The Iron Chef!!

[CriminalMind]

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

The Vikings have a long track record of treating players fairly. As a RB, Cook has exactly one chance to get a long-term contract. They're not going to force him to play on the franchise tag, let alone tag him twice (which would mean a fully guaranteed $12M in 2021 and $15M in 2022).

Cook is quite likely to hold out this year if he doesn't get an extension. The team has the money to pay him and has built the offense around his skills as much as anyone's.

The extension doesn't have to break the bank, and it doesn't have to offer much more guaranteed money than he would get under a worst case scenario with the tag. It just has to be fair, and offer Cook some recognition and security.

It's a similar situation to the Rudolph extension last year, which many fans similarly wanted to draw a hard line against for Moneyball reasons. But the deal with Rudolph was fair, and I don't think many fans regretted it while watching the actual games. Rudolph clearly deserves his spot on the roster this year and his cap number is fair (7th highest hit for a TE this year). By 2021, when the team may be looking to move on, he only has $4M left in dead money and that number drops off further in subsequent years.

The Vikings can similarly offer Cook a deal that looks good on paper, with a fairly high AAV, but doesn't have much guaranteed money so the cap implications beyond the next 2-3 years are light. That could be something like $50M/4, but with dead cap hits that allow the team to get out from the deal by 2022. 

It's not always good business to drive the hardest possible bargain -- there's something to be said for the value of avoiding conflict with team leaders and stars. The Vikings have had an excellent reputation with players and their agents. They've attracted free agents without outbidding the competition (Cousins and Barr left money on the table to play in Minnesota), retained a number of homegrown players for cheaper extensions than expected (especially Hunter), and had several vets take pay cuts to stay one more year with the team (Griffen last year, Robison previously, etc). 

Total understand the avoiding conflict with star players side and the reputation side of maintaining good business relations, but IMO 4\$50M even with exit strategies is too much, when i think we have an option on the roster who can give 85% of his production at a fraction of this contract cost.

I am all about giving out contracts to scare resources (players) such as Hunter, Griffen, Barr etc, who you can't 'easily' replace most of their production.

[Cearbhall]

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

The Vikings have a long track record of treating players fairly. As a RB, Cook has exactly one chance to get a long-term contract. They're not going to force him to play on the franchise tag, let alone tag him twice (which would mean a fully guaranteed $12M in 2021 and $15M in 2022).

All fair points. I don't expect that they'll tag Cook either. But that doesn't change the negotiating leverage. I wouldn't expect the team to give up that leverage. Any offer that the team makes to Cook he ought to compare it to the alternative that includes playing out his rookie contract and possibly getting tagged.

As far as the actual deal, I am fine with Cook getting the extra 2 years and $26M you suggest over the two year $22.6M extension that CriminalMind and I suggested as long as the last two years do not contain guarantees (and it is doubtful any RB contract would have guarantees beyond year three). In fact, the more option years the team can get Cook to agree to the better for them. The new TV contracts will be signed by then and having option years for $13M would be a pretty great thing.

I think that there is more than enough space for the Vikings and Cook to get something done that works for both parties. 

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

It's not always good business to drive the hardest possible bargain -- there's something to be said for the value of avoiding conflict with team leaders and stars.

Agreed. That is why I haven't advocating driving the hardest possible bargain. I am offering him more than he would get in the next two years playing out his contract and taking a tag when I am suggesting an average of $8M per year. I do that for exactly the reason you are mentioning here. 

[Purplepride323]

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

The Vikings have a long track record of treating players fairly. As a RB, Cook has exactly one chance to get a long-term contract. They're not going to force him to play on the franchise tag, let alone tag him twice (which would mean a fully guaranteed $12M in 2021 and $15M in 2022).

Cook is quite likely to hold out this year if he doesn't get an extension. The team has the money to pay him and has built the offense around his skills as much as anyone's.

The extension doesn't have to break the bank, and it doesn't have to offer much more guaranteed money than he would get under a worst case scenario with the tag. It just has to be fair, and offer Cook some recognition and security.

It's a similar situation to the Rudolph extension last year, which many fans similarly wanted to draw a hard line against for Moneyball reasons. But the deal with Rudolph was fair, and I don't think many fans regretted it while watching the actual games. Rudolph clearly deserves his spot on the roster this year and his cap number is fair (7th highest hit for a TE this year). By 2021, when the team may be looking to move on, he only has $4M left in dead money and that number drops off further in subsequent years.

