How Important is Jared Cook?

And tight ends in general for the Packers offense?

The Packers biggest free agent addition this year has to be tight end Jared Cook, with Mike McCarthy stating:

“Let’s be honest, the middle of the field is open now.  League rules. Big people running down the middle of the field, I’ll make no secret about it. I think that’s a key to offensive success, whether that’s a big receiver or big tight end or a big man running down the middle of the field, making those safeties cover you. It’s an important part of playing in today’s NFL."

While the assumption is that Cook will provide a mismatch that no other player on the Packers roster can provide, is this actually the case?  The Packers are not built like the New England Patriots, whose passing game is predicated on the tight end.  In short, what effect can the Packers hope to see with Jared Cook?

In order to determine the actual importance of the tight end position to the Packers I compiled the receiving statistics from 2008 (the first year Aaron Rodgers was the starter) to 2015 and then calculated the ratio of targets, receptions and yards from ProFootball Reference.  Fullbacks were grouped with running backs since in the passing game they essentially play the same role and usually run the same passing patterns. 








  yards ratio target ratio rec ratio
WR 24952 71% 2849 66% 1791 63%
TE 6012 17% 810 19% 550 19%
RB 4244 12% 677 16% 522 18%

As you can see, the Packers under Aaron Rodgers, Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy have never featured a big tight end receiving game.  In fact, tight ends are pretty much on par with running backs in yards, receptions and targets and both positions pale in comparison to wide receivers, who compile well over the majority in all three statistics. 

Some of this can be explained through the draft; Ted Thompson has only spent two “premium” draft picks on tight ends, namely 3rd round picks on Jermicheal Finley in 2008 and Richard Rodgers in 2014.  Furthermore, Thompson has only drafted 6 tight ends total since 2008, so it’s not like he’s giving many lower round picks a chance to develop either. 

Coaching might also be a factor, Mike McCarthy has always used tight ends more like H-backs, you are more likely to see a Packers tight end lined up at fullback than you are in the slot or on the perimeter in most games.  Even with Finley, the Packers constantly tried to fit a square peg into a round hole by asking him to inline block. 

Finally and perhaps most importantly is Aaron Rodgers just doesn’t look many times to his tight ends to produce plays.  Of course when you have Randall Cobb, Jordy Nelson, James Jones, Donald Driver, and Greg Jennings looking for the ball it becomes hard to spread the ball to Ryan Taylor or DJ Williams, but overall you have to assume that Rodgers views the tight ends at about the same level as running backs, and the Packers don’t typically have a “passing back” on the roster.  The notable exception is during the early part of the 2010 season when Rodgers seemed to be fixated on Finley but we’ll never know the full extent since Finley only played 5 games before being sent to IR. 

Of course all of this is related; it’s possible that Thompson knows Rodgers never passes to tight ends so he doesn’t draft them, but it’s equally possible that Rodgers doesn’t pass to tight ends because Thompson never drafts them.  Whatever the underlying reason, the Packers just don’t feature a tight end in the passing game.  Perhaps Jared Cook can break the mold and be a featured player on the Packers offense, but history would seem to point to Cook being a 3rd or 4th option rather than a 1st or 2nd option.   

0 points
 

Comments (81)

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

May 27, 2016 at 12:18 pm

It's stunning to read/hear how whomever the Packers sign as a FA somehow becomes the perceived ' missing link ' to the problem on whichever side of the ball the player participates.
FA is usually a band-aid for a gash and hardly ever, if ever, the suture that closes that gash.
: )

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

May 27, 2016 at 12:24 pm

True enough for low level FAs. Woodson, Pickett, and Peppers fixed those wounds. Cook can as well, if only for a year.

0 points
0
0
TarynsEyes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 01:08 pm

Signing Pickett and Woodson in 06' was a double band-aid that still left this team short less the 07' Favre ender and then the drafting of Matthews and Raji in 09' and the low level signing of Hugh Green made those worthwhile in the long run with the one SB but none would have the impact alone as was together. As for Peppers, let's be real, he has been a band-aid not the suture to get the others inspired....Perry, Neal, Jones. : )

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 01:26 pm

I'd argue that Woodson was not a bandaid, he was the focal point of the defense in 2009.

0 points
0
0
TarynsEyes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 02:15 pm

Growing into a focal point doesn't dismiss his initial status was signed and let's not forget those who helped make Woodson more valuable before Matthews and Raji and the change to a 3-4 defense. I'm not dismissing Woodson or Pickett, just not crediting them as instant revelations via FA.

