Randall Cobb Is The Best Rookie Kick Returner

by Brandon on Jan 18, 2012 6:00 AM CST in Green Bay Packers Analysis

Cobb named to all-rookie team as kick returner - JSOnline. It's been a great season for Green Bay Packers rookie WR Randall Cobb. Early on, it was either feast or famine. He had a kick return for a touchdown in the opener, but then he fumbled a return the next week. He ended the season with 3 kickoff returns for more than 40 yards including a touchdown, and 3 punt returns of 40 yards and another touchdown. For a special teams unit that had struggled badly during the previous three seasons, he was a fantastic addition.

While he didn't play a big role in the offense, he was very effective when he got on the field. It helped that they didn't ask a lot of him, but he should be able to take on an expanded role next season. He may even force his way on the field.

The Packers may have to make a decision about Donald Driver this offseason. I was surprised he wasn't asked to take a pay cut before last season. That might be acceptable to him so long as he feels it's fair and he can't do better elsewhere. This isn't a straight up decision between Cobb and Driver. All the wide receivers, excluding Tori Gurley, are already under contract for next season. If they can work it out with Driver, there should be room for all of them in 2012.

But maybe it is just time to move on. Gurley may be an acceptable No. 5 wide receiver and Driver's departure would still leave them with four receivers that are good enough to start. What do you think?

Poll

Will Randall Cobb have an expanded role in 2012?

No, Driver still has another season left in him

313 votes

Yes, It's time to let the younger guys play

412 votes

725 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Gurley

I don’t see Gurley sticking around. Sure he could probably make the active roster as the #5 this next year… or he could go elsewhere and probably be a #3.

Perhaps better than a 3 if the vikes or bears pick him up.

by jester13 on Jan 18, 2012 6:33 AM CST reply actions

Gurley already chose to stick around!

Instead of going to the vikes roster, he CHOSE to stay on GB Practices Squad at the pay of a roster player. That means the Packers have plans for him since they paid him like a roster player and it shows Gurley wants to be here. Its time for Driver to go… He was being covered by a safety or even LB by the Giants in the playoff game and didn’t make any big plays and still only caught 3 passes. He just doesn’t have it anymore. There is no way you keep a WR who can’t beat safety or LB coverage for more than a few receptions. Since he apparently can’t see the fact hes done, its going to force the Packers to release him.

Our Biggest Challenge is how we deal w/ Success!

by Strohman on Jan 18, 2012 8:12 AM CST up reply actions

Gurley

I very recently read that Gurley was receiving a number of offers. I’d guess those reports probably were generated by his agent which I’d trust as much as a politician, but that is where I got the impression that he is still open to offers by other teams. If I find my way back to the article I’ll reference it in another post. I mostly agree with you on Driver, as much as I like the guy I think his time may be past. He’d probably be fine lower on the depth chart but he’d be getting paid too much for the amount he’d be on the field, and he’d be holding back the growth of younger players.

by jester13 on Jan 18, 2012 8:51 AM CST up reply actions

You misread it

The article was about Gurley’s decision to stick with the Packers despite the multiple offers he has received from other teams.

by Chief Oshkosh on Jan 18, 2012 1:20 PM CST up reply actions

Driver is still good, hell he was the only receiver that looked particularly good against the Giants

The man has lost a step but he’s still fast enough to be an NFL WR, he has incredible body control, and after several drops last year which may have only come from his aging body being overworked, he showed great hands this year, especially at the end of the season and in the playoff game

"IF CARDS CAN SIGN SUPPAN THEY CAN GIVE ME A HOME"

by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on Jan 18, 2012 8:42 AM CST via mobile reply actions

DD has some game left but

not enough to prevent what must come and I’m happy how he understands how things work and isn’t in denial.

The defense is getting ripped for standing still with its players and yet the same fans want to stand still on offense with DD and other(s) need not to be named player(s).

by Tarynfor12 on Jan 18, 2012 8:51 AM CST reply actions

yes

I’m not worried about how Driver would handle being let go at all.

I would love to have him around the team as long as possible, but his contract is to big for a mentor to Gurley and Cobb.

by doldham on Jan 18, 2012 1:13 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Yeah, Cobb is great.

When he can hold onto the ball.

I already told you! I deal with the god damn receivers so the linebackers don’t have to! I have coverage skills; I’m good at covering people! Can’t you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?!

by msc32887 on Jan 18, 2012 10:14 AM CST reply actions

We have too many receivers

Jennings/Nelson/Driver/Jones/Cobb/Gurley/Borel
plus TE’s: Finley/Quarless/Williams/Taylor/Crabtree/

That’s a lot of money, draft picks, and roster spots for a group with only one semi-elite guy (Jennings). I’d rather focus more on having the top 4 on the field more often than keeping and using so many average guys. The money on driver/jones/finley/grant/starks could be put towards matt forte.

