Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

290 Veteran
  1. A lot of people had him as a mid day 3 pick (we took him as the last pick on day two) so he was perceived as a reach. It’s still early but it looks like it wasn’t a huge mistake taking him where we did. i think the fact that we had a starting running back is a big part of why a lot of people disliked the pick. Regardless of what you thought of Mattison as a prospect, spending a third round pick on a backup running back is not viewed as wise.
  2. Vikings by the Numbers

    So Cox has the most impact in Vikings history?
  3. Vikings by the Numbers

    why do you think he had more of an impact?
  4. Vikings by the Numbers

    Brad Johnson has a case, mainly by being a QB but his best years were after he left the Vikings (made the pro bowl twice but not with the Vikings). It's Diggs. He 's "only" top 10 in franchise yards, catches and receiving TDs but he has the second most yards per game (0.1 ahead of Cris Carter). Random fact: While I was looking up Vikings' franchise stats I came across a cool one. In 128 games and with 425 catches, Kyle Rudolph only has one career fumble. Just thought that was impressive. EDIT: On the other hand, Chuck Foreman had 52 fumbles in 93 games and Tommy Mason had 54 in 70 games.
  5. Onside kick versus 4th and 15

    i like the idea, my only concerns are regarding penalties. as many people have probably stated, a DPI gifting the opposing team a free possession is unbalanced. maybe penalties should be treated like they are in 2 point conversions? that way the first down marker is essentially treated like the end zone with all defensive penalties being half the distance to go, and offensive penalties mean a re-do but doesn't give the offense an opportunity to opt out of the conversion. would DPI still be a spot foul in this case? dunno... if a team converts then they get the ball at the 15 yards, they can't score a TD. if a defense gets a pick 6 then they get 2 points like they would in a PAT or 2-point conversion attempt.
  6. The Iron Chef!!

    insert cook for mccaffrey and $13-14 million for $16 million and you have the same argument. https://overthecap.com/the-outcomes-of-running-back-contracts/
  7. The Iron Chef!!

    so the best case scenario for them if they extend cook for $14 million AAV (the number that's been reported and projected) is to get three seasons of top-10 production from him and then cut him and take on a couple million in dead money. if you do the math, that's getting three years of top-10 RB play for $14 million AAV when we are more likely to get top-10 production for four years from a newly drafted running back making like $2-3 million AAV. you still haven't commented on my point that historically running backs are more productive on their rookie contracts than on their veteran deals. first of all - different people at PFF have different opinions on the matter and while most (all?) acknowledge that running backs have less value than some other positions they are to varying degrees. so saying "PFF thinks running backs are useless" isn't a fair statement. their biggest argument is that passing the ball, statistically, is much more effective for a productive offense. that's why they value running backs that add to the passing game more, which makes sense. if i recall correctly the ravens were the only team in the league with a positive EPA per rush? or the only one comparable the league average EPA per passing play? anyways, investing heavily (in cap space) to add to the running game is very inefficient. their grades are valid - they aren't grading them in context to their salary, draft position, etc. the conclusions they draw from those grades when they see marginal differences in the data is that it makes little sense to invest in running backs. i know you're just playing devil's advocate but spending a day 2 pick on a running back is a much more preferable alternative than spending top-5 money on one. you still have to invest something in talent, even if the returns are marginal increases over the alternatives.
  8. The Iron Chef!!

    those are the examples i used, but the data goes back a ways: https://www.pff.com/news/fantasy-football-what-is-the-fantasy-shelf-life-of-the-top-current-running-backs I can't see the entire article or what they said about Cook specifically but the PFF analysts projected an average of four starting fantasy seasons left for Cook at the time of the article - that would give him two left now. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/articles/age.htm https://apexfantasyleagues.com/2018/01/peak-age-nfl-running-back/# And this is just data that supports running backs falling off at age 28. There's also the matter that a running back's success has more to do with factors beyond their own ability (scheme/OL blocking, mainly). And here's another article from PFF because I know you like them: https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-rams-cardinals-showed-why-teams-should-never-invest-running-backs
  9. The Iron Chef!!

    but at a much lower percentage than other positions. why are you purposely ignoring that?
  10. The Iron Chef!!

    why am i doing all of these moves this offseason? we'd let cook walk after this coming season and then pair mattison with a day 2 RB in next year's draft. i can speculate as to what free agents will be available and what prospects will be worth drafting but a lot can happen in a year. here are some more recent examples: in the 2015 draft (RBs supposed to be in the second year of their veteran contract), only gurley, david johnson and melvin gordon still have a shot at a starting role, and none play for the team that drafted them and are pretty much on a prove-it basis. for 2016 running backs, ezekiel elliott got extended and is still doing well for the cowboys (but his contract has made it difficult to give extensions to more important players) and derrick henry is on the franchise tag for the titans this coming season. that's it. for 2015 running backs, who should be in the third year of their veteran contract.... none are starters for their teams. maybe that's why teams are willing to spend high draft picks on running backs but shouldn't sign them to big veteran contracts. it isn't worth it.
  11. The Iron Chef!!

    and drafting another RB with a top 60 pick is what they should do to replace cook, i don't think anyone is disputing that so i'm not sure why you keep pointing it out. if you start giving some successful examples of teams extending running backs to elite money and it working out in the long term it would help your point more. right now you're arguing that you have to spend higher picks on more talented players, which is true at any position.
  12. The Iron Chef!!

