Packers Reportedly Signing Jared Cook

NFL Network reports the veteran tight end is in Green Bay to sign a contract. 

From Rapoport: 

As most Packers fans know, the signing of Cook will not cost the team anything in the compensatory pick formula, as Cook was cut by the Rams last month, and therefore not a true unrestricted free agent.

Cook will defenitely help add athleticism to a tight end group that is sorely lacking it, but the veteran tight end will need to hang on to the ball at a better rate in Green Bay than he did in 2015, when he dropped more balls than any other tight end in the league. 

With that said, you have to think Ted got Cook with minimal investment and little to no risk involved. Cook reportedly was also speaking with the Bears, Panthers, and Falcons. One would suspect being able to play with Aaron Rodgers swung things in the Packers' favor.

Cook will need to do a lot as a tight end in Mike McCarthy's offense, as the position is asked to be a jacknife that helps out in a lot of different ways. Everything from playing fullback to splitting out wide. 

But make no mistake, this signing is about trying to add speed and athleticism to an offense that was sorely lacking it last year. 

UPDATE:

Pelissero has some contract details. 

0 points

Comments (157)

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

March 28, 2016 at 08:57 am

This is an excellent signing for the Packers. A new TE coach who did wonders for Gary Barnage last season and a new TE that will only open things for a group of WR's and a QB he's never had the chance to play with. I LIKE it!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
LeagueObsrvr's picture

March 28, 2016 at 02:00 pm

Comment from Viking fan over at ProFootballTalk upon hearing the news:

"At first I thought this was impossible. Then I looked it up, stats over the past 3 years:

Cook: 142 Rec, 1,786 Yards, 12.6 Avg, 37.2 Yds/G, 8 TDs

Rudolph: 103 Rec, 1,039 Yards, 10.0 Avg, 31.9 Yds/G, 10 TDs.

Darn it."

Gotta love it! :-D

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

March 28, 2016 at 02:29 pm

On a price/performance basis, Rudolph is probably the worst TE in the league. For the life of me I've never understood what people see in him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spud Rapids's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:02 am

Hopefully everyone will lay off of TT now...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:04 am

NOOOO!!!! Go sign Zack Brown Ted!!! : )

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:26 am

I wouldn't mind that move at all.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Christopher Gennaro's picture

March 29, 2016 at 04:12 pm

Sorry just need to know, is brown a street free agent? Either way im with you, if we can get him a prove it deal like Cook TT off season is gold.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:28 am

This is step in the proper direction and Ted deserves credit for taking a highly reasonable step to improve the team. However, it does not provide a free pass if he decides to go hide in his draft only hole again in the future.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Taylor ONeill's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:51 am

Doubtful.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Mags's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:11 pm

Why because he finally figured out that TE has been a position of need for how long? Now if he would just do something about ILB.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
tm_inter's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:52 pm

No!!! I still want TT to sign an ILB who's faster than Jake Ryan. I hate seeing opposing team's RB running away from Ryan in every game.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Amanofthenorth's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:43 pm

Every game? He was a rookie and the NFL is more than speed, it's identifying and getting in to the rhythm of the angles. Ryan is no slower than Urlacher...gave the kid a year geesh.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:03 am

Yay! This takes one "need" off the list for this year's draft and turns it into a "want" depending on the terms. My guess is two years $5M, or one for under $4M.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:18 am

My range was $3M AAV. If there is a 2nd year, low dead money potential, perhaps $750K. So, 2yrs, $6M with $1.5 signing bonus is my max to think this is a good deal. I don't care if the 1st year base salary is guaranteed, just how much dead money is there in year 2 or other out years.

I don't view Cook as a complement to RR unless RR has figured out how to block. If not, RR becomes red-zone threat, and otherwise plays in 2 TE sets.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
zoellner25's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:38 am

1 year, 3.6 mil, per Ian Rappaport

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:46 am

I'm not a cap or value expert, but this sounds reasonable for a one-year deal in this case.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:04 am

A little more than the $3M AAV limit I had in mind, but I am delighted there is no dead money for year 2, since there is no year 2. This is more than reasonable - Dwayne Allen got 4 yrs, $30M; Fleener got 5 yrs, $36.5M. There are variables between those players, but still....

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 01:53 pm

I told you!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

March 28, 2016 at 02:55 pm

It's possible the deal could be better. As I read it, 3.6M is the maximum amount if all of the incentives are realized. It would be interesting to know what those incentives are.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 03:00 pm

I read it's like 900,000 for pro bowl voting and stuff. The real money is about $2.75 million.

