The Iron Chef!!

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Krauser said:

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:

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

Does the Viking offense, now run by Kubiak, require the running back to be able to split off and line up in the various receiver positions?  I don't think it does.  I am certain that Cool could do that if asked.  Seems kind of like an argument against the scheme than the player.

[Krauser]

8 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

Does the Viking offense, now run by Kubiak, require the running back to be able to split off and line up in the various receiver positions?  I don't think it does.  I am certain that Cool could do that if asked.  Seems kind of like an argument against the scheme than the player.

Yeah that's probably mostly the scheme. 

On the other hand they did use Abdullah in a lot of 3rd and long situations, mostly for screens but sometimes split out as a receiver (20 of his 135 snaps of offense, compared to 23 of Cook's 634). The fact that they gave that (limited) role to Abdullah instead of Cook could say something about his capabilities as a receiver.

[Cearbhall]

48 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

Does the Viking offense, now run by Kubiak, require the running back to be able to split off and line up in the various receiver positions?  I don't think it does.  I am certain that Cool could do that if asked.  Seems kind of like an argument against the scheme than the player.

Kubiak values positional versatility. When it comes to splitting an extra player out he has shown that he values TE/WR versatility but throughout his career he has also shown that he values RB/WR versatility.  FB/TE is another area he has shown he values versatility and I don't remember seeing that much year with Ham and our TEs. I don't know if he'll look for a guy that can flip between those two. I didn't see much in the offseason to make me think it was prioritized.

As far as why Cook wasn't used lined up as a WR more often it may be as simple as the fact that Kevin Stefanski was calling the plays instead of Kubiak. It is also possible that he doesn't think Cook is good at it. I haven't seen that myself, but I also haven't watched Cook closely when lined up as a WR. It would be interesting to dig into what Cook did with those snaps.

[whitehops]

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.

[swede700]

Quote

 

If you like football and have an internet connection, you have probably noticed that there is a non-stop debate over the value of running backs.

While it may work counter to the modern way of viewing the running back position, paying top dollar for Cook isn’t as frightening as the Gurley and Freeman busts might suggest.

 

https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-sports/coller-vikings-can-afford-to-take-the-running-back-risk-on-dalvin-cook

[CriminalMind]

4 hours ago, swede700 said:

https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-sports/coller-vikings-can-afford-to-take-the-running-back-risk-on-dalvin-cook

I disagree with the premise of the article, of extending Cook (likely at top 5 money) is not frightening because they CAN and because they are in possibly good cap space shape.

That disregards the, why pay top 5 money to a RB with an injury history, when we have a full capable backup RB, who can take all his carries and is playing for peanuts. Surely, he can see that doing this, would put us in even better cap space shape. Play hardball ... maybe I might even prefer if Cook's camp demands CmC money, so than it forces the Vikings to say no (to a 2nd-5th highest RB extension), which than give Cook the option of playing out the year or sitting out.

Edited May 21, 2020 by CriminalMind

[swede700]

I disagree with your premise that Mattison is a fully capable backup RB, in that he's a single-dimensional RB and if he were to get a full complement of carries long-term, it actually could weaken the offense.  Mattison is fine in spurts, but I'm not sure I could rely on him full-time.

[vikingsrule]

25 minutes ago, swede700 said:

I disagree with your premise that Mattison is a fully capable backup RB, in that he's a single-dimensional RB and if he were to get a full complement of carries long-term, it actually could weaken the offense.  Mattison is fine in spurts, but I'm not sure I could rely on him full-time.

I mean we literally saw Cook get a more significant bulk of the carries as the season went on just as the effectiveness of the run game and offense declined. I think just last year showed that a RB by committee approach is probably better than giving one over 75% of the carries. So why pay Cook to be a workhorse when he’s yet to show he can be one for a full 16 games? If you want a committee back, they can be found much cheaper than paying Cook top 3 money.

