The Iron Chef!!

[Krauser]

16 minutes ago, swede700 said:

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.

The Niners haven’t drafted a RB but they did pay McKinnon ($30M/4, though I think they got out of his contract after a couple of years), and they’ve now given ~$3M each to Mostert and Tevin Coleman. 

The Chiefs drafted CEH 32nd, investing even more with that pick than the Vikings spent on Cook. If Kareem Hunt hadn’t had off field problems, would they have been better off paying him and using that pick on a different position?

The Lions drafted Swift 35th, just 2 years after drafting Kerryon Johnson 43rd.

The Bears used a 3rd round pick on Montgomery and gave up a future 4th to move up and get him. Neither him nor Cohen has been great.

The Packers did well with Aaron Jones, and they’re apparently not planning to pay him. But they used the 62nd pick on AJ Dillon, either to upgrade Jamaal Williams and/or replace Jones from next year on. For a team with some obvious needs (RT, ILB, WR, CB3 or even CB2 if they’re not extending King, DL), maybe they would’ve been better off drafting Josh Jones, Logan Wilson, Bryan Edwards, Jordan Elliott or Cameron Dantzler and paying Aaron Jones.

[Krauser]

6 minutes ago, whitehops said:

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.

The Vikings have an easier time finding more cap space than more top draft picks, so why are you happier to invest picks instead of space? Draft picks also have an opportunity cost.

Hard to know yet if the Chiefs would be better off using a late 1st round pick than paying a hypothetical Kareem Hunt who didn’t get kicked off the team.

The Ravens aren’t a fair comparison statistically given the success of their offense last year. Ingram wasn’t as good as Cook, you can’t just judge them on their YPC or whatever. And the Ravens did invest a mid-2nd, which the Vikings can’t easily afford either.

Quote

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.

Lots of day 2 RBs don’t pan out. Dobbins will be in an ideal scenario so he probably will, but that doesn’t mean the Vikings could just draft whatever RB was there at 58 (not Dobbins actually, so I guess Dillon or Antonio Gibson) and expect the offense to be just as good.

My comparison isn’t even fair to my own argument — we know Reiff was a good signing as he stayed healthy and played pretty well, while the hypothetical UFA you’re signing instead of Cook doesn’t come with that guarantee. 

In the real life version, the only player we know is good (and a team fit, etc) is Cook. There’s a question of aging and durability but at least we have a read on his talent. I get that bird in hand plus Ezra Cleveland, and you get a 2nd round RB plus an unknown UFA of comparable price. 

Quote

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.

The cap space is equal between positions. That’s how money works. The opportunity cost of $12M on a $210M cap is the same whether you spend it on running backs or pretzels.

Your real argument is about RB aging curves. There is some truth to that. On the other hand, as my examples have shown, at those prices you’re choosing between 25-28 year old Dalvin Cook or 28-30 year old Trae Waynes.

You’re not exactly guaranteed to get a “solid ROI” signing decent CBs in their late 20s. You aren’t getting prime age Tunsil or a CB with a history of elite play for that kind of money.

[Cearbhall]

I'm with @whitehops. Teams can find a RB fairly easily when other pieces are in place. Teams cannot find CBs, LTs, and such easily.  By the time a team finds the solutions to those harder to find positions the RB is likely already on his last legs. I do not invest high cap space into the RB position nor high draft picks until at least the offensive line is solved. Invest that cap space and those draft picks into the offensive line and Kubiak will get production out of whoever he finds at RB low in the draft or using stopgap free agents.

[whitehops]

6 hours ago, Krauser said:

You’re not exactly guaranteed to get a “solid ROI” signing decent CBs in their late 20s. You aren’t getting prime age Tunsil or a CB with a history of elite play for that kind of money.

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.

[Krauser]

11 minutes ago, whitehops said:

you keep giving examples of teams investing high picks in running backs

I keep giving those examples because that's what the Vikings will do if they let Cook go.

They only have 2 top 60 picks per year. They can more easily afford an additional $12M contract than using 1/8 of those picks (one every 4 years) on a RB. 

26 minutes ago, whitehops said:

signing a veteran at another position to a premium contract is more likely to live up to that contract than a running back.

UFA deals of all sorts tend to be disappointing. 

Most players signed to long-term deals don't survive beyond the first couple of years. And many fail to produce with their new team.

The Vikings only 2 UFA successes in the last 10 years were Joseph and Reiff. Hopefully Pierce will be a 3rd. Reiff is a 2nd or 3rd tier guy at a premium position, while the others are good but not elite players at a devalued position (2-down DT). 