EDIT: via Rob Demovsky

Here’s a breakdown of Cook’s deal:

Signing bonus: $825,000

Roster bonus: $75,000 (paid on June 20)

Per-game bonuses: Up to $400,000 ($25,000 per game active)

Workout bonus: $25,000

Base salary: $1.425 million

Cash value: $2.75 million

Salary-cap charge: $2.75 million

Incentives: Up to $900,000 for Pro Bowl, playing time, receptions and touchdowns (considered "not likely to be earned" for salary-cap purposes).

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

March 28, 2016 at 03:58 pm

Thanks. Knocking nearly a million off the deal makes me more comfortable, and if he actually earns those bonuses - like a pro bowl - I'll be happy to pony up the extra million.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
tm_inter's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:58 pm

1 year, 3.6 mil, per Ian Rappaport
...................................................................
I hope the contract includes $500,000 if no drops. $50,000 is to be deducted for every drop.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:06 am

This to me is a good move. I don't know what the contract is yet, but regardless this helps fill a HUGE need for the Packers. Also this will not cost the Packers a compensation draft pick next year which is an added bonus.

I'm not viewing Cook as a replacement for Rodgers, I'm viewing Cook as a complimentary piece to Rodgers who at the very least will be able to rotate in and or work with Rodgers. He offers what Rodgers doesn't. Speed.

Again, I really like this move.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
L's picture

March 30, 2016 at 01:58 pm

I still wouldn't mind the Packers potentially taking a look at Jeff Cumberland too as both he and Jared Cook are fairly similar players who could compete in Training Camp to be the team's seam and field stretching inside big pass catching TE for the 2016-17 season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
zoellner25's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:10 am

Don't know if this qualifies as an "excellent signing", but at least brings more speed to the TE spot and can hopefully spread out the defense more and make them respect the middle seams.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:24 am

I agree: it's a solid add. We'll be talking in January about how solid. But he's a big, seam-stretching target, and he doesn't need to catch 50 passes to make a difference in this offense.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:31 am

Exactly, run him on deep seam routes and watch what the Packers WR do underneath. This dude can really run, just look at how long it took Richard Rodgers to get close enough to the end zone so AR could throw the Hail Mary in Detroit!! LOL...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:51 am

Or use him on those plays to the flat that they tried using Rodgers for. Rodgers would get 2-3 yards on those plays. Have Cook run those plays and I am willing to bet he gains 8-10 yards on average on those plays.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
L's picture

March 30, 2016 at 03:13 pm

I wouldn't go that far, but I would agree that he could turn those 2-3 yard gains by R.Rogers into 4-6 yard gains which in comparison is like looking at the difference between a poor run play verses a good run. The potential negative aspect or problem could be the catch rate between the two players given that R.Rogers is a fairly dependable receiver (low drop rate) verses J.Cook, but maybe his catch rate is fairly comparable when isolating those short flair or flat pass plays?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:06 am

There's a field-level camera shot of that play taken from the corner of the endzone and on the snap you get to see RRodg "lumbering" through the field view...lumbering is being kind, but hell, he still got there. I still chuckle every time I watch that.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

March 28, 2016 at 06:31 pm

No Lion thought he could get there either LOL...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
EdsLaces's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:13 am

10 drops last year ....yikes. No wonder TT wasn't in a big hurry.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:13 am

Now stand him in front of a jugs machine for 8 hours a day from now until training camp.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:15 am

That said, worst among TEs with 10 drops...okay.

But 10 drops over 16 games...doesn't really seem like a huge deal to me in a vacuum.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:24 am

I didn't watch a lot of Rams games. My question about his drops, are what kind of drops were they? I mean were they really tough catches? Were they simple drops? Were they his fault, were they the QB's throwing horrible passes?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:27 am

In order to be counted as a drop, I believe the throw has to be considered "catchable."

Now what "catchable" is defined as is anyone's guess. But I imagine not catching "tough catches" and "horrible passes" wouldn't count as drops.

So, I'm assuming 10 simple drops.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:34 am

That is what my assumption would be. But I really don't know..

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:39 am

Evan, your point is logical, but drop is subjective. McGinn gave Cobb 14 drops and Adams 10, so I think McGinn counted more than simple drops. The website Sportingcharts assigned 6 to both Cobb and Adams, so those sound like simple drops. Sporting Charts assigned just 4 to Jared Cook. PFF assigned 10 to Cook. Personally, my opinion is that Cobb had more than 6, as did Adams.

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/drops/2015/

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:43 am

Good info - thanks!

Bottom line, whatever the actual number, he has questionable hands. Let's just cross our fingers they don't cost us anything this season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:45 am

That is exactly what I was wondering.