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 03:11 pm

I'm not really sure what's the difference then, aren't all free agents signed to fill a role? Woodson filled a hole in the defense just like Reggie White did; neither was a band-aid.

0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

May 27, 2016 at 02:42 pm

When someone refers to the 2009 defensive Player of the Year as a band aid, it's kinda hard to take that seriously.

0 points
0
0
TarynsEyes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 03:39 pm

The Packers were the only team to offer him a contract in 06 and let's not forget who was there already defensively...Jenkins, Jolly, Barnett, Hawk, poppinga, Harris, Carroll, KGB, Montgomery and Pickett coming in with him. All I'm saying is he was surrounded with talent and took advantage while to play well and acquire stats via much of a team enabling him.

0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

May 27, 2016 at 04:39 pm

Wow. You're trying too hard... or losing touch with reality... one or the other.

The 2006 Packer defense was hardly loaded with talent. They finished the season middle of the pack in yards surrendered, and 25th in points. KGB had one of the worst seasons in his career. He totaled 27 tackles and 6 sacks. Mike Montgomery? He had 10 tackles all year. Jolly played in six games and recorded four tackles. Yeah, all year. Ahmad Carroll (did you actually mention Ahmad Carroll???) ... he sucked so bad that Packers cut him four games into the season!! From there he went to the Arena league. Poppinga was never anything more than a journeyman at any point in his career.

You're saying that Charles Woodson was riding on these guys' coattails? C'mon.

If you wanted to make a more impressive argument, you might have mentioned Aaron Kampman, who was second in the league that year with 15.5 sacks. He was also the ONLY member of the defense who went to the pro bowl.

0 points
0
0
cpheph1's picture

May 28, 2016 at 11:15 am

Awesome research marpag1, not sure why she's discounting CW but it's a joke...your response was epic. IMO, CW was such a playmaker and was a great FA signing...on par with the Reggie signing IMO. I'm also fond of the JP signing and I hope he excels again in 2016.

0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

May 28, 2016 at 02:51 pm

How Woodson didn't even make the Pro Bowl in 2006 is completely beyond me. His numbers were only a little below his DPOY season in 2009. Here's a comparison of those two years: (2006 / 2009)

Total tackles: 62 / 74
Passes def: 20 / 18
INTs: 8 / 9
TDs: 1 / 3
Forced fum: 3 / 4
Fum. Rec: 1 / 1
Sacks: 1 / 2

But Wood didn't even go as a backup to the Pro Bowl In 2006. The NFC starting corners were: Ronde Barber (100 tackles, 16 passes def, 3 INTs, 2 TDs, 2 FF, 0 rec, 0 sacks), and Deangelo Hall (58 tackles, 16 passes def, 5 INTs, 0 TDs, 1 FF, 1 rec, 0 sacks)

Woodson and Walt Harris (who went as a reserve and whose numbers were as good as Woodson's) should have been the starters. I guess the voters must have agreed with Taryn that Woodson wouldn't have been near as good without Mighty Mike Montgomery and his 10 tackles.

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 06:23 pm

lol ahmad carroll, let's never speak his name again.

0 points
0
0
J0hn Denver's Gavel's picture

May 31, 2016 at 11:54 pm

Did you watch the Packers play that year or did you pick those names off Wikipedia or something? Ahmad Carroll and the rare Mike Montgomery shot out. You cant be serious.

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 01:21 pm

Charlie Peprah did a pretty good job all things considered until Collins got hurt and he was a lower tier free agent

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 01:20 pm

I'd say when it comes to high priced free agents, Thompson has done a pretty good job. Woodson was transcendent in 2010 and Peppers and Pickett justified their contracts. I don't know if Cook qualifies as a high priced free agent, maybe he will next year

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

May 27, 2016 at 03:04 pm

I wonder if Woodson will enter the HOF as the best "band aid" ever.

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 03:11 pm

I'd vote for him.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

May 27, 2016 at 12:22 pm

Finley ran a 4.82 forty at the combine (though he did run a 4.66 forty at his pro day). Cook ran a 4.50 forty at the combine. Cook can be used as a WR. Finley had enough speed to threaten the seam: Cook has enough to burn. Cook can be used split out as a WR and in the slot. It is up to MM to use Cook correctly, and on AR to recognize his potential.

