WR is too much and I suspect some team will offer him that and we won't be able to match it.

I'd be sort of surprised if he pulled 12m per from another team. He's a very good receiver but he's got a HOF QB throwing him the ball. That's got to make teams think twice... especially after the Vikings paid Jennings and he fell off a cliff without a stud QB.

[vince]

2014 - $133 mil
2015 - $143 mil
2016 - $166 mil?

That'd be a 25% increase from 2014. I've seen as high as $154 projected for 2016 but nowhere in the ballpark of $160 (at least recently) much less $166. It's a players market but most teams (Packers included) still need to exercise some discipline.

[Joemailman]

A PFT article from March 2014 had this to say:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...llion-in-2016/

When the salary cap jumped from $123 million to $133 million last week, some suggested it could move to $140 million in 2015 and $150 million in 2016.

Think higher.

One source with knowledge of the process (but not the same source who was on the money — pun lame but intended — when providing info about the 2014 cap) tells PFT that the cap could spike to $145 million in 2015 and a whopping $160 million in 2016.

They were pretty close on the 2015 cap, so 160 in 2016 might not be out of the question.

[vince]

A PFT article from March 2014 had this to say:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...llion-in-2016/

They were pretty close on the 2015 cap, so 160 in 2016 might not be out of the question.

I saw that one too but that was a year ago. They overshot this year by $2 mil so my guess is they overshot next year by at least $4 mil.

I haven't seen any other projection/guess in that neighborhood - much less $166 - in the last year.

The last three years have increased by $10 mil so in the absence of a fairly recent substantive projection to the contrary, I can't see a $20 million jump next year. Maybe that's right but I've not seen it. Even a huge $15 mil jump next year doesn't get the cap to $160 and that 50% higher increase falls quite a bit short of 25% in two years.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Cobb isn't worth more than 8 mil/year based off talent alone. A very good player, but by no means is he a 1,300 yard 12 td guy on 95% of teams. He needs to realize that Rodgers plays a big factor in the stats he puts up. The Pats, Colts, and Broncos are probably the only other teams I see him being that productive with. TT should have tried to sign him much earlier in the year like he did with Nelson's first contract extension. He waited and now Cobb has most of the leverage...Inflated cap, top two free agent Wrs just got tagged, 24 yo, etc. etc. Only leverage for us is Rodgers and the high probability he would be setup to earn a high third contract.

The question is how much does that factor into his decision? Usually players follow the money and I'm almost positive the packers won't pay him more than Nelson so his limit with us is at the highest 9-10 million per year. I doubt TT even wants to pay him that.

[red]

Cobb isn't worth more than 8 mil/year based off talent alone. A very good player, but by no means is he a 1,300 yard 12 td guy on 95% of teams. He needs to realize that Rodgers plays a big factor in the stats he puts up. The Pats, Colts, and Broncos are probably the only other teams I see him being that productive with. TT should have tried to sign him much earlier in the year like he did with Nelson's first contract extension. He waited and now Cobb has most of the leverage...Inflated cap, top two free agent Wrs just got tagged, 24 yo, etc. etc. Only leverage for us is Rodgers and the high probability he would be setup to earn a high third contract.

The question is how much does that factor into his decision? Usually players follow the money and I'm almost positive the packers won't pay him more than Nelson so his limit with us is at the highest 9-10 million per year. I doubt TT even wants to pay him that.

yup

i'm all about locking your talent up with a year left on the original deal

for some reason, TT usually doesn't like to deal that way

[Joemailman]

yup

i'm all about locking your talent up with a year left on the original deal

for some reason, TT usually doesn't like to deal that way

He's locked guys up early before. In Cobb's case, I think he wanted to see if Cobb was the same player after the broken leg that he was before the injury. Going into last season, he had only played 2 games since the injury.

[mraynrand]

yup

i'm all about locking your talent up with a year left on the original deal

for some reason, TT usually doesn't like to deal that way

he doesn't? It seems to me that he's done this with most of the guys he's kept.

[pbmax]

TT should have tried to sign him much earlier in the year like he did with Nelson's first contract extension. He waited and now Cobb has most of the leverage...