Stats can be very deceiving. And a stat for drops can be very subjective.

A lot can happen on a play to cause a drop. Is it fair to give the receiver a drop if the QB throws the ball 3 yards behind him and he has to torque his body to have the ball barely touch his fingers? Or if the defender knocks the ball out as the ball gets there. Some may view that as a drop, where others may not.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:19 am

That's so McGinn.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:46 am

Here is a link to a Cook simple drop. This one at least probably everyone can agree on. Couldn't find a compilation of his 4, er, 10 dropped passes.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/st-louis-rams/0ap3000000398077/Jared-Cook-wide...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:52 am

thanks for the clip. that is a perfect example of a simple bad drop. That looks like a lack of concentration type of drop.

The thing that I do like about that play, is how wide open he got.

I hope to see more of these types of plays from Cook!

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/0ap3000000570017/Can-t-Mis...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:27 am

Here's my thing with that play. Yes, it's a bad drop, but it's also poorly thrown. A little high and a bit behind on a 3 yard route is just awful QB play.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Grandfathered's picture

March 31, 2016 at 09:48 pm

The only way to evaluate a player is in relation to other players at that position. Since all teams use the same grading system, all players will have "easy" and "tough" dropped passes built in to their percentage. If Cook missed 10 out of 65 catchable balls, his drop rate is 15.38%. If Gronk drops only 8%, then we can evaluate the two players relative to each other.- Gronk has better hands. Or set a decision point - anyone over 12%, for example, has poor hands. Once you start looking at one player and trying to see if the drops were "tough" or easy", you lose that relativity and the stat becomes worthless. In my humble opinion.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
zoellner25's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:29 am

Not when you already have Davante Adams

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

March 28, 2016 at 06:33 pm

Will be a competition who drops more... but hopefully Adams won't be on the team..

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:33 am

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/drops/2015/

This chart lists Cook with 4 and Adams and Cobb with 6 each.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:16 am

Let's see what the contract says. If it's reasonable, I like it. But I haven't heard the numbers.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:32 am

1 year 3.6M.

Interesting..

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:34 am

This addition of 'speed' to the position will mean less and less if defenses still get a version of 'stone hands' and hope that Rodgers holds as much game to game faith in him as like with Adams last season and forgetting his own very much applauded mantra...." I throw to the open guy".

Lombardi Trophy or Participation Trophy.
One is a winner no matter what and the other a loser no matter the reasons.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:25 am

Did you just hear the term "participation award" and find it to be like, really cool? That's twice you've used it today.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:34 am

1 year, $3.6 million.

Would have liked a 2nd year just in case...but good deal.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:45 am

I would've liked to see 2 years, too. Now it's an opportunity for him to try to showcase for one more big contract. With what the Packers have coming up in FA next season, I don't see him coming back in 2017 unless he is only average, and then at a reduced rate.

Back on the list for "wanting" a developmental speed TE in the upcoming draft...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:20 am

I don't disagree, but we do already have a developmental speed TE in Backman.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:47 am

yeah, i would have liked a 2 year deal to be honest.

What this kind of tells me, is I think the Packers still will be in play for a TE in the 2nd-4th round area.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Maverick91's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:48 am

Thank you Ted! Now we just need to sign Zach Brown or Karlos Dansby and we'll be set.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:51 am

Maybe kick the tires on Knighton too...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:52 am

I guess Patriots are bringing Knighton in today for a visit.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
EdsLaces's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:57 am

Knighton couldn't be more of a Patriots kind of signing.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:07 am

Knighton apparently wants more than $4M and perhaps a longer deal. Don't know what Dansby wants. We are down to about $8 million in cap space available after paying the draft class. Be nice to roll some over?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Rossonero's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:25 am

Thrilled with the signing! Way to go Ted! Still gotta draft a TE though. Between Lacy, Lang, sitton, Bakhtiari and Hyde as FAs next year, I'd be shocked if the Packers give Cook a huge payday in 2017 over mainstays like the guys I just mentioned. By year 2, hopefully a TE the Packers draft this year can have time to develop and be ready for more of an impact in 2017. I'm not high on Kennard Backman.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:27 am

That is exactly why I can still see them drafting a TE in the 2nd-4th round. Give them a year to learn/develop and next year allow him to take over.

Most Rookie TE's that come in don't provide a big time impact during their rookie years. But the better ones really take off in their 2nd year. That would really work out well if Cook only stayed for 1 year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 28, 2016 at 02:20 pm

There's a small number of TE in this year's class that look anything like Cook (in terms of size/speed numbers). You can get size...or you can get speed. Hard to get both, it seems. I've soured a little on Vannett, but this signing means the Packers don't need to make a pick in that range (Rd 2) anyway. The 2017 draft class looks much better, though. They could hold off 'til then, if a prospect they like doesn't fall into their laps.

