Dalvin Cook

[VikingsVictorious]

People keep saying Elliot's deal was bad. Is there a reason? He had a really good season.

It’s not so much that he played poorly, except against the Vikings. It’s that Kellen Moore failed to utilize him. If you’re going to give a running back $102 million over 4 years with $45 million guaranteed, it seems like you should give him more than 18 touches per game. Now he’s got pass-happy Mike McCarthy running the show. McCarthy always talked a big game in Green Bay when it came to running the football but never came through.

It’s the quandary of paying running backs. If you pay them, you need to use them a lot to get the value. But if you use them a lot, you shorten their careers.

On this we 100% agree. That is part of why I believe that Cook can hit those ridiculously high numbers I proposed. With great blocking he would be more successful. With more success Zimmer/Kubiak would use him even more. He could be the second coming of Terrell Davis but a better receiving back.

[J. Kapp 11]

You’re not offending me.

I just don’t see how you can elevate Dalvin Cook to an automatic 2,000 yard rushing season when the best he’s ever done is 1,654 yards total from scrimmage. Just you believe he can do that doesn’t justify $8 million or $10 million for a non-premium position.

And you’re just flat-out wrong about the other guys. Their situations are totally relevant. All of them had actually accomplished MORE than Cook when they got their deals. Look at the top 10 RB salaries in the NFL for last year. There’s not a single one of them that anybody in their right mind would say, “Yep, I’d do that deal again.” Every single deal, including Ezekiel Elliott, has turned out bad. Guess where the bottom salary in that list is. You got it ... $5 million. In other words, $1 million over my proposed max. That’s anything but ludicrous.

NFL guys are into comps. What player does another player compare to? The most applicable comp for Dalvin Cook is David Johnson. He had played three seasons when he got his 3-year, $39 million deal ... same as Cook. He’d had one great season ... same as Cook ... only his was better, with 15 straight games of 100 or more yards from scrimmage, ending up with more than 2,100 total yards and 20 touchdowns. And like Cook, the rest of his career has been marred by injuries. Teams look at the David Johnson case and see it as a cautionary tale.

And here’s the kicker. Seven of the top 10 highest-paid RBs are or were employed by ... the Houston Texans. That means 25 other teams, or 78% of the league agree, with me.

That’s why I’m not offended. Having an informed opinion gives a guy a lot of peace. Look, I love Dalvin Cook. I think he’s special. He may be the best in the league. But there’s no way I pay ANY running back the kind of money you’re talking about.

No 78% of the league doesn't agree with you. Not on $4,000,001 max for a RB. I agree with you not to give huge long term deals to RBs. I just don't take it to the ridiculous IMO extreme that you do.Those other RBs aren't Cook so what they have done is completely irrelevant to Cook. Cook is a good short yardage back and a GREAT home run hitter. The best breakaway threat at RB in the NFL. If Cook got great blocking those numbers are achievable. I didn't say they were automatic. Please don't put words in my mouth or keyboard. Cook was and is a very important part of our team and it would be nice if he could remain so, but that seems unlikely.

Now you’re the one who seems to be getting upset. It’s OK for you to make a point of the $4 million and one thing over and over, as if that somehow means you’ve won the debate, but it’s not OK for me to use a little hyperbole? OK, I’ll walk my comment back and apologize. What I should have said was that elevating Dalvin Cook to even the POSSIBILITY of 2,500 total yards in a season, a total that has been achieved exactly once in the 100+ year history of the NFL, is the very definition of a stretch. Do you deny that you elevated Cook to that POSSIBILITY?

I’ve given you about a hundred reasons why $4 million is the max I’d give a running back. I’ve done a decent amount of work here to support my position. If you notice, I always do — if I don’t do the work to support my position, I always tell you that I’m purely speculating. You may not agree with what I’ve given you, and that’s your right. But don’t call other people “ridiculous” or “ludicrous” when they disagree, especially when they go to the trouble of researching and offering facts to support.