Jennings/Nelson/Cobb/Finley(or whoever plays best in camp, if Finley is gone). If they want to keep undrafted rookies or low draft picks on the practice squad, fine. Keep another 2 TE’s for special teams, fine. But I don’t want to see Crabtree dropping passes in a playoff game anymore.

I think Cobb can be used a lot more as a slot receiver next year, we have so many plays which take a long time for receivers to get into position and then aren’t open…having him run some short routes ala Welker would be nice.

by gangstaff on Jan 18, 2012 10:40 AM CST reply actions

I'd lump Jordy up there with Jennings

Plus there is a reason we drafted Cobb in the second round, and it wasn’t just his return ability. The guy is straight up dangerous in the open field and will find himself on offense more. Plus, at least to me, he showed some pretty good hands on pass receptions.

I think you have to move on from Driver if he wants to keep playing.

Go with Jennings, Nelson, Jones, Cobb Gurley as your 5 WRs.

Tight end… I dunno. I don’t want the Packers to give up on Finley if they can bring him back for a reasonable price. With his drops this year and past injury history, I think the Packers will be able to resign him for a decent price. I see him being a Packer next year, and then what?

Quarless… struggled a bit last year with some drops and had a bad injury this year. Do we keep him over Williams and Taylor? If we retain Finley, I don’t really see the need. Especially since Taylor showed some glimpses in the passing game towards the end of the year.

Crabtree… great blocker, good on special teams. Enough to keep him around? Showed stone hands of late.

I think Thompson saw the potential for Finley to leave and loaded up on TE options last year. However, if we resign Finley, I don’t see the need for 5 tight ends on the roster.

Shit happens when you win championships

by Andrew Clark on Jan 18, 2012 12:17 PM CST up reply actions

The way I hope it shakes out

WR
1) Jennings
2) Nelson
3) Jones
3a) Cobb (primary slot guy)
4) Gurley

TE
1) Finley
2) Quarless
3) Williams
3a) Taylor (blocking situations)

So essentially DD and Crabtree gone. I think both are easily replaceable.

by Chief Oshkosh on Jan 18, 2012 1:29 PM CST up reply actions

I think I agree here except Gurley may be replaced by another WR we may draft

ReallY Driver has still go it, he can still be a good NFL WR and has looked good aside from a little slow lately, as I pointed out above, but he is also expensive and taking up a spot on a loaded roster. He’s got a year left of he still wants to play, that’s for certain, but the Packers are loaded and don’t need him blocking youth either. I especially agree about Crabtree, professional sports team always have adoration for someone on the team which I can never understand, the baseball and hockey teams I cheer for each have a guy like this too, but why TT and McCarthy love Crabtree so much I will never understand.

"IF CARDS CAN SIGN SUPPAN THEY CAN GIVE ME A HOME"

by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on Jan 18, 2012 3:40 PM CST via mobile up reply actions

Crabtree is solid

certainly an expendable player, though.

13.

by Wiedmann on Jan 18, 2012 4:47 PM CST up reply actions

True

He’s slow getting on routes in passing situations and big stone hands. Sucks though that he’s one of the friendliest Packers from what I hear. That will be missed.

When life gives ya lemons, shut up and eat your damn lemons.
Brett Favre will lead the Vikings to a Victory in Super Bowl XLVI, Guaranteed! - REVENGE4FAVRE

by P-Townfan on Jan 18, 2012 6:05 PM CST up reply actions

Crabtree

Is more a glorified FB and is a core ST player. If you look at him in that manner, instead of as a recieving TE, he can still justify a roster spot. Basically we kept him in leau of another FB. But he should not be running routes like a TE. I would be curious to know what position he lined up in more. TE or FB?

Our Biggest Challenge is how we deal w/ Success!

by Strohman on Jan 18, 2012 9:41 PM CST up reply actions

He probably lines up as an H-back about as often as a TE.

especially after Quarless got injured

13.

by Wiedmann on Jan 18, 2012 9:55 PM CST up reply actions

Spend the money on D

GB has the best QB in a league whose rules have been heavily skewed toward passing, a sufficient running game, and a pass rush that let Eli do his nails before throwing the ball. The Packers don’t need a premier running back – they only need enough of a ground game to be able to sell play action. Any money saved from trimming the receiving corps needs to be spent on generating a pass rush.