If anything, this might be why the Packers signed Cook: not enough options in the draft likely to be available in a round where the Packers are willing to spend the pick (value doesn't meet the pick). Still, they could get a raw guy like Braunecker from Harvard on day 3 and bring him along.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 02:30 pm

If they are looking for a guy who is almost identical to Cook they would be looking at Jerell Adams. Very similar measurable's. Both from South Carolina. Very similar types of players.

Honestly, I would be fine with it if they drafted Adams in the 3rd-4th round. I like him a lot to be honest. I don't think the Packers would draft him now, but I wouldn't rule it out.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
bears suck forever's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:28 am

Thats only 365K per dropped pass. What a deal.

How many did he catch?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Mojo's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:32 am

Packer bloggers pre-signing:

He drops too many passes.

No production, RR is better - produces more.

Bad teammate.

TT should pass - don't like him.

Packer bloggers post-signing:

What's a drop anyway?

ARod will make him productive

Fast guy will stretch the defense.

Locker room good guys will keep him in check.

Great signing TT.

You can't make this stuff up.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:37 am

Painting with quite a broad brush there.

In fact, just a few days ago this very Packers blog posted a column strongly advocating for Cook.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Mojo's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:57 am

Right this doesn't apply to everyone.

Just noticed, whether it's Cook or some other player, how fans often legitimize what the brass is doing in one instance and when it goes the other way suddenly are all on board with it.

Since this FA signing took a while I was able to gauge the tone over the last few weeks. While there were some advocating signing him, the majority of posters were down with TT passing, since Cook has had little production.

Now that he's in the fold just about everyone's happy.

Just saying....

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:05 am

I have always maintained that the Packers should sign Cook. I have always thought he was a good fit.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:11 am

Maybe give examples of bloggers who are doing what you claim, Mojo.

Just saying...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:21 am

I believe Mojo was actually referring to posters, not the actual bloggers.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 28, 2016 at 12:00 pm

True--in the Cory's Corner (Cook or bust) the responses seemed to be pretty evenly divided between yay's and nay's. It seems to me that the nay's just haven't emerged here yet.

Cow? Samson? Where are you?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 28, 2016 at 12:11 pm

Wait a minute...we have to have evidence now? No more wanton statements reeking of hyperbole just to make an overblown point?

I didn't sign on for this...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
WKUPackFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:18 am

It wasn't so much about production for some of us. I'm 100% for the modern player protecting himself and making as much money as possible. The players have a very few amount of years to maximize their value.

However, Cook has been described as the laziest player in the NFL (source: Walter Football). Titans and Rams fans couldn't wait for him to leave (which means nothing other than adding to the general perception). Again, I'm all for Jared Cook making as much as possible while doing as little as possible. I'd just prefer the risk be with another team.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 28, 2016 at 12:08 pm

I'd like to think there's a wake-up call here: he didn't get to play out that nice contract in St. Louis (keeping in mind it was with Jeff Fisher, who he played for in Tennessee...so how bad could his attitude really have been?), and now he's on a one-year deal that is his gateway to his last chance for a big contract. I'm not saying the Packers have just latched onto the second coming of Jimmy Graham, but I think he'll be focused for at least this year. Angelichio will earn his keep with this group.

Besides, if Cook has a great year for the Packers, prices himself out of TT's range, and then goes off and signs a big contract? More compensatories for the Packers...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

March 28, 2016 at 01:23 pm

A Vikings Blogger described Guion as the "Worst D Lineman he had ever seen" when the Packers picked him up. I don't have links just memory.

All I have to say if Cook is the "Laziest Player in the NFL" why would Jeff Fischer bring him to St. Louis? Jeff Fischer I'm sure does not want the Laziest Players.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 01:45 pm

And if Cook was so lazy as a player why is it being reported that the Rams were asking for a 2nd round pick last year when the Packers tried to trade for him?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

March 30, 2016 at 05:57 am

Hey WKU... Normally I'm right there with you and for the Packers sake I hope Cook proves to be a excellent signing. With that said I saw a grade for the signing on the "Walter Camp Football" website under FA Grades. They gave the Packers an " A " Grade for the signing. Same Walter Football??? Just wondering...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 12:14 pm

Yea, you're building up quite a straw man.

I'd say it was very even between fans who wanted Cook and fans who didn't.