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

May 27, 2016 at 12:43 pm

Yep. Yep. Yep. The regular season can't come fast enough. Hell, even the 2nd and 3rd preseason game.

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 01:27 pm

I agree but history suggest that neither McCarthy nor Rodgers will properly utilize Cook. Maybe Cook rocks the trend but I'd bet on no.

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

May 27, 2016 at 03:07 pm

AR is impressed with Cook already. His speed keeps coming up in interviews. The Packers WILL be unstopable this year.

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

May 27, 2016 at 04:10 pm

Any of you seen his "Welcome to Green Bay" video clip on Youtube? If I was Rodgers/Clements/MM I'd be ecstatic.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 27, 2016 at 08:06 pm

Is this the same AR who couldn't stop talking up Davante Adams last year?

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

May 27, 2016 at 09:51 pm

Who on Offense DIDN'T have a "bad" season last season?

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

May 30, 2016 at 12:57 am

"I agree but history suggest that neither McCarthy nor Rodgers will properly utilize Cook. Maybe Cook rocks the trend but I'd bet on no."

Well, that is certainly an indictment of MM offensive genius. I think MM will come through with good schemes for Cook. I think AR will toss the ball towards Cook, at least enough, though I perhaps not as often as I'd like. I'll wait to see what Nelson and the other WRs look like.

0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

May 27, 2016 at 12:25 pm

Good points in this article. Bottom line....I guess I'd be suprised if Cook was on the Packer roster for training camp 2017. Place your bets!

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 01:29 pm

That really depends on how Cook performs. If he plays above average I think the Packers make a push to resign him if his market is low. If he bombs they probably won't try and if he blows everyone away he probably will have more suitors next year that will outbid the Packers

0 points
0
0
TarynsEyes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 02:03 pm

"....if he blows everyone away he probably will have more suitors next year that will outbid the Packers."

Even though proven to be a product of an elite QB which the team that out bids the Packers will likely have nothing but a pickle in the barrel guy throwing to him again. : )

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 03:13 pm

good quarterbacks are expensive and great quarterbacks make his teammates better, which also makes them expensive. Teams with the most amount of money every year are usually those who aren't good or don't have a quarterback.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 27, 2016 at 12:42 pm

In the end, the Packers and ARod need to utilize Cook often enough and in a way that the defense needs to account for him on a regular basis. He doesn't need to catch more than about 40-45 passes for the Packers to accomplish that, assuming he's not catching them for an 8.8 yd average (ahem, Richard Rodgers).

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 01:31 pm

I guess the big question is Jared Cooks' presence on the field enough to alter how defenses play the Packers. History of the Packers, Rodgers and Cook would seem to indicate that he's not going to be a huge factor in terms of stats but will having the threat of a big and fast tight end down the seam be enough to open things up for the wide receivers and running backs?

0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

May 27, 2016 at 02:05 pm

Dobber - the point of the article is, will he even get the opportunity to "perform" given the Packers under-utilization of the tight-end. I'd say he would have to blow away expectations with the limited targets he's sure to see, for the Packers to resign him. With RR sitting there as a 3rd round pick, he will get his targets too, so the likelihood of that "blow-away" performance is improbable. I'd like to debate the ratio of targets to total for tight ends....RR vs. JC. 45% / 55% respectively? Or maybe closer to 50/50?

0 points
0
0
Chad Lundberg's picture

May 27, 2016 at 12:43 pm

A 3rd or 4th option can still have a very heavy impact. Especially with this offense.

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 01:32 pm

True and not true; the Packers offense does see plenty of production from their 3rd and 4th receivers but probably not whatever fans are projecting when they appoint Cook the answer to last years problems.

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

May 27, 2016 at 04:12 pm

And many people here want a 7th WR. Tuh...

0 points
0
0
Ibleedgreenmore's picture

May 27, 2016 at 04:44 pm

I know some had their issues with Finley but think how the offense ran with him in there. Yes I know he was not there during the SB run but he could expand that field. Cook could do the same thing, protection at the line is paramount this year to Rodgers can see all those receivers out there.

0 points
0
0
4EVER's picture

May 27, 2016 at 01:09 pm

I got as far as the headline and said too myself...VERY!!! Cook should be viewed and implemented as the weapon he is.