The more likely alternative would be to spend Cook's money on a different homegrown player, like Waynes, or Weatherly and Alexander. Would you rather have $12M worth of those guys instead of Cook? 

[whitehops]

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

I keep giving those examples because that's what the Vikings will do if they let Cook go.

They only have 2 top 60 picks per year. They can more easily afford an additional $12M contract than using 1/8 of those picks (one every 4 years) on a RB. 

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.

[Krauser]

42 minutes ago, whitehops said:

i don't think anyone is disputing that so i'm not sure why you keep pointing it out.

...because of the opportunity cost of needing to use an early draft pick to replace the RB1 every 4 years, and the uncertainty that that replacement will be good. 

42 minutes ago, whitehops said:

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.

There were several not that long ago: Adrian Peterson, Lesean McCoy, Marshawn Lynch, Jamaal Charles, Matt Forte were all still good players on their 2nd contracts. 

There were also busts like Chris Johnson and Demarco Murray. Murray I think is still the classic example of not paying a RB after he had 400 carries one year for Dallas (Cook has 457 carries for his career). 

More recently, Gurley's extension is a notable bust, but anyone who watched the Rams at their peak knew he was a passenger in their offense, much more so than Cook for the Vikings last year.

David Johnson is another one, though he was 24 when he came into the league and so was a couple of years further along the aging curve than most players coming off their rookie contracts. 

Bell was great in his franchise tagged year with the Steelers (not cheap at that point) but didn't play well with the Jets coming back from a year off. Might be too soon to rule him out from playing well going forward. 

I think the Cowboys will get value from Elliott and the Panthers from McCaffrey.

...

Again, most UFA contracts are disappointing. Many players don't live up to their extensions.

The Vikings have generally been good with contracts, but just in the Zimmer/Spielman era, we could point to Jennings, Wallace, Kalil (5th year option) and Barr as players who made the equivalent or more of what Cook will likely get on his extension, without playing as well as Cook, or fulfilling as important a role.

...

Now it's your turn: write out a shopping list of players who the Vikings could/should sign for what we imagine Cook will get (~$13M), and what you would have done in the draft this year to replace him and account for that additional signing. 

You can pick a handful of scenarios but choose actual players that were available this offseason. The timeline will be wrong (since Cook will really get paid starting in 2021 and wouldn't need to be replaced this year), but this way the options are knowable. 

For instance: extend Waynes ($14M) and draft RB Darrynton Evans instead of Dantzler in the 3rd round. 

Or: sign Robert Quinn ($14M) and draft RB Antonio Gibson instead of Ezra Cleveland in the 2nd round. Then, instead of trading down with the Saints in the late 3rd round (for picks that turned into Wonnum, Hand, Brandel and Stanley) draft OT Saahdiq Charles.

We can come back to this eventually and see how those scenarios panned out.

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Krauser

[whitehops]

12 minutes ago, Krauser said:

...because of the opportunity cost of needing to use an early draft pick to replace the RB1 every 4 years, and the uncertainty that that replacement will be good. 

There were several not that long ago: Adrian Peterson, Lesean McCoy, Marshawn Lynch, Jamaal Charles, Matt Forte were all still good players on their 2nd contracts. 

There were also busts like Chris Johnson and Demarco Murray. Murray I think is still the classic example of not paying a RB after he had 400 carries one year for Dallas (Cook has 457 carries for his career). 

More recently, Gurley's extension is a notable bust, but anyone who watched the Rams at their peak knew he was a passenger in their offense, much more so than Cook for the Vikings last year.

David Johnson is another one, though he was 24 when he came into the league and so was a couple of years further along the aging curve than most players coming off their rookie contracts. 

Bell was great in his franchise tagged year with the Steelers (not cheap at that point) but didn't play well with the Jets coming back from a year off. Might be too soon to rule him out from playing well going forward. 

I think the Cowboys will get value from Elliott and the Panthers from McCaffrey.

...

Again, most UFA contracts are disappointing. Many players don't live up to their extensions.

The Vikings have generally been good with contracts, but just in the Zimmer/Spielman era, we could point to Jennings, Wallace, Kalil (5th year option) and Barr as players who made the equivalent or more of what Cook will likely get on his extension, without playing as well as Cook, or fulfilling as important a role.

...

Now it's your turn: write out a shopping list of players who the Vikings could/should sign for what we imagine Cook will get (~$13M), and what you would have done in the draft this year to replace him and account for that additional signing. 

You can pick a handful of scenarios but choose actual players that were available this offseason. The timeline will be wrong (since Cook will really get paid starting in 2021 and wouldn't need to be replaced this year), but this way the options are knowable. 