Also, this:

"Just noticed... how fans often legitimize what the brass is doing in one instance and when it goes the other way suddenly are all on board with it."

Is a lot of nonsense.

Just on CHTV alone, there have been approximately 25,000 comments in the last few weeks tearing Thompson a new one for his inactivity in free agency. There was also a blog post pushing for Eliot Wolf to take over as GM immediately.

So, I'm not sure what "fans" who are blindly legitimizing whatever the brass is doing you're referring to.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
barutanseijin's picture

March 28, 2016 at 02:39 pm

Watch out Mojo, making perfectly legitimate observations like the one above makes you a "troll" or a Vikings fan.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 02:48 pm

Two things literally no one called him. But yea.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

March 28, 2016 at 02:48 pm

If it's a "legitimate observation" you'd think a "legitimate" example of what he's talking about could be presented.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
barutanseijin's picture

March 28, 2016 at 04:57 pm

He can speak for himself, but I think 'blogger' means 'message board poster' in this case.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PaulRosik's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:57 pm

Happens for everything. The guy who breaks the law on your rival's team is the worst person ever in the history of history and the guy on your team that gets arrested is misunderstood and needs a second chance.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 30, 2016 at 02:17 am

Mojo, I guess I'd be the poster who asked "what's a drop." Yes, I pointed out that just because PFF thinks Cook had 10 drops doesn't make it necessarily so, noting sportingcharts has him down for 4. Note that I view sportingcharts as being too low for assigning 6 drops each to Cobb and Adams, whereas I thought both had quite a few more, and noted that McGinn assigned Cobb and Adams 14 and 10 drops, respectively.

I am pretty sure few would consider me to be an unquestioning supporter of TT.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:41 am

mooooooo!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:23 pm

Actually the "great agent" is the one who negotiates the monster contract.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
PaulRosik's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:10 pm

Well since you're not a Packer fan but an anti Packer fan PRAYING for the Packers to lose and lose and loose what do you care? Everyone needs to know you're just the biggest Packer hater ever and only are happy when the Packers lose a game.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
LeagueObsrvr's picture

March 29, 2016 at 03:24 am

I'm assuming you meant "free agent", Cow but your point is valid. ;-)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
cheesehead1's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:48 am

Glad we are signing him but very concerned about the drops, think Finley, who had terrible hands IMO. Doesn't matter how fast you are if you can't hold onto the ball. Anyway, wishing him all the luck and that he surprises all of us and proves me wrong.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

March 28, 2016 at 01:25 pm

I think we all would have been happy to have a healthy Finley these last three seasons.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
cheesehead1's picture

March 28, 2016 at 02:58 pm

Not for me thanks. Poor team player and bad hands.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
lou's picture

March 28, 2016 at 10:58 am

Now lets see if McCarthy gets more creative and less predictable with his offense. I still could not believe formations on passing downs where either Richard Rodgers or John Kuhn were the far side WR's, the only thing I could think of was maybe they were going to run a jet sweep to that side to use their blocking - but no jet sweeps all year ? You would hope McCarthy could use Janis and Cook on the same side to draw the safety that way, run one deep and the other crossing or throw to Nelson on the other side because of the safety leaning. Lets wait and see how he changes the scheme, at least they have added to the arsenal.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:14 am

I do agree with you on this. McCarthy was way to predictable and was not creative enough with his offense. Perhaps some of it was due to the young players he had?
Either way though I hope they get more creative in there looks/formations this year. Get more misdirection types of plays and stuff to confuse defenses more.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 28, 2016 at 12:33 pm

" I still could not believe formations on passing downs where either Richard Rodgers or John Kuhn were the far side WR's"

That use to blow my mind. It was due to us running the no-huddle after a run play (which we had our better run personnel in). R. Rodgers isn't a good blocker, but he's better than the rest of the group we had.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RobinsonDavis's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:34 pm

Agree Lou! Although the offense had a rash of terrible injuries that bear part of the reason for our offensive woes, lack of creativity in the offensive game plan was as much of the problem IMO. Return to health, no doubt, should lead to improvement, but the complacency of running the offensive plan "as is" seems to not lend itself to much "improvement". Time for the coordinators and coaches to step-up as well.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RobinsonDavis's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:37 pm

Duplicate

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 28, 2016 at 12:09 pm

I think the key sentiment is that the general talent level on the team improved with this deal, and it took some of the pressure off the draft. AND...it comes with no long-term obligations or excessive hits.

Moving on...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 28, 2016 at 12:28 pm

"Jared Cook dropped 10 passes last year. No other tight end dropped more than seven."

3 more drops. Oooo.

