S197 wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:47 pm
What are some examples of games that indicate this is a pass-first offense? If what I'm describing is the weather and not climate, then surely there should be a plethora of examples to contradict the ones I provided. Games where our run game struggled and was bailed out by the passing attack.
It seems like your argument revolves around Cousins' contract and that we cannot be a run-first team because we pay our QB elite money. Without any additional support, that's more an example of dissonance than philosophy.
Let me ask you this, do you think the Titans are a run-first offense? I'd say so. And yet Tannehill got the big extension before Henry. Looking at contracts in a vacuum isn't going to tell you the whole story. Seattle is another example. They have Wilson but clearly emphasize the run. Dallas very well could be another if they extend Dak.
I didn't say the Vikings want to be a pass-first offense. If anything, they want to be balanced and capable of passing effectively when the situation calls for it.
I provided additional support for my argument beyond Cousins' contract. Cousins contract is the Godzilla in the room of this debate, but I pointed out other moves the Vikings have made in terms of personnel and who has been extended, from the type of OL they've drafted to the TEs and WRs they've drafted and extended. None of that suggests to me they are emphasizing run-first. I've also pointed out that the 2019 49ers were the closest thing to a run-heavy offense that made it to a Superbowl in at least the last 20 years if not longer. Teams that get to and win Superbowls have effective passing games. They run if they can because it is lower risk, but it is not a point of emphasis because it only works if the defense can keep scores close and the offense can consistently impose it's will running. Almost impossible to do in the modern NFL even with superior talent designed to run. The 2019 49ers were an aberration in the bigger picture and I'd say are highly unlikely to repeat that feat again if they can't improve their passing game.
I'm not trying to claim it's OK to ignore the run or that the Vikings are doing that or even want to do that. I think they see value in Cook and obvious value in offensive balance. So maybe we're just arguing semantics. The teams you listed clearly value balance as well, and there are examples of teams blowing big money at the RB position, whether collectively or at one primary guy if they think that primary guy is worth the money. But, and this is a big BUT, I don't see many successful offenses that want to power run and more or less ignore the pass. The teams you listed want to run, sure, but all of them signed their QBs first and foremost because they want to be able to pass successfully when the situation calls for it, and in the pros the situation is going to call for it more frequently than not, especially in the playoffs and against the best teams.
I doubt I'm going to convince you if I haven't already, and that's fine, but let's both just sit back and see what the Vikings choose to do with Cook's contract situation. If I'm right, there is no way he gets a $10+ million pay day this season. He might get it next season, be it from the Vikings or another team in FA, but only if he plays and stays healthy this season. And if he chooses to sit out, my bet is the Vikings let him and go with the guys they have.
If you're right, then Cook is going to get paid in some way, shape or form, both because the Vikings "need" him for their run-first offense to work this year, but also because they value him so highly they'll want to keep their prize offensive player happy.