I laugh every time I see RR lined up out wide, hell, I'm laughing as I type the thought...real smart move, purposefully move the defenses slowest, most un-athletic entity outside - over a slower more un-athletic TE.

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 01:34 pm

Rodgers is actually pretty good at what he does, he a steady receiver who will get you the 1st down or the touchdown in the redbone. He's not going to blow the top off a defense and he really shouldn't be asked to that. If anything he's more like a bigger and stronger slot receiver.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

May 29, 2016 at 12:56 am

RR isn't good at most of the things that he is asked to do.

0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

May 27, 2016 at 01:19 pm

I don't see Cook as that critical a piece. A TE for the sake of a TE is not actually needed.

What is needed is an effective pass catcher; I don't care what position you want to call them.

The biggest problem wasn't that their TE was bad; it was they insisted on playing that bad TE instead of a different player to catch passes. It did not have to be a TE.

The Packers, effectively, played offense with 10 players last year on most plays; 9 when both Rodgers and Adams were on the field together.

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 01:36 pm

I'm not sure who you'd replace for Rodgers. The most logical would be Abby and Janis but neither was really ready until late last year (if at all). With Adams, Montgomery and Nelson injured Rodgers was basically the third best option behind Cobb and Jones.

0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

May 27, 2016 at 02:12 pm

My problem is both Rodgers and Adams had proven, in no uncertain terms, that they were awful - Adams especially so.

At that point the Packers were negligent for not putting Janis on the field. I do care what rhetoric was out there, we knew that Adams/Rodgers were bad enough to warrant not playing at all. Had to try Janis, et al.

It's reminiscent of the "proven veteran" term to me. A proven veteran doesn't necessarily mean they've proven themselves to be good, often quite the opposite.

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

May 27, 2016 at 02:20 pm

They haven't proven they are "awful," by any means.

0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

May 27, 2016 at 03:47 pm

Adams had a historically awful season last year. Regardless of whether or not he improves this year, it was quite clear he was an absolute negative last year.

Rodgers was very clearly below average, and it appeared to be his physical abilities limiting him, which aren't going to improve any. Both needed to sit and other options tried.

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 03:22 pm

Assuming the Packers coaches know more than us, do you think there is a reason that Rodgers and Adams can be, in no uncertain terms, awful and the coaches still refuse to let Abby and Janis on the field until there we literally no more healthy bodies left? I would argue that Janis and Abby aren't unproven at this point either, Adams, Rodgers, Abby and Janis were all drafted in 2014 so the Packers coaches have seen them develop for exactly the same amount of time.

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

May 27, 2016 at 04:14 pm

Ooo, this should be a good one.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

May 27, 2016 at 05:56 pm

My thoughts exactly!

0 points
0
0
4EVER's picture

May 28, 2016 at 01:14 pm

Ah YES! Coaches aren't perfect, for example; Pete Carroll's response too how he could have missed the obvious talent he had in Clay Mathews. It's mind-boggling, RR is a way, way below average TE; his blocking is atrocious with absolutely no passion, runs like a NT, jumps like an embarrassment, with many more deficiencies. His only 2 positive attributes; hands and awareness (AR's in trouble). Regrettably, I haven't watched enough on Adams too respond. Janis and Abby have fallen, I would argue, into the coaches miss the obvious bucket.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

May 29, 2016 at 01:07 am

I didn't like the pick, and wasn't impressed by his rookie year, but I think Adams can be a #3 WR. RR: when blocking, defenses salivate; when running a route, defenses ignore him. Finesse player who can't run.

0 points
0
0
Handsback's picture

May 27, 2016 at 01:34 pm

I would love to see Cook and Janis either running crossing routes over the middle or down the middle seems. Doing that a couple times a game and the DBs won't be able to backpeddle fast enough to keep that coverage. Then to see Rodgers drop it into Cobb/Nelson or hammer with Lacy. Wow, I can't wait for TC either!

0 points
0
0
Razer's picture

May 27, 2016 at 01:42 pm

Cook will make a significant difference. We didn't have a running game until Eddie Lacy showed up. Until now we didn't have a skilled TE that could get downfield (other than the occassional Finley siting). We have a real TE coach and, I presume, we will game plan to use this new talent.

Just another head on the monster.

0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

May 27, 2016 at 02:20 pm

Finley did get downfield but he did catch the ball about as often as Adams does... Most overrated TE in recent Packers history...