The Vikings can similarly offer Cook a deal that looks good on paper, with a fairly high AAV, but doesn't have much guaranteed money so the cap implications beyond the next 2-3 years are light. That could be something like $50M/4, but with dead cap hits that allow the team to get out from the deal by 2022. 

It's not always good business to drive the hardest possible bargain -- there's something to be said for the value of avoiding conflict with team leaders and stars. The Vikings have had an excellent reputation with players and their agents. They've attracted free agents without outbidding the competition (Cousins and Barr left money on the table to play in Minnesota), retained a number of homegrown players for cheaper extensions than expected (especially Hunter), and had several vets take pay cuts to stay one more year with the team (Griffen last year, Robison previously, etc). 

Agreed. You made some great points. 4 years $50 million sounds right. Won’t make him the highest paid RB, but top 5 which I think is fair.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Purplepride323

[Krauser]

2 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

All fair points. I don't expect that they'll tag Cook either. But that doesn't change the negotiating leverage. I wouldn't expect the team to give up that leverage. Any offer that the team makes to Cook he ought to compare it to the alternative that includes playing out his rookie contract and possibly getting tagged.

Why would he play this year (for $1.3M) if he knows the Vikings aren't willing to offer him a long-term deal?

11 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

I am fine with Cook getting the extra 2 years and $26M you suggest over the two year $22.6M extension that CriminalMind and I suggested as long as the last two years do not contain guarantees (and it is doubtful any RB contract would have guarantees beyond year three). In fact, the more option years the team can get Cook to agree to the better for them. The new TV contracts will be signed by then and having option years for $13M would be a pretty great thing.

This is where I've been confused, but I think I understand what you're trying to say.

$22M/2 for the extension is $11M AAV -- you don't include the last year of the rookie deal in that number. When you called it $8M AAV, I thought you meant $16M/2 or $24M/3. 

Cook is not going to sign a 2 year extension. He'd be better off playing out his rookie deal. And he'd be better off than that, if he held out.

But then most NFL contracts are not designed to be played out in full. 

You can think of it this way: most NFL contacts are for 2-3 years but written as 4-5 year deals with the last couple of years being team options.

The Vikings could offer $50M/4, with $18M guaranteed, something like this: 

$10M signing bonus (counts $2M against the cap per year starting in 2020)
$8M salary for 2021, guaranteed
$10M salary for 2022
$10M salary for 2023
$12M salary for 2024

Cap hits / dead money would be 
2020: +$2M from rookie contract
2021: $10M / (costs $6M in cap space if released)
2022: $12M ($6M dead money, opens $6M cap space if released)
2023: $12M ($4M dead, opens $8M if released)
2024: $14M ($2M dead, opens $12M if released)

A deal like that would be designed to be reworked or ended after 2022 or 2023 -- so it's effectively a 2-3 year extension, even if it's written for 4 years. 

After 2022, the Vikings would have paid $24M/2 on the cap from 2020-22, and would have a $4M cap hit in 2023 to end the contract.  The next 2 years are effectively team options at $10M and $12M. 

After 2023, the Vikings would have paid $36M/3 on the cap from 2020-23, and would have a $2M cap hit in 2024 to end the contract. The next year is effectively a team option at $12M. 

They could use the same approach and tack on another very expensive year in 2025 to make the deal look huge. A $16M salary for 2025 would make it a $66M/5 contract, raising the AAV over $13M, but that wouldn't change the math above, in terms of ending the deal after 2022 or 2023. Obviously it's very unlikely that a 30 year old Dalvin Cook would earn the $16M in 2025, but tacking on the big number to make the contract look better costs the team nothing (in the almost certain event that they never pay it), and may help their star RB feel loyal to the team. 

Then, if Cook is somehow still a productive back in his later 20s, the Vikings can go to him and his agent with the leverage that those cap space numbers in 2023 and 2024 create (team saves $8M or $12M by releasing him), and renegotiate for a much cheaper, shorter term deal. 

And if he's not, they can release him after the additional 2-3 years beyond his rookie contract, with minimal effect on their cap situation. 

 

 

[Cearbhall]

25 minutes ago, Krauser said:

Why would he play this year (for $1.3M) if he knows the Vikings aren't willing to offer him a long-term deal?

I am not sure what I ever said to make you think that I wouldn't offer him a long-term deal. That is not what I have said.