    signing a veteran at another position to a premium contract is more likely to live up to that contract than a running back. if you're seriously contesting that then i'm not sure what to say, given the amount of evidence that supports not paying running backs big money. and you keep giving examples of teams investing high picks in running backs but have given NONE of teams extending their running backs to top 5 money and it working out. there's a very simple explanation for that: it rarely does. statistically running backs are much less effective in back-to-back high-volume seasons and statistically their production/ability falls off at age 26/27. so if you pay a running back premium bell-cow money there's a small chance they play like one for multiple years and then there's ALSO the likelihood that they can't play up to their new contract about two years into it. essentially, smart teams invest more into talented YOUNG running backs and let talented older running backs go. this off season the chargers kept austin ekeler for a very reasonable price given his production and talent (receiving versatility). mccaffrey has arguably been the best non-QB offensive player in the league the last few years and has had ridiculous health considering his usage. for that he's earned his contract, and i think there's still a very good chance the panthers regret that contract in a year or two. other than that, every other veteran RB got a prove-it deal or something close to the minimum. the talented RBs due for extensions (cook, aaron jones, kamara, conner, carson, etc.) haven't been signed to extensions yet because their teams know it's not smart to pay up for them. despite reports of negotiations, i'm sure what teams are doing is gauging how likely the players are to hold out without an extension. i really like cook as a player, but i'm not on board with extending him to a big time (4/$55 mil) deal until a running back's production is dependent more on their ability than on scheme/OL blocking or their shelf life is longer. the reality is that neither of those factors apply to cook, so i'm against signing him to said deal or anything close to it really.
  13. The Iron Chef!!

    I think the Vikings would be wise to do what the Ravens and Chiefs are doing - spend early picks on talented running backs and sign low-cost veterans as insurance. The Ravens signed Mark Ingram to essentially a two-year, < $9 million deal and otherwise had a 3rd round pick and UDFA, both on rookie deals, as their running back stable. a 30 year old Mark Ingram was almost as productive as Cook last season and was more efficient on his touches. The Chiefs have a stable of low-cost running backs and added a good talent - who will be low-cost for the next four seasons. In your scenario I would take Dobbins and Reiff every time. It is much more likely Dobbins matches Cook's production than Cleveland matches Reiff's quality of play. For what it's worth, Dobbins might out-produce Cook this coming season. I think part of the issue is that you're treating the cap space equal between positions (when it comes to opportunity cost). With most positions you can extend a player after their rookie contract and safely assume that they are going to maintain or improve their level of play. With running backs, however, their first four years are often their most productive. So spending "veteran" money elsewhere is a lot more likely to garner a solid ROI. This is why I'm personally a fan of prioritizing the RB position in the draft (spending round 1-2 picks) but am very opposed to spending top money on one. And I agree free agency is a little more of a crapshoot because you don't know who will be available, the free agent can decide to play elsewhere, etc. but the cap space gives you flexibility.
  14. The Iron Chef!!

    I usually love Coller's work and agree with most of his views but his primary argument that paying Cook $13-14 million AAV isn't a bad idea because we have the cap space for it is just... bad. His twist that Cook's lack of wear and tear (due to time missed because of injury) is actually a plus is very optimistic, to say the least. That stance completely ignores opportunity cost, which is a pretty important concept when building a team. You can either pay Cook top 3-5 RB money or get a high quality (top 10, let's say) LT/CB, or get a second-tier WR or EDGE player. There's no doubt Cook can be electric with the ball in his hands. Given that ~80% of his production is still at the mercy of his blocking though, it would be much more wise to spend round 2 pick on one of the top RBs in the next draft that can replace ~95% of Cook's production and then use the extra money on any of the other positions I mentioned, which are all much more difficult to find and would require more draft capital. Obviously they don't have to spend the ~$12 million they'd save by letting Cook walk on a single player, that was just an example. I also don't like the stance that it's okay if it's a deal that we can get out of in two years, because that still foregoes the opportunity to use that money on more valuable positions in the meantime.
  15. The Iron Chef!!

    I'm pretty sure Cook wouldn't be good lining up at receiver. I don't have the stats but going off memory he's somewhat prone to drops and that's just on swing routes and stuff. He's shown little evidence of his route running ability lined up at WR but even if we give him the benefit of the doubt there I don't like his chances of consistently catching passes beyond simple screens and swing routes, which is what we have him do now. Just going off basic stats that's probably a weird statement to make as Cook's receiving stats are pretty good last year. 5th in receiving yards/game among running backs, near the best in catch % and yards per target compared to the other higher-volume receiving backs. But that's where I think context comes into play, because the likes of Alvin Kamara, Austin Ekeler, Christian McCaffrey, etc. are used as legitimate receiving threats out of the backfield. The majority of Cook's receiving production comes from screens and you could argue that play design/blocking have a big part to do with that success. Definitely more so than a running back lining up in the slot or out wide and beating their man 1v1. I'm not saying Cook is as bad as late-career Adrian Peterson in terms of limiting the offense but he isn't close to the backs mentioned above when it comes to receiving versatility. It's hard to value him as much as the others because of that, even if he is a better runner.