Jump to content

Dalvin Cook Holding Out


HTTRDynasty

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, showtime said:

You don't want to pay them, but if you let them go the quality of your offense goes down a good amount.

the article suggests that isn't the case,  with back- up RB Mattison equaling or surpassing Cook's stats behind the same OL.
Its just the pff view of things, but its interesting to read it just the same.
I agree Cook is the better RB, but the performances to date haven't seen a big drop-off between the two players

Mattison averaged the same 4.6 yards per carry last season as Cook did; he generated 3.2 of those yards after contact (compared to Cook’s 3.0), broke tackles at almost the same rate (0.18 per carry compared to 0.19) and gained a first down or touchdown on 19% of his carries compared to Cook’s 21.4%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

the article suggests that isn't the case,  with back- up RB Mattison equaling or surpassing Cook's stats behind the same OL.
Its just the pff view of things, but its interesting to read it just the same.
I agree Cook is the better RB, but the performances to date haven't seen a big drop-off between the two players

Mattison averaged the same 4.6 yards per carry last season as Cook did; he generated 3.2 of those yards after contact (compared to Cook’s 3.0), broke tackles at almost the same rate (0.18 per carry compared to 0.19) and gained a first down or touchdown on 19% of his carries compared to Cook’s 21.4%.

Can Mattison do that being the full time #1 RB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, showtime said:

Can Mattison do that being the full time #1 RB?

no clue, but Cook couldn't deliver as full time #1 RB
He spent 18/48 games on the sidelines (37.5 %)

So the real question is, can Mattison/RB committee deliver "similar" production for 1/10th the cost ?
vikes OC, Gary Kubiak grew up in the Shanahan Sr.  world of just plug n play another low cost RB
Its a tough situation and GB is facing a similar decision with RB Aaron Jones

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

no clue, but Cook couldn't deliver as full time #1 RB
He spent 18/48 games on the sidelines (37.5 %)

So the real question is, can Mattison/RB committee deliver "similar" production for 1/10th the cost ?
vikes OC, Gary Kubiak grew up in the Shanahan Sr.  world of just plug n play another low cost RB
Its a tough situation and GB is facing a similar decision with RB Aaron Jones

It’s not just production, though. I’m assuming that the defenses Cook face aren’t the same defenses that Mattison & co. would face. It’s not just plugging guys in and getting that production. If Mattison gets the same hypothetical production but the defense shuts down the pass more effectively, then that’s a big deal even if the rushing numbers are the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've seen what happens to a Vikings Offense without Cook. Mattison despite whatevers BS numbers you want to post, Isnt Dalvin Cook.

Its the same Rediculous story when a Legit RB is up to be paid. We can easily replace said production. Vikings will find out the hard way that Mattison isn't the answer.  Hope they go that route.🍺

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Austin Eckler will be the poster child for every Franchise that follows. I hope to God the Giants feel the same way about Saquon's extension. Please try and penny pinch money/that position and get him out of the NFCE unlike Jerry and Zeke. Which was the smart decision to make!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2020 at 3:10 PM, diamondbull424 said:

Heck the cap doesn’t even need to change. Would QBs be mad if a max contract was put in place? Probably, but I’m sure most other players would be a fan. What’s more if the max is $30m than that would prevent owners from having to pay $40m for a Pat Mahomes and could instead use the additional cap space for some of these other mechanisms that make things more fiscally fair for the rest of the squad.

Owners might also benefit from the structure in that QBs like Joe Flacco can never hold a franchise hostage because if the max contract value was $20m back then, the team might’ve been able to say “that’s Tom Brady/Peyton Manning money” how about we settle on $16m instead. Other mechanisms would be better afforded due to the changes made in the system at large.

not sure if this would happen in the nfl but in the nba so many players get the max that is just makes the elite players even more valuable, because they get the same amount as tier 2 players but produce way more. 

