The Iron Chef!!

[Krauser]

47 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

I wouldn't say my plan is to sign veteran stopgap CBs to one year deals. That is just how it would have worked out the first year owing to the team situation. I wouldn't advocate that as a general strategy at the CB position. The team will be able to get better CBs in the future.

Cheaper veteran contracts are typically short, just a year or two. All the other non-rookie CBs in Alexander’s price range (Brian Poole, Kevin Johnson, Pierre Desir, Bashaud Breeland, Xavier Rhodes) are on 1 year deals.

If you sign Alexander or similar this year, the options next year to use that $4M will again be similar — veteran stopgaps on a short term deal. 

47 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

I am not paying a veteran RB $3.5M every year.

Not literally every year, OK. But you said you would have a Latavius Murray type most years.

We’re not arguing over each dollar, just trying to see roughly how far Cook’s money would go in real life.

47 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

Then the team has money for Warford.

Probably not. The difference between Cook and Warford on a long term deal is not going to be enough to fit the 2 short-term veteran contracts you chose in a given year.

Warford was making $8.5M with the Saints on a deal he signed back in 2017. There’s no reason to think he’d be cheaper now. The Broncos gave Graham Glasgow $11M AAV this year, and he’s the same age and less successful than Warford. Billy Turner is mediocre but got $7M AAV from the Packers last year. 

Cook in the worst realistic scenario exceeds what Warford gets on a long term deal by $5M. Alexander is getting $4M, Miller is unsigned but Murray’s cap number is $4M and you’re budgeting $3M per year on average for veteran RB depth — I think you’re over budget.

If you want a veteran guard you can afford in this scenario, how about Wes Schweitzer ($13.5M/3 from Washington) or Quinton Spain ($15M/3 from Buffalo). 

Edited May 24, 2020 by Krauser

[Cearbhall]

45 minutes ago, Krauser said:

Cheaper veteran contracts are typically short, just a year or two. All the other non-rookie CBs in Alexander’s price range (Brian Poole, Kevin Johnson, Pierre Desir, Bashaud Breeland, Xavier Rhodes) are on 1 year deals.

If you sign Alexander or similar this year, the options next year to use that $4M will again be similar — veteran stopgaps on a short term deal. 

I agree. Cheaper veteran contracts are typically short. Just because I picked Alexander this year doesn't mean that I would be looking to continue that strategy at CB as a long-term plan. Going with cheaper, younger RBs is the long-term plan. The savings can be spent various ways depending on team needs. This year they need a CB. Next year it might be safety.  Most of these stopgap free agents are place holders until a draft pick makes them expendable. That even includes the stopgap RBs I would be signing. For RB, I wouldn't be pushing huge draft resources into the RB position so it is more likely that I'll have the RB merry-go-round spinning annually. But when a RB on a rookie contract looks good enough I ride with him for those few years.

So yes, the options next year again for $4M is again a veteran stopgap but not necessarily specific to the CB position. Veteran stopgaps are absolutely not my plan long-term for CB.

The difference between RB and CB is that at RB I wouldn't be looking to give out high value second contracts. At CB, and many other positions, I would be looking to give out second contracts. I would be investing higher picks too.

52 minutes ago, Krauser said:

Probably not. The difference between Cook and Warford on a long term deal is not going to be enough to fit the 2 short-term veteran contracts you chose in a given year.

That's fine. I would be happy with just Warford for a year or two along with my alternative RBs instead of extending cook for two years and being left with the garbage OGs the team has under contract right now. I do think there would be room for one of the CBs sitting out there right now though. The time of year a guy is looking for a contract matter a lot. Warford's situation is not comparable to Glasgow or Turner. He is a better player than both, but his situation does not set him up to get a contract comparable to what Glasgow signed. And the team can use a veteran stopgap CB right now since their draft picks are no sure thing.

I love Billy Turner so I'll stay away from comparisons to him. I am heavily bias there.

As far as your thought that Warford eats up almost all of the $7M saved going from Cook for $12M to Miller and Alexander, we'll have have to wait and see. I don't think so, but I don't know any better than you on that right now. Obviously, if Warford is getting $7M this year it changes things. The team might then look into what they can get Clowney to agree to for a year. I could see him valuing a year with the Vikings enough to sign with them for $8M or less if he doesn't have any other short contract offers that give him a better opportunity to set him up for free agency next year. So far, I haven't seen any indication that there are teams out there looking to give him $10M for the year.

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

If you want a veteran guard you can afford in this scenario, how about Wes Schweitzer ($13.5M/3 from Washington) or Quinton Spain ($15M/3 from Buffalo). 

I don't know much about Schweitzer but I am open to the possibility of him being an option. I do know a bit more about Spain and I have previously mentioned him as a possibility, I think before they got Kline. He isn't Warford, but absolutely a guy I would consider if Warford couldn't be signed. The team needs someone to play G that is better than Elflein. I have serious doubts that Samia will be better than Elflein and still see him as behind Dozier on the depth chart.