I know. I know. I hate "drops" as much as the rest of you, but come on. How many did Cobb/Adams have last season -- with a much better QB? Are his hands now suspect? Chalk it up to a bad season and let's make sure it doesn't happen while on the Packers.

Even if he doesn't get the ball thrown his way his presence on the field should at the least cause the Defense to think twice on who they put on him. For ANY of our TEs last season ANY LB could man them up.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 03:13 pm

'Even if he doesn't get the ball thrown his way his presence on the field should at the least cause the Defense to think twice on who they put on him. For ANY of our TEs last season ANY LB could man them up.'

Plays like the following definitely will cause defenses to have to adjust.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-plays/0ap3000000570017/Can-t-Mis...

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000390537/Austin-Da...

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap3000000425457/Austin-Da...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 28, 2016 at 03:42 pm

Bingo.

I seen those earlier today and got excited for the possibilities if he gains the trust of Rodgers. I can see seam plays off of play-action working all day. If not, those short to medium passes will definitely be there.

Sitting on routes while a healthy Nelson/Cobb/Montgomery are on the field should be out of the equation.

Also, for those against this signing, please keep in mind this isn't addressing the long term TE position. Even with Cook's previous season #'s I'd take him over any TE on the Packer's roster last season BESIDES R.Rodgers. I'm certain TT will draft and sign more TEs in the next few months.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 29, 2016 at 06:43 am

I just like the options a player like that gives the offense. It gives them a legitimate threat down the seam.

What it also does is it forces the safety's to help cover the middle of the field and it forces the LB's to have to cover that area.
Probably the happiest person will be Cobb. He shouldn't have to deal with a LB and Safety doubling him on every play because there is absolutely no threat there now.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

March 28, 2016 at 06:06 pm

Ohhh Man, Seam routes like 1 and 3 are gonna absolutely ruin the defense that teams where throwing at the Packers after the Denver game.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 29, 2016 at 06:44 am

exactly right. That really showed what our offense was lacking.

And I'm not saying Cook is going to come in and have 1000+ yards receiving. I'm saying that his presence will help open up the playbook, and open up the outside more for the WR's.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:27 pm

Exactly. DW . I don't think I can ever remember a group of tight ends that were taken less seriously than our group last year. Except RRodgers in the red zone. Now there is at least the hint of a threat. Let's hope we scrap those formations and plays we all know and hate from last year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

March 28, 2016 at 01:09 pm

I'm skeptical that it works out as much as we all hope, as there are a lot of "depends on" factors:
1) depends on how MM uses him and schemes to maximize his speed, 2) depends on rumors of Cook being lazy or lack work ethic, if it was an issue, is it improved by change of scenery or a QB like AR 3) Patience; its not automatic that a talent can transfer and fit right in. It might still take mid season to get in sync. Will QB and Coach be patient? Despite my skepticism, I think it is worth the gamble to take pressure off of the draft to fill with starting caliber TE . Sure there is risk, but glad TT took the gamble.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 02:06 pm

for the record, I haven't heard anything about Cook being lazy until today, when someone posted it on here...
Could anyone provide a link for that?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 28, 2016 at 02:30 pm

Same here. I've read articles quoting him referring to himself as a "soldier" when asked about his involvement in the Offense. Maybe he was misused?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

March 28, 2016 at 04:23 pm

At the owners meeting MM was quoted as saying, " I've spent a lot of time with Jared and he's a fine young man". GB has done their due diligence, believe that! The fact that they were considering trading to get him last year suggests that they are plenty familiar with him and have zero concerns IMO. The new TE coach should really be able to dial him in, Rodgers will be throwing him the ball, and he's a matchup nightmare whether he gets thrown to or not. Should open up a lot in both the run & pass game. The guy can flat out fly for a 255 lb TE!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
ES 1957's picture

March 28, 2016 at 01:40 pm

If there was one team need that should've been addressed through free agency in 2016, it was TE. The upcoming draft is loaded with D linemen and there are enough good ILBs.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
packsmack's picture

March 28, 2016 at 01:56 pm

TEs generally take 3 years to develop, so drafting one is generally a long term plan. Rodgers could break out, and now 2 TE sets will be scary for defenses. I love this move.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 02:04 pm

yeah, 2-3 years. Most TE's really take off in their 2nd year. Evan posted some great stats on that a few weeks back. Really showed how Rookie TE's were mostly average at best in production, but most in their 2nd years really took off.

This might be a good reason to draft a TE this year in the 3rd-4th round area. Give them a year to understudy and let them take off next year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 28, 2016 at 02:32 pm

He could break out if the WRs play to their potential and he doesn't have much on his plate.