To answer the question anyway, he would play out the year so that he can fulfill the last year of his contract. If he didn't, he would earn nothing and still be under contract next year for $1.3M. Plus, the CBA allows teams to levy fairly significant fines. I haven't read that section of the new CBA yet but I read talk before it was ratified that the new CBA would no longer allow teams the digression to rescind the fines. That should be checked.

25 minutes ago, Krauser said:

This is where I've been confused, but I think I understand what you're trying to say.

$22M/2 for the extension is $11M AAV -- you don't include the last year of the rookie deal in that number. When you called it $8M AAV, I thought you meant $16M/2 or $24M/3. 

The difference is the new money average versus the average over the length of the remaining contract. When I say I would give him $8M average, that is not a new-money average. That is typically how things are reported. However, when negotiating contracts what really matters is the new-money average. That is what is being negotiated. This is one of the reasons why players that make it to free agency have a higher average to the contracts they sign. The Vikings have typically given their players extensions that give them nice new-money averages, but the contracts work well for the Vikings because they get to spread those cap hits out over the last year or two of an existing deal.

It is important to pay attention to new-money average versus average per year.

25 minutes ago, Krauser said:

Cook is not going to sign a 2 year extension. He'd be better off playing out his rookie deal. And he'd be better off than that, if he held out.

That is exactly what I said I expected. I expect that Cook's side would reject the offer and counter with something based off of his remaining deal and two tags. That is a fairly typical way for these negotiations to unfold.

I think we are pretty much saying the same thing. The difference is how much you would pay in the first three years of the deal, which are the only years that matter too much. Option years beyond that can be anything.

25 minutes ago, Krauser said:

But then most NFL contracts are not designed to be played out in full. 

Exactly. This is why the option years after three years don't matter too much. They are often designed for an agent's marketing purposes.

25 minutes ago, Krauser said:

$10M signing bonus (counts $2M against the cap per year starting in 2020)
$8M salary for 2021, guaranteed
$10M salary for 2022
$10M salary for 2023
$12M salary for 2024

So you would offer to rip up the rest of Cook's contract and give him a two-year deal with $18M guaranteed that would buy the Vikings three option years at $10M, $10M, and $12M. That is not at all unfair, but the Vikings typically don't rip up a contract when negotiating extensions.

Overall, that is a pretty good offer. The new money average of $12.5M is a bit richer than I would give him if I was running the team, but that comes down to details of how I would build a team, which anyone can have their own ideas on. I don't really know if we are talking about what we would do, or if we are talking about what we think the team would do. I have been talking about what I would do if I was running the team. Without doubt, that isn't the same as what I think Rick Spielman would do, which is why I want him to be fired.

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Cearbhall

[RpMc]

That’s similar to the structure that I outlined earlier, and agree it’s a good starting point. With the move for Trent Williams falling through, I’d take it a step further And use up additional cap space this year to give him more money up front, and lessen even more the potential hit on the back end. 
 

that could be done through the use of a guaranteed roster bonus paid out this year when the contract is signed in addition to the signing bonus. We have about 8.5M in room right now (with the ability to add a lot more through the release/restructure of players like Stephen). Your $10M signing bonus takes $2M of that (down to $6.5) and I’d give another $2-3M for that guaranteed roster bonus. That rewards him with $12-13M up front (on top of his $1.3M Base salary), guarantee the base salary for 2021 and half the base salary for 2022. That’s $25-26M in guarantees and leaves the last two years of the deal very team friendly to get out of should they need to. It’s $4M less in guarantees that McCaffrey. 

[Krauser]

42 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

I am not sure what I ever said to make you think that I wouldn't offer him a long-term deal

Maybe you should write out what you're offering. I don't understand what you're trying to say. 

I thought you were offering $22M/2 for 2 years beyond the rookie deal. A 2 year extension isn't a long-term deal. Cook is not going to sign a contract that short.

43 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

The difference is the new money average versus the average over the length of the remaining contract. When I say I would give him $8M average, that is not a new-money average. That is typically how things are reported. However, when negotiating contracts what really matters is the new-money average. That is what is being negotiated.

What you're calling the new-money average is what I'm calling the AAV. And yes, that's what's being negotiated and what we're discussing here. 

People who are talking about extending Cook for $10M per year, or $12M or $15M shouldn't be including the current year of $1.3M in their calculations. That's not generally how those numbers are understood, reported or discussed. 

