The Iron Chef!!

[babababa]

1 minute ago, vikingsrule said:

He gashed the Packers, Raiders, Lions and Giants early on. All bad teams except the Packers. You don’t think those four big games hugely inflated those final numbers. A great back shouldn’t be so wildly inconsistent. His last 100 yard game was October 20. His last game over 4 YPC was October 24.

So you could cherry pick how Randy Moss and Tom Brady took advantage of crappy teams too.

[Heimdallr]

The argument isn't whether or not Cook is a great player,  the question is if tying up a huge amount of money in a RB is a productive way to build a team.

How much value-over-replacement does Cook provide, relative to $15M spent on other more valuable positions? 

I think the cost easily exceeds the benefit.

[vikingsrule]

Just now, babababa said:

Cook would have been looking at being the highest paid back in the league if he would have continued his pace -- right there with McCaffrey. He doesn't have to be Marshall Faulk to earn anyone's respect.

McCaffrey may be the next Faulk. He’s earned what has come to him. Every year with Cook, there’s an asterisk to excuse his performance. He didn’t miss games last year but he played through an injury. He blew out his knee as a rookie. The excuse his second year is that it took half a year to recover. I just don’t see a franchise RB worth breaking the bank for. He’s talented for sure, but what good is talent if you’re either hurt or overworked.

If Cook is best as a committee back and not being being in the top 10 in carries, how do you justify paying him comparable to other elite RBs who can handle the work load without a drop off in efficiency.

[vikingsrule]

3 minutes ago, babababa said:

So you could cherry pick how Randy Moss and Tom Brady took advantage of crappy teams too.

They showed up against great teams though and are HOF players. Pretty sure we could have won the division had the run game not disappeared down the stretch, you know when the schedule got more difficult.

[swede700]

5 minutes ago, Heimdallr said:

The argument isn't whether or not Cook is a great player,  the question is if tying up a huge amount of money in a RB is a productive way to build a team.

How much value-over-replacement does Cook provide, relative to $15M spent on other more valuable positions? 

I think the cost easily exceeds the benefit.

First, I'm not sure there is more than 1 person suggesting that he should get $15M. 

Second, there seems to a myth that the Vikings are in long-term cap trouble even if they extend Cook.  This is a false narrative.  This the only season where they have a problem.  Of the young guns, only Cook and O'Neill have contracts up in the next 2 years...and even if Cook is extended, they'll likely have $40M+ in cap space next year because Reiff's contract will likely come off the books if Cleveland is ready to take over.

Third, No one has suggested spending 7.5% of the cap on a RB, ala the Jets on Leveon Bell, but with all the examples provided such as the contracts that went to Gurley and David Johnson, it should be noted that all of the franchises indicated have severe issues with how they've doled out contracts period...the Rams put themselves in a boat not because they paid Gurley, but because of the other players they paid in an ill-fated attempt to rebuild their defense in a hurry.  And the Cardinals and Jets should never be used as a comparison for team management.  I trust Spielman and Brz to make the best decision for the future without handicapping the team significantly.  

[babababa]

9 minutes ago, vikingsrule said:

McCaffrey may be the next Faulk. He’s earned what has come to him. Every year with Cook, there’s an asterisk to excuse his performance. He didn’t miss games last year but he played through an injury. He blew out his knee as a rookie. The excuse his second year is that it took half a year to recover. I just don’t see a franchise RB worth breaking the bank for. He’s talented for sure, but what good is talent if you’re either hurt or overworked.

If Cook is best as a committee back and not being being in the top 10 in carries, how do you justify paying him comparable to other elite RBs who can handle the work load without a drop off in efficiency.

Cook didn't need an asterisk this season to excuse his performance.

 

[Cearbhall]

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

If Cook is healthy and productive this year, he’d probably refuse to play under the tag, for the same reasons that he may hold out this year if he doesn’t get extended.

Sad but true, there’s no way he’ll sign for $8M long term. That’s half what his comparables got.

I do think the Vikings should make an argument for a lower AAV and more team friendly contract structure (less guaranteed, an earlier out) due to his injury history. But that probably means $12-14M, not $8-10M.

Agreed completely except I would say his current value would be $10-$12M, not $12-$14M. That is why I said I would only sign him if he agreed to a team friendly deal. I understand that the deal I suggested if very team friendly. As I stated, I do not expect that he would agree to it.

