I think he is going to be a Raider

 

Wonderful player but a questionable roster fit.

If you knew that one year from now you were going to be able to pull in Randall Cobb via free agency, you don't draft Jarvis Landry in the 2nd round. That's why I say bad roster fit. They play the same position.

 

Cobb is perfect in this offense imo, Landry has publicly stated he wants to be an outside WR and that is one of the factors motivating him to work so hard. Somehow getting this guy makes you feel pretty good about Wallace leaving.

Ofcourse it's not likely unless Cobb has some infatuation with Joe from his days in GB.

 

I think its the right move business wise for the packers to let him walk, and thats because they have an excellent scouting dept, Devante adams paired with Jordy moving forward is the way to go, and now you can spend that 8 million that he will get on the market elsewhere while your paying your 2nd year stud peanuts..team is better off..

 

They also aren't operating with much cap room, I'm sure they want him back but it may not be possible.

 

My initial thought was:
That would be perfect! A guy right out of the Green Bay system!
Then I remembered this isn't the Green Bay system, Philbin doesn't have a system. He fixes powerpoints.

The is Lazor's offense. Now any offense could probably use a Randall Cobb, but he primarily plays the same position as Landry. With the current speculation on Wallace and even Hartline, we will likely be needing and outside guy, not an inside.

 

I think you put Landry in the possession role, put Cobb in the slot, and draft a downfield guy to replace Wallace.

 

What is the "possession" role to you?

Do you mean being an outside perimeter receiver?

 

I just want a tall reciever, someone that can jump high and goes all out every posession.

 

Right, Hartline's position in 2014.

 

So you want Jarvis Landry running a lot of vertical and deep crossing routes? Because Hartline ran a lot of vertical and deep crossing routes.

 

Perhaps, but Hartline didn't get targeted much on anything 20+ yards downfield in 2014. What I'm aiming for is for Landry to take on the "possession" work Hartline did (comebacks, outs, crossing patterns, etc.), which would allow the team to cut both Hartline and Wallace, draft a downfield receiver to replace Wallace, and have the savings fund Cobb's contract.

 

So you want Jarvis Landry to end up essentially the #4 option in the offense?

Brian Hartline didn't run many of the routes you ascribe to him and that's why he was the #4 option in the offense. He ran a bunch of other routes on which he's not very interesting, and on which Jarvis Landry will be no more interesting.

 

I actually wouldn't mind his being the #4 option, assuming the team is putting Cobb, a highly-drafted downfield receiver, and a fully healed and better Charles Clay on the field. The #4 option (although a good one) is about where I'd peg Landry in that scenario.

The difference with him over Hartline, however, is that you're getting a 2nd-year player on a 2nd-round contract, who can probably capably assume the duties of a guy (Hartline) who counted more than $7M against the cap in 2014. Again, the main goal is to free up money to pay Cobb, without absorbing too great a percentage of the team's overall cap in the wide receiver position.

 

Randall Cobb is an exceptional player. I would sign him and start him over Landry without hesitating. I love Landry, but Cobb is a game changer and right now we need a game changer.

 

but it all comes down to building a well balanced team and having your scouting dept ahead of the game..its how you win in this league, evaluating the right players so when its time they move into a players role and then you can spend that money elsewhere while that rookie that took his spot is on that contract.

It all works and is possible because someone scouted adams correctly.

 

That's fair. I love Randall Cobb. I just don't want people to get pie in the sky notions about making it all work between he and Landry and Clay based on vague ideas like "moving people around" and whatnot.

It's clear that to sign Randall Cobb would to some extent be cannibalizing Jarvis Landry's role in this offense. If you're cool with that, which I am as well, then that's fine.

 

I love Cobb, but is he able to fill the outside role because I want to keep Landry where he is. Does anyone think he isn't signing almost the same deal Wallace got??

 

If it's to replace Hartline sure... if it's to replace Wallace and yet keep Hartline as your #2, no thanks, would be a dumb move.

 

Its a risk. You are upgrading the slot yes…Cobb is the best slot WR in the game. However, Landry is top 10 as a rookie and he is going to become a whole lot less interesting on the outside. Maybe Cobb can play outside but if your paying him 10mil you better be playing him where he's comfortable and you know where its going to work..which is the slot.

Id rather keep Landry and upgrade Hartline on the outside via the draft and spend that money elsewhere.