Quote

So you would offer to rip up the rest of Cook's contract and give him a two-year deal with $18M guaranteed that would buy the Vikings three option years at $10M, $10M, and $12M. That is not at all unfair, but the Vikings typically don't rip up a contract when negotiating extensions.

Cook's rookie deal isn't being "torn up" by negotiating an extension now that starts in 2021. The extension would be in addition to the last year of the current deal (though some fraction of the signing bonus would be added to the cap this year), and would only start in 2021, though the signing bonus would be paid out now.

The Vikings have routinely extended players entering the final year of their rookie contracts. Most recently, the class of 2015 (Hunter, Diggs and Kendricks) were all extended heading into 2018. 

None of those contracts involve tearing up or invalidating the final year of the existing rookie deal. Players receive their salary as expected for that 4th year. They also get the signing bonus for their extension, which starts counting against the cap a year earlier than the extension kicks in, which is helpful for the player (money in hand) and team) lower dead cap hits going forward, if they need to release or renegotiate. 

[Cearbhall]

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

Maybe you should write out what you're offering. I don't understand what you're trying to say. 

I thought you were offering $22M/2 for 2 years beyond the rookie deal. A 2 year extension isn't a long-term deal. Cook is not going to sign a contract that short.

Well, I did write it out, but I'll do it again:

Three years (two year extension) for $24M along with as many option years beyond that his agent desires at whatever value his agent desires.

Late add:

To help, I did the work to harvest what I wrote earlier today in hopes of not having to answer further questions about where I said it. I mentioned my offer earlier in the thread too, but here are actual quotes from just today:

7 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

Like Mr CriminalMind, I would offer Cook $8M per year. On the three year deal Mr CriminalMind mentioned, that would be a new money average of $11.325M. Cook could take it or leave it. I suspect he would leave it just as Anthony Harris left the Vikings last best offer at an extension.

 

3 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

As far as the actual deal, I am fine with Cook getting the extra 2 years and $26M you suggest over the two year $22.6M extension that CriminalMind and I suggested as long as the last two years do not contain guarantees (and it is doubtful any RB contract would have guarantees beyond year three). In fact, the more option years the team can get Cook to agree to the better for them. The new TV contracts will be signed by then and having option years for $13M would be a pretty great thing.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Cearbhall
Late Add

[Krauser]

1 hour ago, Cearbhall said:

Well, I did write it out, but I'll do it again:

Three years (two year extension) for $24M along with as many option years beyond that his agent desires at whatever value his agent desires.

OK. The way you're wording it isn't the way these contracts are usually discussed, so I didn't understand what you were trying to say. 

If what you're trying to get at is no more than $24M paid over 2021-22, with the team being able to get out of the deal thereafter, we're not far apart on the numbers. 

But still, a 2 year extension isn't a 3 year contract. The last year of the rookie deal isn't part of the extension. Option years would be included as part of the extension (would be reported in the total amount, AAV, etc). 

 

[Cearbhall]

10 minutes ago, Krauser said:

OK. The way you're wording it isn't the way these contracts are usually discussed, so I didn't understand what you were trying to say. 

If what you're trying to get at is no more than $24M paid over 2021-22, with the team being able to get out of the deal thereafter, we're not far apart on the numbers. 

But still, a 2 year extension isn't a 3 year contract. The last year of the rookie deal isn't part of the extension. Option years would be included as part of the extension (would be reported in the total amount, AAV, etc). 

 

I am well aware that a two year extension is not a 3 year contract. However, many people think of it that way*. As far as how it is usually discussed, that depends on who you are discussing it with. Many laymen think of it as a 3 year contract and national media discuss this. This is why I was specific in mentioning that the 3 year deal would be a 2 year extension with a new money average of $11.6M. My wording isn't that much different than how some people discuss these contracts as you can see in the below footnote. I am sorry if this is difficult for you to understand because you talk about differently in some other discourse community. 

I also am well aware that the option years are part of the extension. I was talking about the base of the deal, which is the first three seasons after signing the deal. Details beyond that such as option years and how it is written up to spread the cap numbers throughout the deal aren just that -- details.

You are still not quite understanding what I am saying though. I am not saying no more than $24M paid over 2021-22. I am saying not more than $24M paid over 2020-22, which is a difference of the ~$1.3M base salary Cook has in '20.