 

 

[swede700]

On 5/24/2020 at 6:12 AM, Vikes22 said:

But a very true statement. Just look at this years past draft. 1 RB in the 1st round ( last pick) and 5 in round 2. I would of took any of them if we needed  a back and there is a good chance all of them put up good numbers.

l’m all for drafting a RB next year if Cook doesn’t take a contract in the 7-8 million per year range. If he doesn’t, goodbye 👋 

That is not a very true statement at all. Of the draftees from last year, only Josh Jacobs was in the category of RB as Cook and it took him an extra game to even get 15 more yds than Cook.  Any of the other draftees would have meant less production from the RB position than what Cook provided.  Now, if you're willing to cut off your nose to spite your face, feel free...but I'm not going to sit there and tell you it looks better.  

[SemperFeist]

8 hours ago, swede700 said:

That is not a very true statement at all. Of the draftees from last year, only Josh Jacobs was in the category of RB as Cook and it took him an extra game to even get 15 more yds than Cook.  Any of the other draftees would have meant less production from the RB position than what Cook provided.  Now, if you're willing to cut off your nose to spite your face, feel free...but I'm not going to sit there and tell you it looks better.  

This is all assuming that you’re trying to replace Cook 1:1

Can you get 2,000 rushing yards and 700 yards receiving from 4 running backs? 

[Cearbhall]

1 hour ago, SemperFeist said:

This is all assuming that you’re trying to replace Cook 1:1

Can you get 2,000 rushing yards and 700 yards receiving from 4 running backs? 

With a good offensive line, maybe. A good offensive line will make decent RBs look good. A good RB with a weak offensive line leads to a dramatic fall in production when a team has to play another RB because the good RB got hurt or old. Good RBs do not last long in the league.

[swede700]

12 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

With a good offensive line, maybe. A good offensive line will make decent RBs look good. A good RB with a weak offensive line leads to a dramatic fall in production when a team has to play another RB because the good RB got hurt or old. Good RBs do not last long in the league.

Unless his name is Adrian Peterson (who will probably once again get 200+ carries) or Frank Gore (who was still getting 250 carries just 2 years ago).    

[Vikes22]

On 5/26/2020 at 10:22 AM, swede700 said:

That is not a very true statement at all. Of the draftees from last year, only Josh Jacobs was in the category of RB as Cook and it took him an extra game to even get 15 more yds than Cook.  Any of the other draftees would have meant less production from the RB position than what Cook provided.  Now, if you're willing to cut off your nose to spite your face, feel free...but I'm not going to sit there and tell you it looks better.  

Yes it is.. look at that draft. I would never take a RB in round 1. Last year, 1 RB was draft in round 2. Miles Sanders. They slowly worked him in and he will be the man this year in Philly. Just like when we drafted Cook. That’s what you do with RB’s

Take a 4 year deal at 7-8 million a year, or draft one in the 2nd round next year. Bottom line... I would never give a back 10 plus million unless you are a Peterson, Barkley, or McCaffrey.. I’ll build both my lines and our defense.

also, Singletary and Montgomery were 3rd round picks that are both projected to put up 1300-1500 yards of total scrimmage yards.. 

I’ll take those number and pay them on there rookie contacts and use the millions I would save on our O-line. 
 

By the way, a good O-line  makes a good RB...

[swede700]

16 minutes ago, Vikes22 said:

Yes it is.. look at that draft. I would never take a RB in round 1. Last year, 1 RB was draft in round 2. Miles Sanders. They slowly worked him in and he will be the man this year in Philly. Just like when we drafted Cook. That’s what you do with RB’s

Take a 4 year deal at 7-8 million a year, or draft one in the 2nd round next year. Bottom line... I would never give a back 10 plus million unless you are a Peterson, Barkley, or McCaffrey.. I’ll build both my lines and our defense.

also, Singletary and Montgomery were 3rd round picks that are both projected to put up 1300-1500 yards of total scrimmage yards.. 

I’ll take those number and pay them on there rookie contacts and use the millions I would save on our O-line. 
 

By the way, a good O-line  makes a good RB...

No, it's still not true...all your pros are on what they are "projected" to be, not what they have been thus far.  And there isn't a one of them that, thus far, has been better than Dalvin Cook.  

Edited May 27, 2020 by swede700

[Guest]

This devaluing of running backs has gotten a little ridiculous in my opinion.  There is not another position in football that is at once dangerous, yet as exciting as a running back getting past the line of scrimmage.  I think there are two things that is leading to the devaluing...(1) pretty awful offensive line play in the NFL.  (2) because of the overvaluing of quarterbacks in the league, there is less money to spend on offensive linemen and awarding most effective running backs with a raise and a second quarterback. 

So, here is my solution.  Running backs are eligible for new contracts or unrestricted free agency after two years in the league. Unlike, QB's or linemen, running backs are at their best in the first four years following being drafted.  I think they should have a chance at getting rewarded.  Likewise, QB's should have longer than average time where their rookie contracts are still enforced.  I would recommend 7 years. 