The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have.
- Vince Lombardi

by PackersOwnersBox on Jan 18, 2012 10:58 PM CST up reply actions

Agree on PASS RUSH ~ Strongly DisAgree on RB...

I’m so sick of having just barely serviceable RB’s!!! Play action only works if the DB playing against us is STUPID!! Because even if we break one it’s only for 8 yards… Put a RB they really have to respect on the roster and it’ll help AR sell the play action!!

Matt Forte is a FA right? He was the Bears whole offense… I say go after him and it immediately makes our running game/screen game a whole lot better, and instantly puts the Bears in the CELLAR!!! (What more could we ask for???)

Getting better and hurting the Bears all in one move!!!! PRICELESS!!!

"SOUTHERN HILLS KENNEL" ~ We Breed The Best Bitches In TEXAS!!!

GO PACK GO!!!

by BirdDogUni on Jan 19, 2012 9:53 AM CST up reply actions

How much money would Forte take?

He’s gonna require a good chunk of cash for ANY team to sign. Its not like we have a ton of cap room either. If Forte is signed (which wont happen), Finley and/or Wells would have to go. Are you comfortable with that? And in a few years we have to resign or do extensions for Jennings, Raji, Matthews, Rodgers, etc.

If your gonna spend the money on a star running back, say goodby to some good offensive players for us and goodby to helping this defense grow.

by Shoes31 on Jan 19, 2012 12:51 PM CST up reply actions

How do you sell Forte to the lockerroom?

He would become the highest paid player on our explosive offense w/o ever playing a down for the Green and Gold! Don’t you think that would cause problems w/ Rodgers and Jennings? Whats he done for the Packers to become the highest paid player on our offense? And it would cost us Finley and Wells! No chance…

Our Biggest Challenge is how we deal w/ Success!

by Strohman on Jan 19, 2012 9:13 PM CST up reply actions

You can't. You don't.

Even if there were enough money / cap room to go around – and there isn’t – the addition of a back like Forte would also mean changing the best offense in the league so he could get the 20-25 touches a game required to justify his acquisition. That’s just stupid.

And imagine all the grumbling in the lockerroom when there’s even fewer balls to spread around to the team’s receivers or Forte starts bitching because Rodgers starts using his weapons properly and checks out of the called run 2-3 times a quarter.

The NFL is now, by design, a passing league. The Packers are blessed with the best QB in the league and an outstanding collection of receivers who, on most days, catch throws that are usually so precise it defies description. Why on earth would anyone want to waste all that talent handing the ball off more than is absolutely necessary? Why would anyone want to change what is easily the single most valuable aspect of a team poised to compete for championships for at least the next several years?

The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have.
- Vince Lombardi

by PackersOwnersBox on Jan 20, 2012 4:02 AM CST up reply actions

This decision is simple.

Get rid of one of our TE’s, which ever one drops the most balls for the most money, and bring up Gurley.

Having 5 TE’s over the course of a season was interesting, but there was usually one of them left off the active roster each week. If you drop one of the TE’s, you still have the same amount of active guys, and you can use that roster spot for Gurley. Keep everyone, get rid of Finley or whomever you deem to be the least useful. That’s it.

by Nels Winkler on Jan 18, 2012 1:31 PM CST reply actions

we would lose one of our biggest fans

Gregg Easterbrook. The guy realized that the top passing attacks this year feature the best tight ends in the game (Gronkowski, Graham, Finley) and concluded that the more tight ends you have, the better.

by doldham on Jan 19, 2012 9:19 AM CST up reply actions

I like what i saw from Cobb, I think he deserves more playing time. I love DD and I wanted them to win it all again this year for these players who are mostly likely leaving, but it didn’t happen and at some point every legend has to hang it up. Luckily, I think DD knows this and the team knows how important he is and will hopefully keep him around in some other capacity.

As for all the Finley hate: get over it people, he had 2-3 drops Sunday, he isn’t the ultimate reason we lost. He has been up and down, but he has been as big of a reason as most players that we went 15-1!
Yes, he has problems dropping the ball. So thats a negative mark on all the plays where he is targeted and drops the ball. But he gets a positive mark for all the catches he made (still has pretty good stats) and he gets a positive for all the plays where he isn’t even targeted, YET there are still MULTIPLE defenders accounting for him. If he makes any kind of blocking plays, thats even better (I never seem to notice him blocking, although thats usually not what I am looking at-so I can’t really comment on that). Fact is that he adds a lot to this offense, on every single play he is in there.