 

example: if the max contract in the nfl was set at $30 million, mahomes would get $30 million but so would every other young QB getting an extension, because teams will pay them that as retaining the QB is a much better option than trying to find a new franchise QB. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, whitehops said:

not sure if this would happen in the nfl but in the nba so many players get the max that is just makes the elite players even more valuable, because they get the same amount as tier 2 players but produce way more. 

 

example: if the max contract in the nfl was set at $30 million, mahomes would get $30 million but so would every other young QB getting an extension, because teams will pay them that as retaining the QB is a much better option than trying to find a new franchise QB. 

The NBA only has to pay, at most, 15 players. The NFL couldn't reproduce this. Also, if the owners tried to pass this the players would counter with guaranteed contracts like the NBA has and there is no way the NFL owners will EVER agree to that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, seriously27 said:

The NBA only has to pay, at most, 15 players. The NFL couldn't reproduce this. Also, if the owners tried to pass this the players would counter with guaranteed contracts like the NBA has and there is no way the NFL owners will EVER agree to that. 

yeah, the max contract would really only affect quarterbacks. 

 

also, as far as i know there's nothing in the nba's cba that explicitly states veteran contracts are fully guaranteed, i think it's just the standard. there are partially or non-guaranteed contracts in the nba but it's usually fringe guys that sign those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.rotoworld.com/article/offseason-low-down/will-dalvin-cook-miss-games-holding-out

more good info in here, including the 2021 FA class of RBs.
Lots of competition for RBs next year and that might have factored into his decision to force the issue now

Derrick Henry, Alvin Kamara, Joe Mixon, Aaron Jones, Kenyan Drake, Chris Carson, James Conner, Marlon Mack, Kareem Hunt, James White, Matt Breida, Damien Williams, Tevin Coleman, Todd Gurley, Leonard Fournette, and several others

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, seriously27 said:

The NBA only has to pay, at most, 15 players. The NFL couldn't reproduce this. Also, if the owners tried to pass this the players would counter with guaranteed contracts like the NBA has and there is no way the NFL owners will EVER agree to that. 

I don’t see a problem from the players perspective. The owners I’m sure wouldn’t be against giving guaranteed dollars as it’s mainly QBs that would get the max contract (unless some front office decides to vastly overpay an edge rusher). QBs have already been getting a great portion guaranteed. I’m sure the owners wouldn’t be against QBs getting a minimum of 75% of the contract guaranteed bare minimum... the negotiation could come in just how much is legit guaranteed.

Whats more as an owner if you can save $10m or $20m I’m having to pay your QB, I’m sure they would be more than happy enough to include a few more guarantees on that players end. Quid pro quo.

A max deal should only be reserved for the top quality QB. If you have to fret over 75% guaranteed... than perhaps this is a player that shouldn’t be getting the mad deal... if that makes sense.

Edited by diamondbull424
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

I don’t see a problem from the players perspective. The owners I’m sure wouldn’t be against giving guaranteed dollars as it’s mainly QBs that would get the max contract

Any union worth their weight in salt wouldn’t settle for a contract cap that isn’t fully guaranteed. Especially if it’s coming at a pay cut - Wentz, Goff, soon to be Dak, etc, making $35M~, and now Mahomes is going to get capped? Any union agreeing to that pay cut, that isn’t fully guaranteed, while also lessening the contracts for every other player at every other position - would be rightfully under fire.

Edited by Yin-Yang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Nabbs4u said:

We've seen what happens to a Vikings Offense without Cook. Mattison despite whatevers BS numbers you want to post, Isnt Dalvin Cook.

Its the same Rediculous story when a Legit RB is up to be paid. We can easily replace said production. Vikings will find out the hard way that Mattison isn't the answer.  Hope they go that route.🍺

Yes, but that was also Mattison's rookie season. To me, that's anecdotal evidence. He could be radically different in year 2.

I just don't see the point in extending Cook. At best, you get 8 healthy games out of him per year. That's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...