[VikingLord]

In 2018, the offense struggled and from an efficiency standpoint was 22nd in the NFL in scoring.

In 2019, the offense improved to 6th in scoring efficiency. This was without a healthy #2 WR for the majority of the season. (something we will have for the entirety of 2020).

Why?

Some of that was an improved offensive line, some of it was improved play calling.

The majority of it was improved play from the RB position.

How does that break down over the season? What happened to the scoring efficiency when Cook was out or was injured? Did the scoring efficiency metric change significantly when the Vikings played against teams with winning records versus teams without winning records?

Is your conclusion that improved play from the RB position the only explanation for the improved scoring efficiency?

Also, what do you want out of the RB position? Do you want that position to produce consistent yardage on 1st and 2nd downs that put the offense into favorable 3rd down situations? Do you want a credible threat that forces defenses to play honestly against the QB on those downs?

Or do you want a big-play threat at RB who might be inconsistent on 1st and 2nd downs, but who is capable of big runs on any given touch?

In my view, those are different things and require different players. Further, in my view if you're going to invest in a QB like Kirk Cousins you don't need the home run threat at RB as much as you need the consistent production. Cousins is a lot like Jimmy G. of the 49ers. The 49ers were much more effective at running on 1st and 2nd downs despite lacking a big play threat, and as a result they put Jimmy G. into a lot of situations that were highly favorable to him when they chose to pass or even needed to pass.

To me, 16 million is worth going from a bottom of the barrel offense to one that is top 6. You just aren't winning many games as the 22nd ranked scoring offense and you certainly aren't winning the SB. You can say that finding a RB who could make that kind of impact is easy, but it really isn't. If it was, every team would have a Dalvin Cook, and you look around the league and see about 10 comparable RBs.

That might be worth 16 million if your reasoning is correct. If it's not, you might be flushing that cap space down the toilet.

And let's be clear on one other thing - that top 6 scoring efficiency offense managed the lowest wildcard berth and didn't sniff the Superbowl. It consistently failed to beat teams with winning records all season. The 2018 team that was much less efficient in terms of scoring would have had almost that exact same result in terms of the playoffs had they managed to beat the Bears to end that season. The result wasn't *markedly* different.

You can say the odds are that the RB position group would not experience a significant downgrade if we moved on from Cook, but considering most teams RB groups are a significant downgrade from ours with Cook, it appears the odds are not in our favor of easily replacing him.

Beef up the OL and maybe you'd be surprised.

One thing the Vikings would likely not have without Cook is the homerun threat at RB. But that isn't a big deal if they are better and more consistent running on 1st and 2nd downs. I for one would gladly sacrifice the occasional highlight reel run for a running attack that puts Kubiak's offense consistently into 3rd-and-3 or less.

[J. Kapp 11]

It’s not so much that he played poorly, except against the Vikings. It’s that Kellen Moore failed to utilize him. If you’re going to give a running back $102 million over 4 years with $45 million guaranteed, it seems like you should give him more than 18 touches per game. Now he’s got pass-happy Mike McCarthy running the show. McCarthy always talked a big game in Green Bay when it came to running the football but never came through.

It’s the quandary of paying running backs. If you pay them, you need to use them a lot to get the value. But if you use them a lot, you shorten their careers.

On this we 100% agree. That is part of why I believe that Cook can hit those ridiculously high numbers I proposed. With great blocking he would be more successful. With more success Zimmer/Kubiak would use him even more. He could be the second coming of Terrell Davis but a better receiving back.

But don’t you see what I’m saying?

Dalvin Cook has been hurt every year he’s been in the league. So let’s say you give him $40 million over four years. Now you’re under pressure to increase his use — which further increases the possibility of injury to a guy who has shown to be susceptible over his three seasons.

This is the main reason you don’t pay running backs. It’s not about production for me. They’re worth the production. It’s about availability. They take such a pounding ... the more you use them, the more they get pounded. The “all day” moniker AP had? It’s hype. Always was. He got that nickname in high school. Running backs in the NFL get hammered, which is why they have the shortest career expectancy. There are rare exceptions, such as Emmitt Smith, who had a knack for avoiding big hits. And AP has had a long career, mostly because he’s built like a tank. But those guys are the exception.