Finley =/= Jones. JJ was a situational player, not a starter, so when he was on the field he needed to get the most of every opportunity. If the packers stuck with a backup at a talent rich position with drop problems, I believe they will do the same with Finley, I believe AR12 will stick by Finley and that a fair deal will be done. I don’t think Finley will get top dollar, yes he has made comments like that in the past, but as this year went on, I only heard positive things from him in the locker room. I don’t mind the on field stuff, there’s nothing wrong with getting into your opponents head, if you can back it up.

Who do we really have to replace Finley? It would be Andrew Quarless, James Jones, Tori Gurley, or a draft pick. To effectively replace him you need: Size, speed and receiving ability. We don’t have a lot of guys who fit that mold.
Quarless just suffered a major knee catastrophe, who knows if he will be ready for next season at all, much less whether he will improved/ the same player/ regressed.
JJ has a history of drops too, he doesn’t have the same size or general athletic ability.
Gurley has the biggest opportunity to replace him, but we are still talking about a 2nd year UDFA 22 yr old rookie. Rookies are more likely to have drop problems, adjusting to the speed, route running, etc. I definitely think we would see a dropoff in talent, but there is potential. Again, Gurley is a just a WR though, not a TE.
Draft pick- with the way this defense looked, does anyone want to spend a 2nd or 3rd rounder on a big athletic TE? I would much rather look to the defense. I don’t think we could find a much better option than Gurley and we would be talking about a pure rookie again.

tl;dr we do not have the players to replace what Jermicheal Finley brings to our offense, every single play.

by Tracker J Dunn on Jan 18, 2012 1:57 PM CST reply actions

P#1: I like Cobb too. 6 WR this year might be a possibility. As for Driver, I’m real glad we won the Super Bowl in 2010 so he has a ring. So no matter what happens, he’s always got that.
P#2: I like Finley too. I think it’s important we resign him, he’s a cog in the offense. However, he’s an awful blocker a la PFF, but he needs to pick it up next year if we retain him [otherwise, we’d never hear the end of it.]
P#3: Same. I think the comments about Finley have been blown out of proportion. If he really wants to be the highest paid TE in the NFL, his agent is gonna hafta pull some magic to get him that kinda money from the Packers. I think he wants to stay in Green Bay, but I could see some other TE-needy teams giving him more than the Packers offer. Still don’t think he leaves.
P#4: Quarless is actually a much better blocker than any other TE on the roster. It’s unfortunate that he blew out his leg, because he was showing some great promise as a blocker. Still isn’t anywhere near Finley is as an offensive threat, but for a 5th round pick, we’ve got a great blocking TE, which is encouraging.
I don’t think you can replace Finley. His measurables alone provide matchup issues that isolate our other receivers, making them [more] dangerous. I was impressed by JJ this year, though, he made some great plays for us. Gurley is an interesting story; I think we keep 6 WR and stash Gurley on ST, where his length could be an advantage….
I hope we don’t spend a early draft pick on a TE, but I will be completely unsurprised if we do; Count Finley out of the Packers plans if we do.

15-1
Back on track to Super Bowl XLVI!
MattFlynn4StartingQB

by arodgb on Jan 19, 2012 8:02 PM CST up reply actions

Tori Gurley

One way or another, this guy needs to get his shot. For those that don’t know/remember much about Gurley, he’s big. He would instantly become our biggest receiver (who is not a TE) at 6-4, 216. He could even afford to bulk up a little bit to put him in the category of a Demaryius Thomas (Den) or Brandon Marshall (Mia). In my opinion, we need to add another larger receiver a la Jordy Nelson. These guys are like hybrids between WRs and TEs. Gurley is pretty much equal to Jordy in speed and has slightly better hops.

by Ben T on Jan 18, 2012 2:09 PM CST reply actions 1 recs

Gurley

In preseason I mistook Gurley for Finley on a couple of occasions. They have a similar build (at least from a TV perspective).

by Chief Oshkosh on Jan 18, 2012 7:27 PM CST up reply actions

He could even afford to bulk up a little bit to put him in the category of a Demaryius Thomas (Den) or Brandon Marshall (Mia).

So basically, we bulk him up to become a #1 receiver? That would be amazing; We’d have an unstoppable WR core.

15-1
Back on track to Super Bowl XLVI!
MattFlynn4StartingQB

by arodgb on Jan 19, 2012 8:04 PM CST up reply actions

Thats what they're doing...

During this past year he has already put on about 10-12 lbs to get over 225. And by what I heard he actually gained some speed doing it. I don’t know if he will ever become as good as Marshall, but that is precisely what they are trying to do w/ him!

Our Biggest Challenge is how we deal w/ Success!

by Strohman on Jan 19, 2012 9:18 PM CST up reply actions