Cobb and Cowboys close to deal

Status
Not open for further replies.
jterrell said:
FWIW this would be a typical DAL signing of a proven vet stop gap to go draft.
If draftee hits the signee will drift off into retirement.
But it allows team to not reach on draft day.
Click to expand...
^^^^bingo^^^ well said and true.
 
jterrell said:
Brother, that is what you call umm kinda bad reading.
Cobb was actually superior per game and especially in the playoffs.
Cobb did miss 10 more games and he had a very weak 2018 so one year trend isn't good.
Click to expand...

It's accurate reading. Can't help the club in the tub. You can use injury as an excuse of you so choose. I'm not. In fact, I consider missed games a negative, not some excuse.


As to the Rodgers stuff, Cole Beasley's best ever year BY FAR was with Dak Prescott.
If he vastly improved from Romo to Dak I'd say we ought not to say such snarky things.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm saying accurate things. Cobb played with a better passer than Beasley ever did. Prescott or Romo. If you want to debate that they were better passers, I'll leave that exercise in futility up to you.

Truth is both players are older kinda meh guys long term.
Click to expand...

No arguments from me there. I'm just pointing out the actual stats to all those who think they're getting Randall Cobb from 2014. That guy is gone and the numbers show that.
 
DRella said:
I don't think Cobb is a long term solution. But still an upgrade over Beasley. Beasley is more of a short route slot. Cobb can do that and also stretch the field. We aren't expecting him to be a 1200 yard receiver as in the past. We need him to stay healthy and produce slightly more then Beasley did last season. My prediction is he can considering his run after catch capabilities are far more superior then what Beasley showed in his years at Dallas.
Click to expand...
yup...and in spots, Cobb is sneaky athletic and can get open. He's also a good blocker...much better than Cole was. That's a scheme fit for what we like to do.
 
stasheroo said:
Or he wouldn't have had a quarterback that could actually have gotten him the ball and thrived?

But no, I'm sure it could have only gone the way you think it would.
Click to expand...
Lol, you are still ridiculously acting as if it was possible for Adams, Nelson and Cobb to all get 120 - 150 targets a year. The reality is that isn’t possible, so it had to give somewhere, and the other reality is there is no shame in losing targets to a guy like Devonte Adams, who is one of the elite receivers in the game
 
I too haven't read that a deal is done. My guess is an offer was made, he will explore other visits and get back to them. Being the next day already, unless Jerry locked him in a broom closet at the Star until he signed a contract. He isn't signed yet and has left Dallas.
 
Rayman70 said:
maybe a touch...but for the most part I am trying to look at it from their vantage point. Realistically, we lost some versatility when we lost Cole. We better replace that..and I think they are at least willing to talk to Cobb as a result.
Click to expand...

I agree, but not from a punt return perspective. Beasley wasn't a factor there and Cobb hasn't been for years now.
 
Alexander said:
This is literally the only mention of a deal being close anywhere.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think it was a misinterpretation.

He probably heard was visiting and discussed contract. But nothing was done or close
 
OmerV said:
Lol, you are still ridiculously acting as if it was possible for Adams, Nelson and Cobb to all get 120 - 150 targets a year. The reality is that isn’t possible, so it had to give somewhere, and the other reality is there is no shame in losing targets to a guy like Devonte Adams, who is one of the elite receivers in the game
Click to expand...

"Elite" because he plays with Aaron Rodgers, one of the best passers in the game. A fact you can't bring yourself to acknowledge. That's your issue and nobody else's. Everyone else knows he's among the one or two best passers in the game. The only eyes you cover are your own.

Jordy Nelson was "elite" playing with Rodgers as well. And Cobb had himself one "elite" year playing with him as well.

And the team can move on from all of them because they realize what you apparently can't or won't. That the quarterback makes the receivers, not the other way around.
 
stasheroo said:
It's accurate reading. Can't help the club in the tub. You can use injury as an excuse of you so choose. I'm not. In fact, I consider missed games a negative, not some excuse.




Again, I'm saying accurate things. Cobb played with a better passer than Beasley ever did. Prescott or Romo. If you want to debate that they were better passers, I'll leave that exercise in futility up to you.



No arguments from me there. I'm just pointing out the actual stats to all those who think they're getting Randall Cobb from 2014. That guy is gone and the numbers show that.
Click to expand...
Eh not accurate reading.
Again from your link and suggested window Cobb was simply a better player. Only 12 less catches for ~120 yards in 10 less games speaks to having a greater impact.
More chances per game for more yards and VASTLY better in the playoffs which means a lot.

If you had merely compared last year you would have wholly on point.

Rodgers was great for sure but so was Romo and Cole nearly DOUBLED his career best Romo season year 1 with a rookie Dak.
passer quality wasn't an issue at all.
BTW Rodgers missed 9 games over that 3 year period and Dak missed none.
Does that make Dak better?
 
jterrell said:
Eh not accurate reading.
Click to expand...

It's entirely accurate. You simply don't like what it says. I posted it so that everyone could see it's accuracy for themselves.

Again from your link and suggested window Cobb was simply a better player. Only 12 less catches for ~120 yards in 10 less games speaks to having a greater impact.
More chances per game for more yards and VASTLY better in the playoffs which means a lot.
Click to expand...

And yet lesser numbers due to a lack of reliability and availability. The point you apparently don't like.

If you had merely compared last year you would have wholly on point.
Click to expand...

If anything, I gave Cobb more benefit of the doubt using three years rather than just one. Three years is a better sample size than one, and it accurately represents what Beasley did for all three of his years with Dak. That's why it was used because it gives the best comparison.

Rodgers was great for sure but so was Romo and Cole nearly DOUBLED his career best Romo season year 1 with a rookie Dak.
passer quality wasn't an issue at all.
BTW Rodgers missed 9 games over that 3 year period and Dak missed none.
Does that make Dak better?
Click to expand...

Like I said, Rodgers is the far superior passer, that's the point. If you want to debate that, the floor is yours.
 
If the Berry dealings mirror what happened with Cowboys visitors Randall Cobb and Clayton Geathers, however, we might be waiting for signings that never come.

On Monday, Dallas played host to Cobb, the former Green Bay Packers star receiver, and to Geathers, the former Indianapolis Colts safety and team captain. I'm told they enjoyed an 8 a.m. breakfast in the luxurious dining room at The Star, engaged in meetings all day, and stayed until about 5 p.m. ... at which point they exited the building without contracts.

My educated guess is that Dallas extended to both tentative "prove-in'' offers, one-year proposals for what, at this moment, was deemed by the players (neither of whom has had any other visits) to be not enough money.

Cobb and Geathers have been plagued by injuries in recent years, but they offer big-time help if healthy. How much does Dallas want to bet on either? So far, not enough to suit the two players.
Click to expand...
https://247sports.com/nfl/dallas-co...o-the-Cowboys-Will-tradition-stand-130265162/
 
"The old tradition around here goes something like, "Once the Cowboys get 'em in the building, they don't let 'em go without a contract.''

Hasn't been true for years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

... and 99 more.
Total: 1,179 (members: 199, guests: 980)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
465,465
Messages
13,876,831
Members
23,791
Latest member
mashburn
Back
Top