You seem to think I don’t want to pay Dalvin Cook because I don’t like Dalvin Cook. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t like unnecessary risk, and that’s what I think it would be to sign him to a big contract. You just can’t be using lots of cap space for guys on crutches. It’s that simple.

If the Vikings extend Cook to a big deal, I’ll be as big a fan of Dalvin Cook as there is. But I’ll also constantly be waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[VikingsVictorious]

No 78% of the league doesn't agree with you. Not on $4,000,001 max for a RB. I agree with you not to give huge long term deals to RBs. I just don't take it to the ridiculous IMO extreme that you do.Those other RBs aren't Cook so what they have done is completely irrelevant to Cook. Cook is a good short yardage back and a GREAT home run hitter. The best breakaway threat at RB in the NFL. If Cook got great blocking those numbers are achievable. I didn't say they were automatic. Please don't put words in my mouth or keyboard. Cook was and is a very important part of our team and it would be nice if he could remain so, but that seems unlikely.

Now you’re the one who seems to be getting upset. It’s OK for you to make a point of the $4 million and one thing over and over, as if that somehow means you’ve won the debate, but it’s not OK for me to use a little hyperbole? OK, I’ll walk my comment back and apologize. What I should have said was that elevating Dalvin Cook to even the POSSIBILITY of 2,500 total yards in a season, a total that has been achieved exactly once in the 100+ year history of the NFL, is the very definition of a stretch. Do you deny that you elevated Cook to that POSSIBILITY?

I’ve given you about a hundred reasons why $4 million is the max I’d give a running back. I’ve done a decent amount of work here to support my position. If you notice, I always do — if I don’t do the work to support my position, I always tell you that I’m purely speculating. You may not agree with what I’ve given you, and that’s your right. But don’t call other people “ridiculous” or “ludicrous” when they disagree, especially when they go to the trouble of researching and offering facts to support.

I didn't call you or anybody else in this debate ridiculous or ludicrous. Saying that one stance of yours is ridiculous is possible without you being ridiculous in totality. You gave me your reasons for not paying huge long term deals for RBs. I knew all those reasons before you brought them up and 100% agree with those reasons. I am firmly in the don't overpay for RBs camp. Don't some punters and Kickers make over $4 million a year? What I don't get is you just said you were using hyperbole on the $4 million number and then you went right back to it. Can you give your real number so I understand your stance.
2500 yards is a stretch, but I predicated it with great blocking. With great blocking I do see it as possible due to us running a lot and how great Cook could be with great blocking.

[VikingsVictorious]

On this we 100% agree. That is part of why I believe that Cook can hit those ridiculously high numbers I proposed. With great blocking he would be more successful. With more success Zimmer/Kubiak would use him even more. He could be the second coming of Terrell Davis but a better receiving back.

But don’t you see what I’m saying?

Dalvin Cook has been hurt every year he’s been in the league. So let’s say you give him $40 million over four years. Now you’re under pressure to increase his use — which further increases the possibility of injury to a guy who has shown to be susceptible over his three seasons.

This is the main reason you don’t pay running backs. It’s not about production for me. They’re worth the production. It’s about availability. They take such a pounding ... the more you use them, the more they get pounded. The “all day” moniker AP had? It’s hype. Always was. He got that nickname in high school. Running backs in the NFL get hammered, which is why they have the shortest career expectancy. There are rare exceptions, such as Emmitt Smith, who had a knack for avoiding big hits. And AP has had a long career, mostly because he’s built like a tank. But those guys are the exception.

You seem to think I don’t want to pay Dalvin Cook because I don’t like Dalvin Cook. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t like unnecessary risk, and that’s what I think it would be to sign him to a big contract. You just can’t be using lots of cap space for guys on crutches. It’s that simple.