I think a coach mentioned he (of they) put too much on his plate.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 28, 2016 at 02:34 pm

Even if he can block only a little, 2 TE 2 WR 1 RB is starting to look like a very versatile set for the Packers this season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 02:56 pm

Maybe they will go for the 'Jet' formation... Nelson, Janis, Cobb, Cook, Montgomery.

A lot of speed on the field with that formation.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 28, 2016 at 03:12 pm

You're absolutely right @Dobber.

I just don't understand it. He needs to get tougher and stronger. Maybe he needs some attitude too. He should be punishing all CBs, all Safeties and a lot of LBs with his size and build.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Irish_Cheesehead's picture

March 28, 2016 at 02:42 pm

Now we need to draft a decent ILB.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
cheesehead1's picture

March 28, 2016 at 03:04 pm

Agree, if they have thier eye on a ILB they REALLY like,, move up and go get him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 28, 2016 at 03:26 pm

I think Cravens might be a bit of a reach at #27, but likely won't make it to the Packers in round 2. Jones from LSU is the guy I'm looking at now as a chase ILB.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
ShawnO's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:34 pm

I could see the Pack going DL in the first and if Cravens is still available at pick 50, trading up to get him.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Point-Packer's picture

March 28, 2016 at 03:07 pm

OMG, our roster is destroyed forever. We signed a FA at a position of need.

If this article is accurate and Lynch actually wanted to be in GB, but TT was unwilling to give up a low round draft choice for him, it may be one of the more egregious personnel decisions GB has made in the last decade: http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2016/3/28/11318826/marshawn-lynch-jerm...

That being said, I think its 50/50 regarding accuracy.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 28, 2016 at 03:24 pm

I agree on the likely accuracy. So tired of hearing about Lynch...or Moss...or other guys that TT could have had for a pick. All in the past. Let's move on.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 03:51 pm

I'm a "In Ted We Trust Guy" 99% of the time. But not trading for Lynch is very, very hard to defend. Between cost, need and his relationship with Rodgers...it all made too much sense not to do.

But, yea, the past is the past.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 28, 2016 at 03:53 pm

Lynch wasn't the Lynch we know now though.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 03:58 pm

Good point...but he was still far and away better than the four-headed monstrosity of Starks, Jackson, Kuhn and Nance.

Again, the Packers did win the Super Bowl that year, so small nits. But they did suffer through two more years of mediocrity until the issue was solved.

Hmmm...sounds familiar...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 28, 2016 at 03:59 pm

Lol, you're right about that.

Ugh...don't remind me of that group.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 04:10 pm

"Fun" fact. Jackson's 2010 season was better than Lacy's 2015. Jesus.

Jackson 2010
16 games, 13 starts
190 attempts, 703 yards, 3.7 YPA, 3 TDs
43 rec, 342 yards, 1 TD

Lacy 2015
15 games, 12 starts
187 attempts, 758 yards, 4.1 YPA, 3 TDs
20 rec, 188 yards, 2 TDs

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Point-Packer's picture

March 28, 2016 at 04:59 pm

Agreed that what's done in done, but if true (50/50) it is an example of Ted passing on the best RB that the NFL has seen in the last five years, if not decade. In the context of his passing on players that seemed suited for GB and have shown interest (Forte/Travathon), it is totally relevant today.

As to Brandon Jackson's 2010 being better than Lacy's 2015.....I don't know what to say other than Fat Ed better get in shape and be the guy GB drafted and not a poor man's Ron Dayne.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 28, 2016 at 05:29 pm

@Point

He looks 10x times better already. There's a before and after the P90x pic floating around. Let's hope he can have a Leveon Bell type of comeback after shedding his thickness -- ha!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 07:52 pm

I'd be willing to bet Lacy has a Lynch-like season.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 28, 2016 at 08:20 pm

@Evan If only we weren't so pass heavy...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
LeagueObsrvr's picture

March 28, 2016 at 05:51 pm

This is actually very old news. Lynch wanted to come to Green Bay and even stated publicly that he wanted to be reunited with Aaron Rodgers as they played together at Cal. And yes, the hot rumor at the time was that the Bills were demanding a third round pick, while Thompson was unwilling to give up anything higher than a fourth rounder.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jmac34's picture

March 28, 2016 at 06:22 pm

Yeah I remember hearing that GB offered the same thing that Seattle did but Seattle was the worse team at the time so their pick was technically better. Some won't remember this but their were definitely some injury and production issues from Lynch when he was in Buffalo so a fourth rounder was a reasonable offer