[swede700]

1 hour ago, Virginia Viking said:

This devaluing of running backs has gotten a little ridiculous in my opinion.  There is not another position in football that is at once dangerous, yet as exciting as a running back getting past the line of scrimmage.  I think there are two things that is leading to the devaluing...(1) pretty awful offensive line play in the NFL.  (2) because of the overvaluing of quarterbacks in the league, there is less money to spend on offensive linemen and awarding most effective running backs with a raise and a second quarterback. 

So, here is my solution.  Running backs are eligible for new contracts or unrestricted free agency after two years in the league. Unlike, QB's or linemen, running backs are at their best in the first four years following being drafted.  I think they should have a chance at getting rewarded.  Likewise, QB's should have longer than average time where their rookie contracts are still enforced.  I would recommend 7 years. 

I'm sure the RBs would love that...and the QBs wouldn't...but there's less QBs, so their opinion doesn't count. 

[Vikes22]

2 hours ago, swede700 said:

No, it's still not true...all your pros are on what they are "projected" to be, not what they have been thus far.  And there isn't a one of them that, thus far, has been better than Dalvin Cook.  

1st year in league:

Cook- ( I’ll do his 2 years since he was hurt)

969 yards rushing , 395 receiving 6 total TD’s

Sanders- 818 yards rushing, 509 receiving, 6 total TD’s

 

Montgomery- 889 rushing, 185 receiving, 7 total TD’s

 

Singletary- 775 yards rushing, 194 receiving, 4 total TD’s..

 

So, 10 plus million a year or day 2 back on rookie contract..🤔Just think how good those RB’s would be with good QB’s on a good team..

[swede700]

14 hours ago, Vikes22 said:

1st year in league:

Cook- ( I’ll do his 2 years since he was hurt)

969 yards rushing , 395 receiving 6 total TD’s

Sanders- 818 yards rushing, 509 receiving, 6 total TD’s

 

Montgomery- 889 rushing, 185 receiving, 7 total TD’s

 

Singletary- 775 yards rushing, 194 receiving, 4 total TD’s..

 

So, 10 plus million a year or day 2 back on rookie contract..🤔Just think how good those RB’s would be with good QB’s on a good team..

I'm not really following you there, but it now seems that you're trying to move the goalposts and try to compare how Cook did in his first season...that wasn't the point you initially made.  It's about the current situation among the RBs, not comparing them as rookies.  I could go back and talk about Gurley's rookie season, but that's irrelevant at this point.

[Cearbhall]

18 hours ago, Vikes22 said:

Yes it is.. look at that draft. I would never take a RB in round 1. Last year, 1 RB was draft in round 2. Miles Sanders. They slowly worked him in and he will be the man this year in Philly. Just like when we drafted Cook. That’s what you do with RB’s

Take a 4 year deal at 7-8 million a year, or draft one in the 2nd round next year. Bottom line... I would never give a back 10 plus million unless you are a Peterson, Barkley, or McCaffrey.. I’ll build both my lines and our defense.

also, Singletary and Montgomery were 3rd round picks that are both projected to put up 1300-1500 yards of total scrimmage yards.. 

I’ll take those number and pay them on there rookie contacts and use the millions I would save on our O-line. 
 

By the way, a good O-line  makes a good RB...

Agreed. First round is too high for a RB. Only in the most exceptional of circumstances would I consider taking a RB in the first. Those are similar circumstances to where I would consider paying a RB over 5% of the salary cap.

Your point about the using the savings on the offensive line, which will make the RBs look better, makes a ton of sense to me. On top of that, a good offensive line will make the QB look better and that will help the WRs and TEs as well.

Saving resources on RB and using it to build the offensive line is not just about the RB position. The goal is not to reproduce the numbers that Cook would get. The goal is to build a consistent and strong offense. Solid offensive line is a must-have of that. Great RB is merely a nice-to-have.

[Vikes22]

3 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

Agreed. First round is too high for a RB. Only in the most exceptional of circumstances would I consider taking a RB in the first. Those are similar circumstances to where I would consider paying a RB over 5% of the salary cap.

Your point about the using the savings on the offensive line, which will make the RBs look better, makes a ton of sense to me. On top of that, a good offensive line will make the QB look better and that will help the WRs and TEs as well.

Saving resources on RB and using it to build the offensive line is not just about the RB position. The goal is not to reproduce the numbers that Cook would get. The goal is to build a consistent and strong offense. Solid offensive line is a must-have of that. Great RB is merely a nice-to-have.

Bingo!!!! It just makes to much sense to help the whole team and not just 1 position. 

[Vikes22]

4 hours ago, swede700 said:

I'm not really following you there, but it now seems that you're trying to move the goalposts and try to compare how Cook did in his first season...that wasn't the point you initially made.  It's about the current situation among the RBs, not comparing them as rookies.  I could go back and talk about Gurley's rookie season, but that's irrelevant at this point.

All I’m saying is that a day 2 back on draft day will give you almost the same production Cook gives you. I’ll take the extra money and upgrade our lines so the team is better. 
 

besides a select few ( Barkley and McCaffrey) there is a true statement that fits the mold.

RB’s are a dime a dozen.... Very true.