If the Vikings extend Cook to a big deal, I’ll be as big a fan of Dalvin Cook as there is. But I’ll also constantly be waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Using Cook for even one play subjects him to the possibility of injury, but I don't propose we don't use him at all. If he had great blocking he would probably take less pounding so we could use him a bit more than we currently do. However, with great blocking we could be successful mixing Mattison in also. My stance is I'm OK with $10 million a year and if Cook somehow accepted that which I'm highly confident he wouldn't I would be a happy camper for the Vikings to pay it. That is not a big deal when I see Trae Waynes getting $14 million. Trae Freaking Waynes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So I'm very anti giving huge deals to RBs, I just don't consider $10 million a year to be huge for an elite RB. I get it if somebody says he wouldn't pay over $8 million a year for an RB no matter who he is. I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd get it.

[J. Kapp 11]

Now you’re the one who seems to be getting upset. It’s OK for you to make a point of the $4 million and one thing over and over, as if that somehow means you’ve won the debate, but it’s not OK for me to use a little hyperbole? OK, I’ll walk my comment back and apologize. What I should have said was that elevating Dalvin Cook to even the POSSIBILITY of 2,500 total yards in a season, a total that has been achieved exactly once in the 100+ year history of the NFL, is the very definition of a stretch. Do you deny that you elevated Cook to that POSSIBILITY?

I’ve given you about a hundred reasons why $4 million is the max I’d give a running back. I’ve done a decent amount of work here to support my position. If you notice, I always do — if I don’t do the work to support my position, I always tell you that I’m purely speculating. You may not agree with what I’ve given you, and that’s your right. But don’t call other people “ridiculous” or “ludicrous” when they disagree, especially when they go to the trouble of researching and offering facts to support.

I didn't call you or anybody else in this debate ridiculous or ludicrous. Saying that one stance of yours is ridiculous is possible without you being ridiculous in totality. You gave me your reasons for not paying huge long term deals for RBs. I knew all those reasons before you brought them up and 100% agree with those reasons. I am firmly in the don't overpay for RBs camp. Don't some punters and Kickers make over $4 million a year? What I don't get is you just said you were using hyperbole on the $4 million number and then you went right back to it. Can you give your real number so I understand your stance.
2500 yards is a stretch, but I predicated it with great blocking. With great blocking I do see it as possible due to us running a lot and how great Cook could be with great blocking.

Come on man. How many times do I have to say it?

$4 million IS my number.

And if you’ll please read my many posts on this, the reason is simple. More than $4 million puts a RB in the top 10 for the position in the league. It puts my team in the position of being one of the 7 very unwise teams who overpay for the position.

Viking Lord also brings up great points. What do you want from your RB? Do you want consistent production that puts you in third-and-short? Or do you value a home-run hitter who will take 3-4 to the house in a season? Now before you get upset, I’m not saying Dalvin Cook isn’t consistent. What I’m saying is that you don’t need Dalvin Cook to get that. You need Dalvin Cook for the occasional home run — and you’re going to pay a premium for that.

But if I invest in the line, I can get consistent RB production that will put my quarterback in consistently favorable down and distance, and I can get it out of any decent running back.

Look back at 1998. We had everything offensively. A hot QB, great receivers, an underrated tight end in Andrew Glover, and an O-line for the ages. Do you honestly think we NEEDED Robert Smith to win? Yes, he made us one of the most explosive offenses in history, but with that line and those receivers, Leroy Hoard would have been plenty for us to win.

Does that mean I didn’t like Robert Smith? Of course not! He was fun to watch, especially when he got in space and engaged that sprinter’s gait. But we would’ve scored 30+ per game without him.

In today’s NFL, with the cap the way it is and QBs taking such a high percentage of it, good teams have to choose which positions they want to pay. If I’m the GM, I don’t pay big salaries to running backs. It’s really that simple.