He is worth $10M per year right now IMO. Maybe a bit more. However, RBs do not have a long shelf-life and it is relatively easy to get one via trade (Fournette is on the market right now) so I wouldn't be tying up resources in a RB until other more important position groups are taken care of.

To me, Dalvin Cook is a little bit better than Melvin Gordon. If he sits out a year his value on the market will go down from what it is right now and will be a little higher than Gordon's value was on the open market this year.

[babababa]

19 minutes ago, vikingsrule said:

They showed up against great teams though and are HOF players. Pretty sure we could have won the division had the run game not disappeared down the stretch, you know when the schedule got more difficult.

You're missing the point. You could go down the line with every quality player this year and see how they perform against crappy defenses. I'm not about to do a study -- it should be obvious. 

To the notion that Cook lost us the division ... I'm not going to bother.

[Purplepride323]

14 minutes ago, swede700 said:

First, I'm not sure there is more than 1 person suggesting that he should get $15M. 

Second, there seems to a myth that the Vikings are in long-term cap trouble even if they extend Cook.  This is a false narrative.  This the only season where they have a problem.  Of the young guns, only Cook and O'Neill have contracts up in the next 2 years...and even if Cook is extended, they'll likely have $40M+ in cap space next year because Reiff's contract will likely come off the books if Cleveland is ready to take over.

Third, No one has suggested spending 7.5% of the cap on a RB, ala the Jets on Leveon Bell, but with all the examples provided such as the contracts that went to Gurley and David Johnson, it should be noted that all of the franchises indicated have severe issues with how they've doled out contracts period...the Rams put themselves in a boat not because they paid Gurley, but because of the other players they paid in an ill-fated attempt to rebuild their defense in a hurry.  And the Cardinals and Jets should never be used as a comparison for team management.  I trust Spielman and Brz to make the best decision for the future without handicapping the team significantly.  

McCaffrey just got $16 mil a year. Honestly I think Cook is a better RB. McCaffrey might be better as a receiver, but as a RB, Cook is better. He will definitely get that kind of money, especially if he has another big year, which I think he will. We just gave Cousins close to $30 mil a year, and I’m not mad at that, but I think Dalvin deserves to get half of that, no question. Again we pay Riley Freakin’ Reiff $13 mil a year! I don’t know what y’all been smoking during the quarantine, but I’d much rather pay that money to Dalvin Cook. Also cap space is going to increase next year, so we’re already going to have most of the money for Dalvin by just waiting a year. 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Purplepride323

[babababa]

36 minutes ago, Heimdallr said:

The argument isn't whether or not Cook is a great player,  the question is if tying up a huge amount of money in a RB is a productive way to build a team.

How much value-over-replacement does Cook provide, relative to $15M spent on other more valuable positions? 

I think the cost easily exceeds the benefit.

I see what you're saying, but what's going on here on this board (IMO) is people are nitpicking Cook to the point where his final line isn't his final line anymore. Whenever speculation begins to occur over his contract numbers everyone starts to point out perceived flaws in his game without pointing out positives or context. I then come in feeling testy. The gaslighting then concludes with people saying you can't pay him (and that's a wild spectrum of belief here between 6M-15M). This on a team that has a run-first philosophy. 

[vikingsrule]

39 minutes ago, babababa said:

You're missing the point. You could go down the line with every quality player this year and see how they perform against crappy defenses. I'm not about to do a study -- it should be obvious. 

To the notion that Cook lost us the division ... I'm not going to bother.

Of course Cook didn’t lose us the division. But when you’re a run oriented team, can’t run the ball effectively, but still proceed to run anyway, that’s a problem. Play calling/philosophy lost us the division, we shouldn’t have relied nearly as much on running the ball with Cook as we did. Maybe Mattison should have gotten more touches. Maybe Diggs should have been getting more targets. Maybe Diggs would still be here if he was catching 80-90 balls and not watching Cook slam into a brick wall most of November and December.

RB by committee approach seems to work just fine in today’s league. Cook has one more year left on his deal, I’d again argue to let him play out his deal and let him test the open market. Let free agency dictate his new deal. If he signs for $15m elsewhere, good for him. If no one bites, maybe we get him signed for a small commitment like what Gordon received.

[JDBrocks]

8 minutes ago, Purplepride323 said:

McCaffrey just got $16 mil a year. Honestly I think Cook is a better RB. McCaffrey might be better as a receiver, but as a RB, Cook is better.