The important aspects are guaranteed money, cash flow, and practical term of the deal (how long the team more or less has to honor the contract). It is hardly worth discussing the minor details until that is hammered out. That is why I wasn't putting any emphasis on the option years, but mentioning the base package. Players do not care much about how a team chooses to distribute the money against the cap. It is about how much they get, when they get it, and how solid the team's commitment it. To the player whether money is paid out as a signing bonus versus a roster bonus they get right away is a small deal.

The base deal that I mentioned is for $24M over the next three years. I have specified what that means in terms of new money average, which is the extension. I did say earlier in the thread that I would be willing to guarantee $16M of that in the first two years of the deal between SB/RB year one and guaranteed salary in year two. I don't want to scroll back and see the exact wording as I doubt I differentiated that the signing bonus could instead be a roster bonus. Again, that is a detail that is not terribly important right now. I also mentioned that I may increase the value if he was willing to decrease the guarantees and make the structure more team friendly.

I am sorry that this is difficult to understand, but if I don't want to explain it in a condescending way, which I already feel like I am being but I am doing my best to help you since you are struggling. I apologize to whatever extent my help comes off as condescending but I am doing my best to help you and started with the assumption that you would have an easier time understanding before getting the point where I have trouble explaining without what many would see as condescending.

*For an example of this, see how PFT explains McCaffrey's deal. It mentions the value of the full contract.  "The full contract has a value of 75.36 million over six years, based on the $11.299 million McCaffrey was due to earn in 2020 and 2021." It also mentions the value of the extension, "The contract has a new-money average of $16.01853 million for the new four years." There is talk about the full value, and their is talk about new-money averages. I have specified it as full value too. And further specified as well the new money analysis of the base package.

[Krauser]

OK, I understand where we've been talking past each other. 

You've been describing a 2 year extension for $22.7M in 2021-22, with $16M fully guaranteed at signing, as having an AAV of $8M. But it actually has an AAV of $11M+. The AAV of the extension doesn't include the last year of the rookie deal (that's what "extension" means).

And you've been describing a multiyear extension as a 2 year extension, because the last few years would be less likely to be earned, and therefore effectively team options. That's true enough, but those years are included in most discussions of an extension, because they are in fact written into the contract. 

The discussion we've been having (about McCaffrey getting $16M AAV and whether Cook is worth $12-14M or $10M or whatever) is based on the AAV of the extension. That AAV doesn't include the rookie contract (because it is not part of the extension), and it does include the entire term of the deal (because it is part of the extension), even if the player likely won't play out the contract as written.

It's true that the AAV isn't the most important number in a contact extension. Rob Brzezinski is no doubt approaching the contract numbers like you do. But the AAV is what most fans understand about contracts, and so we tend to discuss them in those terms. 

The reason why people in this thread (including me) are replying to your offer as if it's unrealistic is because it reads like you're offering Cook an $8M extension. From page 15: 

On 2020-04-27 at 6:17 AM, Cearbhall said:

I would love to have him extended for an $8M per year average with a SB of $10M on a three year extension with $16M in total guarantees between the SB and guaranteed salaries in '20 and '21.

In fact, what you're suggesting is quite similar to others here, you're just framing it in different terms. 

We could combine our offers: 

A 4 year extension for $50M in 2021-24, with $16M fully guaranteed at signing (including a $10M signing bonus and $6M worth of guaranteed salary in the first 2 years), and $22.7M total paid through 2022.

$10M signing bonus ($2M per year against the cap)
(+$2M cap hit for 2020)
$4M salary for 2021, guaranteed ($6M cap hit)
$8.7M salary for 2021, of which $2M guaranteed ($10.7M cap hit)
$13M salary for 2022 ($15M cap hit, $4M dead cap hit if released before the season)
$14.3M salary for 2023 ($16.3M cap hit, $2M dead)

That deal would fulfill the terms you've laid out but otherwise matches the contract I outlined above.

But the way that extension would be discussed is "$12.5M per year", not "$8M per year". 

 

[Cearbhall]

Don't want to clutter with quoting your whole post, @Krauser, but I think we understand each other now. Thanks for digging up what I said back then. I knew that I said something like that but couldn't remember the details exactly. A minor point of clarification, I was talking about a three-year $24M extension back in that text, not the two-year $16M extension I was talking about today. But yeah, the option years still wouldn't have mattered to me and it is something that I would have worried about only after the base package. 

At that time (page 15) I was thinking of a total 4-year value of $32M. Mr CriminalMind mentioned the 3-year value of $24M today so I was working off that today.  I like CriminalMind's suggestion more than what I was spitballing back on page 15 anyway.