[fiestavike]

Now you’re the one who seems to be getting upset. It’s OK for you to make a point of the $4 million and one thing over and over, as if that somehow means you’ve won the debate, but it’s not OK for me to use a little hyperbole? OK, I’ll walk my comment back and apologize. What I should have said was that elevating Dalvin Cook to even the POSSIBILITY of 2,500 total yards in a season, a total that has been achieved exactly once in the 100+ year history of the NFL, is the very definition of a stretch. Do you deny that you elevated Cook to that POSSIBILITY?

I’ve given you about a hundred reasons why $4 million is the max I’d give a running back. I’ve done a decent amount of work here to support my position. If you notice, I always do — if I don’t do the work to support my position, I always tell you that I’m purely speculating. You may not agree with what I’ve given you, and that’s your right. But don’t call other people “ridiculous” or “ludicrous” when they disagree, especially when they go to the trouble of researching and offering facts to support.

I didn't call you or anybody else in this debate ridiculous or ludicrous. Saying that one stance of yours is ridiculous is possible without you being ridiculous in totality. You gave me your reasons for not paying huge long term deals for RBs. I knew all those reasons before you brought them up and 100% agree with those reasons. I am firmly in the don't overpay for RBs camp. Don't some punters and Kickers make over $4 million a year? What I don't get is you just said you were using hyperbole on the $4 million number and then you went right back to it. Can you give your real number so I understand your stance.
2500 yards is a stretch, but I predicated it with great blocking. With great blocking I do see it as possible due to us running a lot and how great Cook could be with great blocking.

The question is how much you are willing to pay for the extra production. Let's say Cook had good enough blocking to get to 2500 yards. That probably means his backups would be combining for a hell of a season too if he wasn't around. RB production is extremely dependent on OL play, and OL play leads to great RB production, whoever is back there. I'm not as dogmatic about the number as Kapp, but I totally agree with his premise.

I'd also say, one thing that makes Cook great is his ability to sneak through even when there isn't great blocking. In some sense, he is more valuable on a team without a great line than most other RBs. That's to his credit and I think it really adds to his value. He's a really good RB. Still, I'd rather put the same money into a LT, or a LG and a RG, and make some 3rd and 4th round RBs have "elite" production.

There are lot of ways to construct a winning roster, but perhaps the hardest one to pull off is one where a RB is eating up 10-15 million in cap space. To make that work you've just about gotta have a LOT of really good players on rookie deals, or a QB on a rookie deal. Trying to pull that off is taking a much harder path, and one with a much lower chance of success.

[J. Kapp 11]

Now you’re the one who seems to be getting upset. It’s OK for you to make a point of the $4 million and one thing over and over, as if that somehow means you’ve won the debate, but it’s not OK for me to use a little hyperbole? OK, I’ll walk my comment back and apologize. What I should have said was that elevating Dalvin Cook to even the POSSIBILITY of 2,500 total yards in a season, a total that has been achieved exactly once in the 100+ year history of the NFL, is the very definition of a stretch. Do you deny that you elevated Cook to that POSSIBILITY?

I’ve given you about a hundred reasons why $4 million is the max I’d give a running back. I’ve done a decent amount of work here to support my position. If you notice, I always do — if I don’t do the work to support my position, I always tell you that I’m purely speculating. You may not agree with what I’ve given you, and that’s your right. But don’t call other people “ridiculous” or “ludicrous” when they disagree, especially when they go to the trouble of researching and offering facts to support.

I didn't call you or anybody else in this debate ridiculous or ludicrous. Saying that one stance of yours is ridiculous is possible without you being ridiculous in totality. You gave me your reasons for not paying huge long term deals for RBs. I knew all those reasons before you brought them up and 100% agree with those reasons. I am firmly in the don't overpay for RBs camp. Don't some punters and Kickers make over $4 million a year? What I don't get is you just said you were using hyperbole on the $4 million number and then you went right back to it. Can you give your real number so I understand your stance.
2500 yards is a stretch, but I predicated it with great blocking. With great blocking I do see it as possible due to us running a lot and how great Cook could be with great blocking.