Edited May 21, 2020 by vikingsrule

[swede700]

58 minutes ago, vikingsrule said:

I mean we literally saw Cook get a more significant bulk of the carries as the season went on just as the effectiveness of the run game and offense declined. I think just last year showed that a RB by committee approach is probably better than giving one over 75% of the carries. So why pay Cook to be a workhorse when he’s yet to show he can be one for a full 16 games? If you want a committee back, they can be found much cheaper than paying Cook top 3 money.

But, that wasn't the comment.  The comment was that they should just let him walk and let Mattison be the workhorse, essentially.  That weakens the offense.  While Cook did get weaker as the season went along, the offensive line didn't do him any favors either.  It was also his first full season since college and coming off multiple injury-plagued seasons...it's no wonder he hit a wall.  I've also never personally advocated for paying him top 3 money either.  It looks like he'll likely get around $12M.  I'd personally only pay him around $10M and be fine with it, but is an extra $2M-$3M going to have me screaming about how they instead could have spent half that on a committee of backs...absolutely not.  Either way, I find it totally acceptable to have a contract for a RB that will give them an out after 3 years. 

[vikingsrule]

1 hour ago, swede700 said:

But, that wasn't the comment.  The comment was that they should just let him walk and let Mattison be the workhorse, essentially.  That weakens the offense.  While Cook did get weaker as the season went along, the offensive line didn't do him any favors either.  It was also his first full season since college and coming off multiple injury-plagued seasons...it's no wonder he hit a wall.  I've also never personally advocated for paying him top 3 money either.  It looks like he'll likely get around $12M.  I'd personally only pay him around $10M and be fine with it, but is an extra $2M-$3M going to have me screaming about how they instead could have spent half that on a committee of backs...absolutely not.  Either way, I find it totally acceptable to have a contract for a RB that will give them an out after 3 years. 

The point being said is you’d never Let Mattison be a workhorse, I’d argue Cook shouldn’t be either. Obviously if Cook is let go, MN is probably drafting a player who can be a factor as a runner and receiver fairly early in the draft, as a compliment to Mattison. I hate the approach of paying a RB top 3 money to give him a large majority of the carries, just doesn’t give the offense as much diversity, unless that RB is a special talent like McCaffrey, Tomlinson or Faulk as a runner and dangerous receiver. 
 

I don’t know what Cook is asking for but wasn’t it said earlier that he views himself as one of the best? If that’s the case, hows he not pushing to be paid as much Elliott or McCaffrey?

[whitehops]

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. 

[Krauser]

8 hours ago, vikingsrule said:

Obviously if Cook is let go, MN is probably drafting a player who can be a factor as a runner and receiver fairly early in the draft, as a compliment to Mattison. 

The problem is that it probably takes a top 50-ish pick to replace Cook. That draft capital is worth more to the Vikings than the cap space over the next few years. There would also be significant uncertainty that the draft pick would pan out / stay healthy / etc -- at least as much as those same considerations for Cook. 

The Vikings have consistently valued RB1 as a premium position (draft investment and/or cap space). Much of the league behaves the same way. The Ravens and Chiefs (both very progressive front offices) spent top 50 picks on RBs this year.

Are the Vikings better off if they draft another position in the 2nd round and pay Cook, vs drafting a new RB1 in the 2nd round and use Cook's money on that position? I'm not sure it's such an obvious choice. As a rough example: 

Ezra Cleveland (58th pick) + Dalvin Cook (extended at $13M AAV) vs JK Dobbins (55th to the Ravens) + 2017 version of Riley Reiff (signed as UFA for $13M AAV)

Of those 4 players, Cook is the most likely to be a difference maker for the next few years -- not Reiff, or either of the draft picks.  

The Vikings have a lot of good players but Cook is probably the closest thing they have to an elite talent, especially on offense. I can understand why they would want to overpay slightly in order to keep him. 

7 hours ago, whitehops said:

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. 

The hard part about roster management isn't limiting costs, it's finding talent. Only rarely do teams lose good players because they literally can't afford to pay them.  

You can't just take $12-15M and "get a high quality / top 10 LT or CB". There wasn't one on the market this year.