How do we know he waited? In fact, we have reports that they were negotiating. What if Cobb was asking for $11 million in camp?

[red]

in 2011 the salary cap was 120 million. the franchise tag for wr's was 11.4 million or 9.5% of the cap

this year, the salary cap is 143 million, and the frachinse number for wr's is 12.8 million or 8.9 % of the cap

just because the cap goes up "x" amount, doesn't mean the new number for that position is (previous year + x amount)

[King Friday]

in 2011 the salary cap was 120 million. the franchise tag for wr's was 11.4 million or 9.5% of the cap

this year, the salary cap is 143 million, and the frachinse number for wr's is 12.8 million or 8.9 % of the cap

just because the cap goes up "x" amount, doesn't mean the new number for that position is (previous year + x amount)

The franchise number is simply the average value of the 5 top contracts at a point in time.

It has virtually no bearing on what the positions will actually be paid in free agency. That depends on which positions have the most talent available compared to the need on the teams with the most available cap space.

QBs always get paid the most...but there aren't any with any value available. That means MORE money will go to other positions, such as WR.

[Guiness]

The franchise number is simply the average value of the 5 top contracts at a point in time.

It has virtually no bearing on what the positions will actually be paid in free agency. That depends on which positions have the most talent available compared to the need on the teams with the most available cap space.

QBs always get paid the most...but there aren't any with any value available. That means MORE money will go to other positions, such as WR.

Yes, but Cobb is generally regarded as the top FA WR on the market - and those are the guys who generally get near the franchise number in new longer term deals.

[Bossman641]

I'll be real disappointed in Cobb if he truly expects the Packers to fork over $12M a year.

[vince]

If a team's going to throw crazy money at someone, Cobb's a guy to do it to. He can do an awful lot on the field, regardless of what position he's playing, and there's virtually no off-the-field risk. I think trying to pigeon-hole him as a slot receiver is missing the boat and teams aren't going to be doing that with him. Need an addition to help establish and/or add a winning culture in the locker room and film room? Cobb's that guy too.

There's still some hope he decides he needs to stay in Green Bay but it seems to me like someone like the Raiders are going to make it VERY tough for him to do that. There's just too much money out there.

I hope that's wrong.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I honestly value Bulaga more than Cobb anyways. TT has proven to have a difficult time finding quality olinemen. Its been ten years since we had this good of an oline. Without Cobb we still have Nelson, Adams, Abbredris, and Janis. I would much rather keep the starting oline together so I'm more worried about losing Bulaga.

[King Friday]

I honestly value Bulaga more than Cobb anyways. TT has proven to have a difficult time finding quality olinemen. Its been ten years since we had this good of an oline. Without Cobb we still have Nelson, Adams, Abbredris, and Janis. I would much rather keep the starting oline together so I'm more worried about losing Bulaga.

I agree. I said so when that question first came up.

If you have a franchise QB...WRs are not as important as the OL. If you keep the QB upright, just about any receiver corp will get the job done.

[yetisnowman]

I honestly value Bulaga more than Cobb anyways. TT has proven to have a difficult time finding quality olinemen. Its been ten years since we had this good of an oline. Without Cobb we still have Nelson, Adams, Abbredris, and Janis. I would much rather keep the starting oline together so I'm more worried about losing Bulaga.

I can respect the let Cobb go argument until you start saying things like we still have Janis and Abberdris.

[Pugger]

I honestly value Bulaga more than Cobb anyways. TT has proven to have a difficult time finding quality olinemen. Its been ten years since we had this good of an oline. Without Cobb we still have Nelson, Adams, Abbredris, and Janis. I would much rather keep the starting oline together so I'm more worried about losing Bulaga.

I have to agree. It will be disappointing to lose Cobb but IMO protecting The Franchise is a bigger deal. We won't win squat without #12 but we can replace Cobb a little easier.

[Zool]

Without Cobb we still have Nelson, Adams, Abbredris, and Janis.

This is not an argument for letting him go IMO. This is an argument for signing the man.