0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

May 27, 2016 at 03:25 pm

You got that right about Finley being overrated. Too many drops and critical times. He looked great in the uni, but the performance was underwhelming. He was no Keith Jackson, or even Mark Chumura.

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 05:12 pm

If argue that distinction goes to Bostick, remember when he was touted as the next Finley? At least Finley showed glimpses of greatness, all Bostick did was squander a super bowl run.

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

May 28, 2016 at 05:25 am

OMG!!!! I stll remember guys (You know who you are) building up Bostick and I could never figure out why. Some become to damn focused on what a player might run or do at the Combine or his Pro Day. I mean how much difference is there between a 4.41 and 4.49 in Spandex no less. Bostick made one beautiful catch (His Only) against the Eagles, on a beautifil throw by Tolzien and we keep him around 3 years until he showed he had absolutely no value.

0 points
0
0
Razer's picture

May 27, 2016 at 01:43 pm

BTW, nice article Mr. Hobbes - particularly the plays chart.

0 points
0
0
Pack88's picture

May 27, 2016 at 02:28 pm

I would venture to say if Cook catches 50 balls for around 750-800 yds and 7-10 TDs he will be overpaid by someone not in GBs zipcode. Should he catch the winning pass in the Superbowl he will on the team in 17 if he costs 5 million a year!

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 03:24 pm

I'd agree, though it does seem like Packers receivers are discounted somewhat in free agency for playing within a "system" and having Rodgers throw them the ball. The only player that probably bucked that trend recently was Jennings, but hey it's the Vikings, who are always willing to pay top dollar on players the Packers no longer want.

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

May 27, 2016 at 03:14 pm

The Packers have gotten faster on both sides of the ball. SB or bust this year. I'm doing what I don't usually do, get my expectations to high. Usually I say just make the playoffs, but this year has a different feel to it.

0 points
0
0
lucky953's picture

May 27, 2016 at 04:06 pm

You're right. The key word is speed and Cook's got it. The threat he brings to the line of scrimmage shifts the balance of power. I don't care what the previous years' stats say, if Cook is running two yards free down the middle, AR throws him the ball. He will have to be defended by an adequate cover guy, so I expect the Packers will see more nickel and dime defenses. Mr. Lacy may have a very nice contract year running behind this OL. I'll say 1300 yds or Cook has a very productive season. He can run past an in-the-box safety.

0 points
0
0
chaka's picture

May 27, 2016 at 04:59 pm

Packers should re-sign fomer TE Colt Lyerla. With Cook and Lyerla that would be an unstoppable tandem.

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 05:10 pm

The fact that no one has touched Lyerla since the Packers cut him is quite telling. Even then it's likely that he's not even in football shape at this point.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

May 27, 2016 at 06:05 pm

Why bother, just the random Lyerla joke.

0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

May 27, 2016 at 05:51 pm

lol

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

May 27, 2016 at 06:33 pm

Ha!

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 28, 2016 at 07:02 am

Ever notice how "LOL" kinda sounds like "Lyerla"?

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 27, 2016 at 06:35 pm

I looked into it and apparently Lyerla is playing rugby/arena football at this point. Realistically nothing has come out on him other than he was placed on inactive reserve in arena league with a shoulder injury (I'm guessing this is the equivalent of a injury waiver).

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

May 28, 2016 at 08:22 am

I gave chaka a like. You got me the 1st couple of times and you keep getting responses to the Lyerla post. Seems like it was 10 years ago when he was in GB. What a waste of talent. When you see guys trying to make a roster and will do anything to do it, then bums like this come along and don't give a shit.

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

May 28, 2016 at 10:41 am

I don't know who was the bigger disappointment between Lyerla and DJ Williams (forget about the draft status).

0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

May 27, 2016 at 08:28 pm

I appreciate the numbers but remember that Finley actually forced teams to account for him because he was a size/speed mismatch nightmare. True, he dropped too many balls and he ran the wrong route often enough to draw public comments from #12. Despite all that defenses STILL had to account for him. I don't expect Cook to come in and blow the world away because getting this offense down will take time, but damn, I didn't realize how much faster his 40 time was than Finley's. If he can also force defenses to account for him then the whole offense will be much better, whether it shows up on his stat sheet or not. I LOVE this signing. I don't like it, I LOVE it.