As far as how it is reported, that depends. As with the example I put in my above post it can variously be described based on the full contract terms or on the extension terms. Different outlets will do it differently, which is why it is important to specify whether you are talking about the new-money average or the average of the entire contract. I agree that I could have been more clear in my original wording, but I did clarify later by specifying what the new-money average would be to distinguish that from the full-contract value and average.

Personally, I would be happy if Cook signed the terms of the contract you mentioned in your post. I don't think that he would. And in that case, I would let him play out his contract and deal with it next year. And if it came to that, assuming this year went decently enough dealing with it would involve using the franchise tag he didn't come to terms with the team before that deadline. From there, either trade him, get him to agree to an extension, or make him decide between playing on the franchise tender or going full Bell.

[vike daddy]

Rick Spielman: “We believe in paying our own players. Those are the guys that we develop, we know them the best, we know where they are from a work ethic standpoint, we know what type of players they are, but we also know how much they mean to our community and how involved they are. And Dalvin checks all those boxes. He is a very good football player, but he is even a better human being. So we take the whole picture in and how philosophy and history has been, develop them, and hopefully we are drafting well enough we have to give long-term extensions to guys that have come in and helped us win ball games and fit everything we are looking for and build our culture.”

“He has been off the charts. And those are things that you do a lot of background work on. We have always done that. I remember the call I made to him that Friday morning before we drafted him and moved up to go get him and how impressive he was, and just me and him talking one-on-one before the draft started that day, and you know just talking through some of the sources that I know that have been around him, we felt very confident in taking him. Not just because he was a great player, but because what he stood for as a human being, and all of those things and all of the resources and all of the research that we have done on him came true, and he is one of the leaders in the community he is always out front, he is always contributing in different ways. He just did another thing with COVID-19, and how he has sacrificed some of his money and so that just tells what kind of character and person that we did enough research on that we were very confident. That is what he was going to turn out to be and that is what he was and has been.”

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/05/04/dalvin-cook-check-all-the-boxes-for-the-vikings/

[swede700]

Quote

 

Giants running back Saquon Barkley and Panthers running back Christian McCaffrey are the co-favorites to lead the NFL in rushing this season.

The over-unders at Caesars Sportsbook pegged both Barkley and McCaffrey at over or under 1,249.5 rushing yards.

Vikings running back Dalvin Cook has an over-under of 1,049.5 yards after rushing for 1,135 yards last year.

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/05/11/saquon-barkley-christian-mccaffrey-are-vegas-favorites-to-lead-nfl-in-rushing/

[Krauser]

Coller interviews Brad from OverTheCap about a possible Cook extension: https://purpleinsider.substack.com/p/10-questions-about-a-dalvin-cook

Predicts that Cook will ask for $55M/4, not far off from the numbers I was discussing above. Says the Vikings will try to keep total guarantees and signing bonus (prorated amount) low, so they can get out of the deal if needed. Also says the Vikings will be comfortably under the salary cap for the next couple of years even with a Cook extension.

This is an interesting point:

Quote

PI: Should we look at running backs who play a big role in the passing game like Dalvin Cook or Christian McCaffrey differently? 

Brad: There’s no debate about [Cook’s] production and his yards after the catch are great. He turns a lot of negative plays into something positive or sometimes breaks it off. The big sticking point for me is: We know how valuable it is to have a running back who can catch passes but that next level of value is to be able to line up in the slot and line up outside. Whether you’re actually running go routes and catches 50-yard passes down field, as long as you’re a legitimate threat out of all of those positions, it forces the defense to respect you. It can often tell the quarterback if they are in man or zone [coverage] if you shift the running back out of the backfield and it gives away what coverage they are in. That’s where Cook really struggles.

Over the last two seasons the percentage of plays that were in the slot or out wide for Alvin Kamara is 23%, Kareem Hunt 17%, McCaffrey it’s 11%, Kenyan Drake 10% and Cook is down at 4%. He’s above Derrick Henry but Cook is in that cluster. It’s fair to question if that’s just the Vikings’ offensive scheme and how he was lined up. He might be able to do those things, we just don’t know…but Cook is not Derrick Henry. If I’m a team I’m not giving Henry an extension because what he does can go away pretty quickly and provides less value. [Cook] is multi-dimensional but the lineup situation takes him down a little bit.

It’s worth signing up for Coller’s newsletter, and subscribing if you can afford it.