Trae Waynes got $14M AAV, I assume you don't think he's anywhere near top 10. Darius Slay is good, but he got $16.3M for 3 years starting in 2021, and extending until his age 32 season -- not exactly a safe bet for long term performance.

Laremy Tunsil is a top 10 LT but he cost the Texans a 1st round pick plus $22M AAV. Trent Williams was available for a mid round pick but he's 32, and his price on an extension will be much higher than Cook's. 

WRs who signed recently as UFAs in Cook's likely price range include Tyrell Williams ($11M) and Robby Anderson ($10M). I doubt the Vikings would be better off with Robby Anderson instead of Cook. 

Edge rushers who signed recently as UFAs in Cook's likely price range include 30 year old Robert Quinn ($13M) and Dante Fowler ($15M). Same point applies here too.

Even if you can find a UFA you think would be worth paying instead of Cook, UFA signings are very hit and miss even for more high value positions. There is still a risk of injury and decline, plus the player is less well known as a scheme fit or fit with the team culture, etc. So I think it's usually better to spend that money on homegrown players instead.

The fastest way to get a top 10 LT or CB is to draft and develop them, then pay them to keep them,. The Vikings could have spent one of the picks they used on Gladney, Cleveland and Dantzler on a new RB to replace Cook. But instead they drafted high level prospects at those positions. And they can keep Cook -- they know he's good.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Krauser

[CriminalMind]

I'm all for the RBBC appproach, as opposed to giving Cook $13-14M AAV extension for like 4 years.

RB position is different than other positions. For example 1 above average RB + 1 average RB may produce more on-feild value to the team than 1 star RB who lacks good receiving skills, while costing 3-4x the amount.

For other position groups, especially ones that play close to 100% of snaps, and have the full arsenal of skills (top LT or top CB), its worth it to pay the premium for them, when you factor in lower injury rate, and there presences on the feild does not make you less dimensional

[swede700]

But what it comes down to is that you aren't going to get a "top LT" or "top CB" for the same price that you can get a top RB...it'd cost you far much more...and top LTs, like top QBs, they don't come available all that often.  

In any event, I think we're on different sides here, which is fine.  Each of us has pros to our position, but we also have our cons.  It just depends upon what you value.  Like Krauser indicated, we pretty much know what we're getting in Cook, it's no guarantee that the committee approach would work for the Vikings.  You look at the successes of the 49ers and Chiefs, but you could also look at the Lions and Bears (and even the Packers to a certain extent), which have largely been failures in the committee approach.  I'm sure I could go around the league and find that yes, more teams use the committee approach, but that's certainly no guarantee of success.      

[whitehops]

6 hours ago, Krauser said:

The problem is that it probably takes a top 50-ish pick to replace Cook. That draft capital is worth more to the Vikings than the cap space over the next few years. There would also be significant uncertainty that the draft pick would pan out / stay healthy / etc -- at least as much as those same considerations for Cook. 

The Vikings have consistently valued RB1 as a premium position (draft investment and/or cap space). Much of the league behaves the same way. The Ravens and Chiefs (both very progressive front offices) spent top 50 picks on RBs this year.

Are the Vikings better off if they draft another position in the 2nd round and pay Cook, vs drafting a new RB1 in the 2nd round and use Cook's money on that position? I'm not sure it's such an obvious choice. As a rough example: 

Ezra Cleveland (58th pick) + Dalvin Cook (extended at $13M AAV) vs JK Dobbins (55th to the Ravens) + 2017 version of Riley Reiff (signed as UFA for $13M AAV)

Of those 4 players, Cook is the most likely to be a difference maker for the next few years -- not Reiff, or either of the draft picks.  

The Vikings have a lot of good players but Cook is probably the closest thing they have to an elite talent, especially on offense. I can understand why they would want to overpay slightly in order to keep him. 

The hard part about roster management isn't limiting costs, it's finding talent. Only rarely do teams lose good players because they literally can't afford to pay them.  

 

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.

Edited May 22, 2020 by whitehops