For instance: extend Waynes ($14M) and draft RB Darrynton Evans instead of Dantzler in the 3rd round. 

Or: sign Robert Quinn ($14M) and draft RB Antonio Gibson instead of Ezra Cleveland in the 2nd round. Then, instead of trading down with the Saints in the late 3rd round (for picks that turned into Wonnum, Hand, Brandel and Stanley) draft OT Saahdiq Charles.

We can come back to this eventually and see how those scenarios panned out.

 

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.

[Krauser]

59 minutes ago, whitehops said:

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.

Right, it’s not realistic. It’s just an exercise. Use the players who were available this offseason so we can actually comparison shop.

It’s one thing to consider one specific choice (Cook, extended) vs an abstraction (that same money, spent wisely according to you). You get to imagine the worst for Cook, and the best for whatever hypothetical alternative.

Instead, let’s consider one specific choice vs a different specific choice, and see how those pan out. You can even float a few different scenarios. Just be realistic about their availability (this offseason and draft) and cost.

59 minutes ago, whitehops said:

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.

In 2016, the Vikings were going to draft a WR. We all watched highlights and looked at combine times. 4 WRs were drafted in the 1st round: Coleman, Fuller, Doctson and Treadwell. Only one of them is still a starter, and still with the team who drafted him. None of them have been extended (Fuller is on his 5th year option, and presumably will be).

In 2015, the Vikings were going to draft a CB. 4 CBs went in the first round: Waynes, Kevin Johnson, Peters, and Byron Jones. None of them are still with their drafted teams. 3 of them are still starters, but none of them were extended by the team that drafted them (Jones should’ve been). 

2014, QBs: Bortles, Manziel, Teddy. None of them with their drafted team. One of them a starter.

2013, DTs: Richardson, Lotulelei, Floyd. None of them with their drafted team. Two of them starters.

etc... 

Theres a lot of turnover in the NFL. A lot of players don’t pan out, especially over the long term. 

You’re painting the RB contract situation in black and white. But that analysis is based on a narrow data set, and you’re ignoring some exceptions (current and recent past) to reach the conclusion that you’re presenting as stone cold fact.

Do you really think all the good RBs who are currently heading into year 3-5 of their careers (Elliott, Henry, Gordon, McCaffrey, Cook, Mixon, Kamara, Mack, Aaron Jones, Barkley, Chubb) are going to collectively turn to dust just because they turn 26? No doubt, some of them won’t maintain their level of play. But some of them will. Some of them will have better careers going forward than Trae Waynes or Robby Anderson or Robert Quinn. 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Krauser

[whitehops]

5 minutes ago, Krauser said:

Do you really think all the good RBs who are currently heading into year 3-5 of their careers (Elliott, Henry, Gordon, McCaffrey, Cook, Mixon, Kamara, Mack, Aaron Jones, Barkley, Chubb) are going to collectively turn to dust just because they turn 26? No doubt, some of them won’t maintain their level of play. But some of them will. Some of them will have better careers going forward than Trae Waynes or Robby Anderson or Robert Quinn. 

but at a much lower percentage than other positions. why are you purposely ignoring that?

[SemperFeist]

I’ll never understand why some take the term “game manager” as a slight. 

[Cearbhall]

4 hours ago, Krauser said:

The more likely alternative would be to spend Cook's money on a different homegrown player, like Waynes, or Weatherly and Alexander. Would you rather have $12M worth of those guys instead of Cook? 

Sure, I would way rather have Alexander at the contract he signed with the Bengals and an $8M or less RB than Cook and the need to use a high draft pick to replace Alexander. Melvin Gordon was the $8M RB this year so you could use his name even though he isn't necessarily the RB that I would pick.

[CriminalMind]

1 minute ago, SemperFeist said:

I’ll never understand why some take the term “game manager” as a slight. 

Because it's synomonum with a QB who checks the ball down, limits turnovers, and can't get you a score\1st down when the game is on the line. Basically performs just well enough, to beat below 0.500 teams and performs just well enough to lose to meaningful teams, in meaningful games

[CriminalMind]

5 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

Sure, I would way rather have Alexander at the contract he signed with the Bengals and an $8M or less RB than Cook and the need to use a high draft pick to replace Alexander. Melvin Gordon was the $8M RB this year so you could use his name even though he isn't necessarily the RB that I would pick.

Exactly.

[Krauser]

1 hour ago, whitehops said:

but at a much lower percentage than other positions. why are you purposely ignoring that?

You don't know that for a fact.

You're inferring that based on the last 5 years or so of RBs coming off their rookie contracts. But that trend may not continue.