By the way, I didn’t use hyperbole on my $4 million figure. I used it on your claim that Dalvin could run for 2k behind a better line. I sarcastically used the word “automatically,” which was not what you said. That was the hyperbole. I apologized for that. I know better.

I stand by my $4 million max.

[VikingsVictorious]

I didn't call you or anybody else in this debate ridiculous or ludicrous. Saying that one stance of yours is ridiculous is possible without you being ridiculous in totality. You gave me your reasons for not paying huge long term deals for RBs. I knew all those reasons before you brought them up and 100% agree with those reasons. I am firmly in the don't overpay for RBs camp. Don't some punters and Kickers make over $4 million a year? What I don't get is you just said you were using hyperbole on the $4 million number and then you went right back to it. Can you give your real number so I understand your stance.
2500 yards is a stretch, but I predicated it with great blocking. With great blocking I do see it as possible due to us running a lot and how great Cook could be with great blocking.

Come on man. How many times do I have to say it?

$4 million IS my number.

And if you’ll please read my many posts on this, the reason is simple. More than $4 million puts a RB in the top 10 for the position in the league. It puts my team in the position of being one of the 7 very unwise teams who overpay for the position.

Viking Lord also brings up great points. What do you want from your RB? Do you want consistent production that puts you in third-and-short? Or do you value a home-run hitter who will take 3-4 to the house in a season? Now before you get upset, I’m not saying Dalvin Cook isn’t consistent. What I’m saying is that you don’t need Dalvin Cook to get that. You need Dalvin Cook for the occasional home run — and you’re going to pay a premium for that.

But if I invest in the line, I can get consistent RB production that will put my quarterback in consistently favorable down and distance, and I can get it out of any decent running back.

Look back at 1998. We had everything offensively. A hot QB, great receivers, an underrated tight end in Andrew Glover, and an O-line for the ages. Do you honestly think we NEEDED Robert Smith to win? Yes, he made us one of the most explosive offenses in history, but with that line and those receivers, Leroy Hoard would have been plenty for us to win.

Does that mean I didn’t like Robert Smith? Of course not! He was fun to watch, especially when he got in space and engaged that sprinter’s gait. But we would’ve scored 30+ per game without him.

In today’s NFL, with the cap the way it is and QBs taking such a high percentage of it, good teams have to choose which positions they want to pay. If I’m the GM, I don’t pay big salaries to running backs. It’s really that simple.

You said you were using hyperbole for the $4 million, but I guess you weren't. So taking into account all your reasons to not pay big contracts to RBs I 100% agree and I 100% consider your $4 million stance on this ridiculous. Let's leave it at that.

[J. Kapp 11]

I didn't call you or anybody else in this debate ridiculous or ludicrous. Saying that one stance of yours is ridiculous is possible without you being ridiculous in totality. You gave me your reasons for not paying huge long term deals for RBs. I knew all those reasons before you brought them up and 100% agree with those reasons. I am firmly in the don't overpay for RBs camp. Don't some punters and Kickers make over $4 million a year? What I don't get is you just said you were using hyperbole on the $4 million number and then you went right back to it. Can you give your real number so I understand your stance.
2500 yards is a stretch, but I predicated it with great blocking. With great blocking I do see it as possible due to us running a lot and how great Cook could be with great blocking.

The question is how much you are willing to pay for the extra production. Let's say Cook had good enough blocking to get to 2500 yards. That probably means his backups would be combining for a hell of a season too if he wasn't around. RB production is extremely dependent on OL play, and OL play leads to great RB production, whoever is back there. I'm not as dogmatic about the number as Kapp, but I totally agree with his premise.

I'd also say, one thing that makes Cook great is his ability to sneak through even when there isn't great blocking. In some sense, he is more valuable on a team without a great line than most other RBs. That's to his credit and I think it really adds to his value. He's a really good RB. Still, I'd rather put the same money into a LT, or a LG and a RG, and make some 3rd and 4th round RBs have "elite" production.