 

If Cobb can't produce playing outside then it makes no sense to sign him. He'll cost 8-10 times what Landry does and give us maybe 1.5-2.0 times the production. Meanwhile we will have cut/traded the guy who has proven he can play outside. No thanks. If that's the case we should target Maclin, dude can play anywhere on the field.

 

Playing the Devils advocate maybe Lazors offensive system does not require a deep receiver but rather a range of short and medium range receivers who can get the YACs.Cobb could replace Hartline in that scheme and if you remember Hartline was our deep receiver for a while.Not a classic deep receiver but he got some patterns he could make and handle.

25 yard passes are the norm these days for a deep WR.

 

I think what folks need to remember here is that as the game starts to revolve more and more around passing, the old days of two wide receivers, a tight end, and a running back and fullback are going to come to an end. What we're going to see more of are four wide sets, and in that case there will be plenty of room for the Jarvis Landrys of the world, even if they aren't playing in their ideal positions. Landry is a player, and he'll produce in a possession role.

 

This is the question though. Cobb played like 90% of his snaps in the slot…more than anyone else in the league I believe. He's purely a slot receiver for GB. Could he play outside? I mean I would like to say yes based on his talent alone…but its a whole different animal playing the perimeter. Im not sure I would give him 9+ mil to find out.

As another poster said Maclin is the ideal fit…but I don't think he's sniffing FA…then again people didn't think Cobb would either

 

While true…there are still not a ton of 4 WR sets used. Most teams use a TE flexed out because it gives them more run/pass versatility. I like Landry…a lot. Maybe he can get it done on the outside…but I don't think he would be the same player. It minimizes his short area quickness and allows him to get jammed more out there…that and exposes his long speed. He's a pure slot IMO.

 

he's going to command too much money. as much as I'd like the upgrade, we need to spend the money elsewhere.

 

For our Dink and Dunk offense, Cobb would be great.

 

You do realize maybe Hartline was option #4 because you KNOW he won't be open right? You do realize if someone else is pegged in that spot and they can get open the ball will go that way. You make it seem that "POSITION" is designated to be the 4th option in this offense and has nothing to do with availability in terms of open or not open.

Hartline being "open" is similar to some of "strong" being open. shoulder to shoulder next to his defender, only difference is Strong out jumps or muscles the WR for a "great" catch. Something you can't count on regularly in the NFL and won't last long in the NFL unless its in the red zone for a fade route. I think you get a Landry in the hartline role the problem is he isn't a burner, the problem won't be he will be the "4th" option now. If he CAN and DOES get open then he will get the ball, "option #4 or not" as you state it. Cobb did very well in GB b/c when Rodgers scrambled there was 1 guy always open, and it was Cobb. Most of his big plays came when the QB was out of the pocket and thats because of his speed and awareness. Something Hartline lacked significantly and something Landry lacks, speed.

 

This would play out exactly like wallace except maybe we don't over-pay Cobb.

Tannehill still won't be able to hit him deep, like he can't hit wallace deep. Nothing changes. We blame Cobb, and then run him out of town.

Marhsall, Wallace, and then Cobb. The cycle continues.

I'll pass on Cobb

 

The difference with Cobb is that, not only is he a deep threat, but he's also among the league leaders in YAC, whereas Mike Wallace finished 75th in the league in that area in 2014.

So, even if Tannehill can't hit Cobb deep, which itself is debatable because he hit Brian Hartline deep just fine in 2012, Cobb will still contribute with YAC, unlike Mike Wallace.

 

If Tannehill could actually hit wallace his YAC would have been among the league lead.

Agreed Cobb has great YAC, but Rodgers hits him in stride, and can hit him 20 yards up the seam. Something Our QB starts having trouble with around 20+ yards.

 

Didn't have that problem in 2012, as a rookie throwing to Brian Hartline.

 

Judging by Lazor's public words I think he would want a deep receiver. The modified version we saw this year didn't have that element due to Tanny's limitations but they went hog wild against NE in the 2nd game, with something like 16 deep attempts.

 

Hartline was still here the past 2 years and he was running vertical routes so what happened.

 

LOL Hitman came into the league in 2009, the only one you're fooling with those garbage stats is yourself.

 

I think you're missing the point. Hartline became the #4 because the routes he was running were generally not a fit for his skill set. Well, those routes are no more a fit for Jarvis Landry's skill set. Bunch of verticals, speed out, deep crosses, shallow crosses. Plug Landry into that spot and you've got as much of a square peg in a round hole as you did with Hartline.

 

Highly debatable...but many are inflicted with the "can't get past Marino" ailment.