0 points
0
0
PaulRosik's picture

May 27, 2016 at 11:13 pm

The object of any pass offense is to have players on your side that the defense can't cover. Whether that player is your number one receiver, slot receiver, third receiver, tight end, or running backs out of the backfield doesn't really matter. In 2011, Rodgers threw for over 4600 yards and 45 touchdowns. There was only one receiver over 1000 yards but 5 different pass catchers had 6 td's or more (including a tight end with 767 yards and 8 td's). Multiple weapons are always good.

The recent past seems to show that pass catching tight ends can exploit mismatches. I guess this is because no matter how good he does year after year the opposing defense does not put their number one cornerback on Gronk because of his size, And safeties or linebackers have little chance to keep up with him. If you can put players you think have physical advantages over whoever will line up against him, then you want that person on the field. Let's hope Cook can do that.

0 points
0
0
lucky953's picture

May 28, 2016 at 12:24 am

"players ...that the defense can't cover". More accurately - players that the defense HAS TO cover- maybe they can, maybe they can't. The one thing they can't do is ignore the threat Cook presents, without paying the price. THAT, by itself, creates favorable 1v1 matchups elsewhere on the field. For instance, there will be no more double coverage on Cobb if Cook and Nelson are healthy. If Adams rebounds from a crappy sophomore season, defenses are going to have their hands full with this offense.

0 points
0
0
PaulRosik's picture

May 28, 2016 at 11:02 pm

Last season no one could get open consistently. We hope not only Cook but all the receivers show more this season.

0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

May 28, 2016 at 03:11 am

The obvious clue how important Jared Cook is; he was a rare vet free agent signing; so it is one of the most significant signings outside of the draft to fill a weak area of the team in 5 years.
Yeah, I'd say if the coaches/GM feel it is worth the rare spending, its a big deal to the offense...and they're working up some plans...(or I suppose).
For all the critics who are cynical on JC making a significant impact, I'd ask them also if they think Jordy will come back 100%, and the Jordy-Rogers combo will be right where it was left off. I don't think we'll see the same potency from that duo. Things just never, ever are the same...and the laws of nature (and sports) are constant attrition. So don't expect JN to be the top WR as before. And I applaud TT for constantly seeking new receivers, and especially JC.

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

May 28, 2016 at 06:31 am

"In order to determine the actual importance of the tight end position to the Packers I compiled the receiving statistics from 2008 (the first year Aaron Rodgers was the starter) to 2015 and then calculated the ratio of targets, receptions and yards from ProFootball Reference. Fullbacks were grouped with running backs since in the passing game they essentially play the same role and usually run the same passing patterns."

How can you determine the importance of the TE when the GM has basically ignored the position up until this year? Fact is the Packers haven't had a TE like Cook since about week 6 or 7 of the 2013 season.

I don't believe you can look at the numbers and decide the importance of the TE position. For one the Packers only had a TE worth talking about in 2009, 2011, and 2012 when Rodgers was QB. Richard Rodgers is an awesome "Complement" to a TE like Cook and the WR Corps the Packers have, but he's not a Game Changer in any way. Cooks that TE that could take a pass to the house anytime.

0 points
0
0
AndrewInAtlanta's picture

May 28, 2016 at 12:52 pm

I get that everyone wants to put the brakes on with regard to Cook being some kind of stud within the Packers scheme. I do think though he will play a bigger role than many conservative thinkers believe, even if only in a few key games. He's going to make a difference folks

0 points
0
0
Dr.Rodgers's picture

May 28, 2016 at 09:01 pm

Or he'll get injured in August and disappears. Predictions are useless.

0 points
0
0
J0hn Denver's Gavel's picture

June 01, 2016 at 01:13 am

::knocks on wood::

0 points
0
0
PETER MAIZ's picture

May 29, 2016 at 05:18 am

He'll be very important. In fact, the Packers can't win a super bowl without a very good tight end.

0 points
0
0
chaka's picture

May 30, 2016 at 01:37 pm

Who was their good TE in the last Superbowl run? They had awful TE's that season. Finley was out and was never really that good.

0 points
0
0
William Dickson's picture

May 29, 2016 at 08:32 am

Not for nothing, since all of the out of work head coaches on hear, with all of their GREAT knowledge love to inform us mortals on what this great team needs to do I am making this statement.......this J. Cook man,barring any injury setbacks will be the best free agent signing EVER EVER EVER ......THANK YOU. SIGNED,FUTURE HEAD COACH

0 points
0
0