There are lot of ways to construct a winning roster, but perhaps the hardest one to pull off is one where a RB is eating up 10-15 million in cap space. To make that work you've just about gotta have a LOT of really good players on rookie deals, or a QB on a rookie deal. Trying to pull that off is taking a much harder path, and one with a much lower chance of success.

This is exactly in line with my belief.

I originally used the $4 million figure to make a point, but as this conversation has evolved, I’ve hardened my stance on it. That’s mainly because, in my opinion, none of the teams paying the 10 highest paid running backs are in a good position — only one (Houston) even made the playoffs — and the low salary on that list in 2019 was Duke Johnson at $5.2 million. In other words, I would not want to be among the teams paying the highest RB salaries. A max of $4 million ensures that.

It’s my position there is a strong correlation with paying big RB salaries and a lack of team success. And it is, in large part, due to the reasons you’ve given.

[VikingsVictorious]

I didn't call you or anybody else in this debate ridiculous or ludicrous. Saying that one stance of yours is ridiculous is possible without you being ridiculous in totality. You gave me your reasons for not paying huge long term deals for RBs. I knew all those reasons before you brought them up and 100% agree with those reasons. I am firmly in the don't overpay for RBs camp. Don't some punters and Kickers make over $4 million a year? What I don't get is you just said you were using hyperbole on the $4 million number and then you went right back to it. Can you give your real number so I understand your stance.
2500 yards is a stretch, but I predicated it with great blocking. With great blocking I do see it as possible due to us running a lot and how great Cook could be with great blocking.

The question is how much you are willing to pay for the extra production. Let's say Cook had good enough blocking to get to 2500 yards. That probably means his backups would be combining for a hell of a season too if he wasn't around. RB production is extremely dependent on OL play, and OL play leads to great RB production, whoever is back there. I'm not as dogmatic about the number as Kapp, but I totally agree with his premise.

I'd also say, one thing that makes Cook great is his ability to sneak through even when there isn't great blocking. In some sense, he is more valuable on a team without a great line than most other RBs. That's to his credit and I think it really adds to his value. He's a really good RB. Still, I'd rather put the same money into a LT, or a LG and a RG, and make some 3rd and 4th round RBs have "elite" production.

There are lot of ways to construct a winning roster, but perhaps the hardest one to pull off is one where a RB is eating up 10-15 million in cap space. To make that work you've just about gotta have a LOT of really good players on rookie deals, or a QB on a rookie deal. Trying to pull that off is taking a much harder path, and one with a much lower chance of success.

I'm willing to pay a fair amount for that extra production. Terrell Davis' extra production led to winning the Super Bowl. If we can get Cook producing like that I believe we could win the Super Bowl also. $10 million for Cook is not an overpay in a league where Trae Freaking Waynes is getting $14 million a year.

[VikingsVictorious]

The question is how much you are willing to pay for the extra production. Let's say Cook had good enough blocking to get to 2500 yards. That probably means his backups would be combining for a hell of a season too if he wasn't around. RB production is extremely dependent on OL play, and OL play leads to great RB production, whoever is back there. I'm not as dogmatic about the number as Kapp, but I totally agree with his premise.

I'd also say, one thing that makes Cook great is his ability to sneak through even when there isn't great blocking. In some sense, he is more valuable on a team without a great line than most other RBs. That's to his credit and I think it really adds to his value. He's a really good RB. Still, I'd rather put the same money into a LT, or a LG and a RG, and make some 3rd and 4th round RBs have "elite" production.

There are lot of ways to construct a winning roster, but perhaps the hardest one to pull off is one where a RB is eating up 10-15 million in cap space. To make that work you've just about gotta have a LOT of really good players on rookie deals, or a QB on a rookie deal. Trying to pull that off is taking a much harder path, and one with a much lower chance of success.

This is exactly in line with my belief.

I originally used the $4 million figure to make a point, but as this conversation has evolved, I’ve hardened my stance on it. That’s mainly because, in my opinion, none of the teams paying the 10 highest paid running backs are in a good position — only one (Houston) even made the playoffs — and the low salary on that list in 2019 was Duke Johnson at $5.2 million. In other words, I would not want to be among the teams paying the highest RB salaries. A max of $4 million ensures that.