I know folks wear purple colored glasses in this forum, me included, but this is over the top. McCaffrey has outperformed Cook in every significant measure. Availability, receiving, rushing, all while playing on a significantly worse team.

It's fine to suggest that Dalvin is an extremely talented player, and that he might deserve top shelf money if he can prove that he is fully healthy and won't deteriorate down the stretch. It's another conversation altogether when talking about whether or not giving him the money he "deserves" is prudent for the Vikings or any other team trying to building a winner. When Matt Breida, Tevin Coleman, Raheem Mostert, and Damien Williams are good enough to get to a superbowl, and the year before Todd Gurley was splitting time with street FA CJ Anderson, it's really hard to justify paying guys 3-4 times that much money. In fact, I think you'd have to go back pretty far to find a team making consistently deep playoff runs with top 5 RB salary.

[Krauser]

21 minutes ago, vikingsrule said:

Play calling/philosophy lost us the division

The scheme and playcalling were fine, the OL just got whipped a few times (Packers games, first Bears game, Niners game in the playoffs). Not much you can do when you can't run block or pass block.

A more dynamic / creative QB than Cousins could've done more in that situation, but even Aaron Rodgers was shut down twice in SF. 

The Vikings scheme was very similar to the Niners and Packers, the only teams who went further than them in the NFC. You could make an argument for tweaking the system (more first down passing, maybe more 11 personnel with a gadgety WR3 as a changeup from Ham/Irv), but the coaches don't have anything to apologize for. 

 

[swede700]

1 hour ago, Purplepride323 said:

McCaffrey just got $16 mil a year. Honestly I think Cook is a better RB. McCaffrey might be better as a receiver, but as a RB, Cook is better. He will definitely get that kind of money, especially if he has another big year, which I think he will. We just gave Cousins close to $30 mil a year, and I’m not mad at that, but I think Dalvin deserves to get half of that, no question. Again we pay Riley Freakin’ Reiff $13 mil a year! I don’t know what y’all been smoking during the quarantine, but I’d much rather pay that money to Dalvin Cook. Also cap space is going to increase next year, so we’re already going to have most of the money for Dalvin by just waiting a year. 

First, you're incorrect in your perception of McCaffrey vs. Cook...and it's not even close.  McCaffrey has more games played, more TDs and more YPA.  

Second, Reiff is not being paid $13M/yr, his cap hit went up to $13M this year, but his average is around $11.75M, which is pretty much smack-dab in the middle among all LTs in the NFL...which is what he is.

 

[Cearbhall]

1 hour ago, Purplepride323 said:

McCaffrey just got $16 mil a year. Honestly I think Cook is a better RB. McCaffrey might be better as a receiver, but as a RB, Cook is better. He will definitely get that kind of money, especially if he has another big year, which I think he will. We just gave Cousins close to $30 mil a year, and I’m not mad at that, but I think Dalvin deserves to get half of that, no question. Again we pay Riley Freakin’ Reiff $13 mil a year! I don’t know what y’all been smoking during the quarantine, but I’d much rather pay that money to Dalvin Cook. Also cap space is going to increase next year, so we’re already going to have most of the money for Dalvin by just waiting a year. 

I disagree with a couple of things here.

First, I don't believe the RB position deserves half of what the QB position is currently values at in the NFL.

Second, I would rather pay an average LT (Reiff) the salary of an average LT and have an average RB on the team than pay a top RB the salary of a top RB and have a below average LT on the team. In other words, I would rather pay Riley Reiff $13M per year than Dalvin Cook $15M per year.

Finally, I don't think you should be so sure that the cap is going to increase next year. We are not yet sure whether there will be games played this season. If there are not, league revenue is going to be quite low. The cap formula bases the cap on a percentage of league revenue. It is prudent to at least account for the possibility of an abbreviated season or no games played at all this year. There is a lot we do not know but there is talk of a second wave in the fall. One of the COVID-19 experts where I work has "grave concerns" about a second wave in the fall. It is really hard to be sure right now that the NFL will have any more games than the NBA, MLB, and the NHL have combined for in the last month.

While games will probably be played leaving revenue losses at the cost of empty seat stadiums, Cook may want to lock in some guaranteed money this year in case the cap is much lower next year. It probably will not be much lower next year but I for sure wouldn't act out of certainty that the cap will be higher next year.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Cearbhall