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Point-Packer's picture

March 29, 2016 at 12:54 am

TT's dogma is truly a hindrance to GB's success. If you don't believe that, you're high on meth.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
AgrippaLII's picture

March 28, 2016 at 05:00 pm

I would've liked a 2 yr. deal like Ted tried to get but I yr. is okay...Ted got him at his number. Hope this means Ted won't draft a TE till the fourth round.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Lphill's picture

March 28, 2016 at 06:37 pm

If the Vikings signed Cook instead of the Packers, COW would proclaim that the Vikings would have the best tight end in the North.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 28, 2016 at 08:21 pm

Depending on what you think of Eric Ebron, they WOULD have had the best TE in the North.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

March 28, 2016 at 08:18 pm

He isn't very good. Finley with less talent but of course also less drama. At the same time, he is better than what is on the roster at #2 and #3 TE...
Takes the need off for drafting a TE. So overall a positive move.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 28, 2016 at 08:21 pm

Instead of "isn't very good" it should be "hasn't been very good".

Spot on with everything else.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
lebowski's picture

March 28, 2016 at 08:35 pm

My lord our fan base was desperate for a free agent signing. Over 120 comments on a below average 29-year old tight end who caught zero TDs last year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:04 pm

136 comments on an article about Elliot Wolf.

You are correct that Cook had 0 TD catches last year. Might want to mention the Rams QBs threw 11 total TDs last year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

March 30, 2016 at 06:04 am

Now THAT'S priceless, 11 TD's. Hmmmm, maybe Cook doesn't suck so bad. Excellent stat RC!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Mags's picture

March 28, 2016 at 09:24 pm

Well when Ted keeps ignoring obvious positions of need and his drafting of those positions or lack there of isn't quite developing the way it should people get excited.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:16 pm

Good. Now on to the draft. Can Mitchell Henry block? Maybe we will have a good complimentary group of TEs this year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Point-Packer's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:31 pm

I love this signing, but what I'm most concerned about is the one year deal. Good chance Cook catches 60-70 balls and 6-8 TD's this year. Packers offense and #12's arm make him look like a pro-bowler, he demands a big contract and goes and plays for the Cowboys.

Pending injury, wouldn't be surprised if that's what happens.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
LeagueObsrvr's picture

March 28, 2016 at 11:58 pm

There is also a report on ProFootballTalk that Green Bay is (or was) taking a look at running back Ronnie Hillman.
My guess is that this probably occurred before they re-signed James Starks, but I could be wrong.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
TommyG's picture

March 29, 2016 at 04:49 am

I misjudged cooks actions. I had assumed that visiting the pack was a leverage move. Sounds now like TT offered him a one year signing from the get go. I'm glad he is ours but surprised he couldn't find a bigger or longer contract. He must be searching for a ring. Or he is terrible. I'm hoping he came for the ring.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 29, 2016 at 06:38 am

Reports are TT originally offered a 2-year deal.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 29, 2016 at 07:27 am

Sounds like maybe guaranteed 2nd year money was an issue. Would have been nice to have had a 2 year deal, but not the end of the world. There probably will be similar players and options avaiable next year to pursue and use as leverage, and who knows maybe someone else on team will improve, maybe even a draft pick.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
lou's picture

March 29, 2016 at 09:49 am

Based on the 1 year deal that probably means they will take a TE in the middle of the draft. This signing and Perillo's signing point to the fact that Bachmann may not have been a good draft pick - hence another reason for drafting a TE this year. Had Bachmann looked like a good bet to develop, they don't sign Perillo who they moved from the practice squad to active instead of Bachmann last year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 29, 2016 at 03:17 pm

Maybe Perillo was a better study than Backman and that's why we seen him on the field more than Backman. The coaches already made the mistake of playing talent > study with that guy in Seattle and we all remember how that turned out. They played it safe.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 29, 2016 at 09:07 pm

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Grandfathered's picture

April 02, 2016 at 09:43 pm

"Cook will need to do a lot as a tight end in Mike McCarthy's offense, as the position is asked to be a jacknife that helps out in a lot of different ways. Everything from playing fullback to splitting out wide."

If Cook has a single specialty of downfield speed, why would a team automatically make him do the versatility things of their other TE's? Use the guy in the role he's best at.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

April 04, 2016 at 07:46 pm

Give me some of this...

https://youtu.be/VlVXoXWo7yU?t=3m24s

Watch the move he put on that LB.

On 3rd down and medium.

That burst after the catch.

The finish.

I wonder if this was finally a case of an offensive player wanting to come play with Rodgers vs going to the highest bidder.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

April 04, 2016 at 07:48 pm

+ 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.