It’s my position there is a strong correlation with paying big RB salaries and a lack of team success. And it is, in large part, due to the reasons you’ve given.

Correlation does not equal causation. Each case stands on it's own merit. $10 million per year for Cook is easily justifiable. $4 million in my opinion is a joke. That is my final statement on this matter. I got to let it go.

[J. Kapp 11]

The question is how much you are willing to pay for the extra production. Let's say Cook had good enough blocking to get to 2500 yards. That probably means his backups would be combining for a hell of a season too if he wasn't around. RB production is extremely dependent on OL play, and OL play leads to great RB production, whoever is back there. I'm not as dogmatic about the number as Kapp, but I totally agree with his premise.

I'd also say, one thing that makes Cook great is his ability to sneak through even when there isn't great blocking. In some sense, he is more valuable on a team without a great line than most other RBs. That's to his credit and I think it really adds to his value. He's a really good RB. Still, I'd rather put the same money into a LT, or a LG and a RG, and make some 3rd and 4th round RBs have "elite" production.

There are lot of ways to construct a winning roster, but perhaps the hardest one to pull off is one where a RB is eating up 10-15 million in cap space. To make that work you've just about gotta have a LOT of really good players on rookie deals, or a QB on a rookie deal. Trying to pull that off is taking a much harder path, and one with a much lower chance of success.

I'm willing to pay a fair amount for that extra production. Terrell Davis' extra production led to winning the Super Bowl. If we can get Cook producing like that I believe we could win the Super Bowl also. $10 million for Cook is not an overpay in a league where Trae Freaking Waynes is getting $14 million a year.

AP ran for 2k, and we barely made the playoffs and went one and done.

Look, we’ve seen how you would build a team. We’ve seen how I would build a team. This is going nowhere. I’m out.

[fiestavike]

The question is how much you are willing to pay for the extra production. Let's say Cook had good enough blocking to get to 2500 yards. That probably means his backups would be combining for a hell of a season too if he wasn't around. RB production is extremely dependent on OL play, and OL play leads to great RB production, whoever is back there. I'm not as dogmatic about the number as Kapp, but I totally agree with his premise.

I'd also say, one thing that makes Cook great is his ability to sneak through even when there isn't great blocking. In some sense, he is more valuable on a team without a great line than most other RBs. That's to his credit and I think it really adds to his value. He's a really good RB. Still, I'd rather put the same money into a LT, or a LG and a RG, and make some 3rd and 4th round RBs have "elite" production.

There are lot of ways to construct a winning roster, but perhaps the hardest one to pull off is one where a RB is eating up 10-15 million in cap space. To make that work you've just about gotta have a LOT of really good players on rookie deals, or a QB on a rookie deal. Trying to pull that off is taking a much harder path, and one with a much lower chance of success.

I'm willing to pay a fair amount for that extra production. Terrell Davis' extra production led to winning the Super Bowl. If we can get Cook producing like that I believe we could win the Super Bowl also. $10 million for Cook is not an overpay in a league where Trae Freaking Waynes is getting $14 million a year.

What the Bengals pay Trae Waynes is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. I agree, they overpaid. I've never been a big fan of Waynes in pass coverage, and I'm glad the Vikings let him walk. Let's leave that to the side, where it belongs.

The point is, what would Terrell Davis be without Schlereth and Nalen.

You can't pay everyone. Just as Kirk Cousins makes it hard to pay Dalvin Cook, Dalvin Cook makes it hard to pay Anthony Harris, and Anthony Harris makes it hard to keep paying Harrison Smith, etc. At some point, you have to pay the piper, and that is where taking a wise approach to roster construction is the difference between a total rebuild and legit superbowl contention.

There is a reason that the Bengals are perpetually in the cellar, and they are probably a team that would be most willing to fork over money to a great RB like Dalvin Cook, just like they would fork over big money to a mediocre CB.