Ruh-Roh, Cook Plans to Hold Out?

[RandyMoss84]

I still think that Cook will want a lot of money that we could better use at other positiions.
But lets see what works out. I would be fine with running back by committee, Especially this season.

Yeah, I've been fairly outspoken that we shouldn't pay big bucks to a running back. But I've come to grips with the fact that it's probably going to happen with Cook. And as I said before, if it does, I'll continue being a big Dalvin Cook fan. It's not how I would do things, but I'm not in charge.

So Adrian was not worth the money?

[halfgiz]

So if we are going to be paying big bucks for a running back...Why are we paying big bucks for a passing QB

[RandyMoss84]

So if we are going to be paying big bucks for a running back...Why are we paying big bucks for a passing QB

Because that is the market and is an more important position than running back

[VikingsVictorious]

So if we are going to be paying big bucks for a running back...Why are we paying big bucks for a passing QB

This has been dealt with already. First of all every QB in the NFL is a passing QB. Second of all no matter if you have the best running game in the league you still want a great passing game. They are in no way, shape, or form exclusive of each other.

[VikingsVictorious]

DALVIN COOK
RB, MINNESOTA VIKINGS

NFL Network's Tom Pelissero reports Vikings RB Dalvin Cook "broke off" contract talks with the team and will focus on preparing for Week 1.
Cook will apparently ride out the final year of his rookie deal and resume contract talks with the Vikings after the season. To reach free agency, Cook must play at least six games this season, but he has explicitly said he's preparing for Week 1 and pushed back on reports that he planned to hold out in 2020. Alexander Mattison remains a high-upside insurance pick in the early double-digit rounds just in case Cook has a change of plans or if Cook's shoulder acts up again. For now, Cook belongs in the back half of the first round as a true bell cow back.

RELATED: Alexander Mattison
SOURCE: Tom Pelissero on Twitter
Aug 19, 2020, 1:31 PM ET

[VikingLord]

They didn't do that because they knew when Case faced a great team, one that would force him to put up a lot of points against a good defense, he was never going to get it done. His raw production would have been there with the rest of the top 10 QBs, but it would have been because of the system, and when that system broke down, he would not have gotten the job done like a true top 10 QB could.

Cousins is different from Keenum in this regard how?

The same is true for a RB who might get 1K yards on the season in Kubiak's system, but when that system breaks down, he isn't going to be effective in individual games the Vikings need him to be effective in. On the whole he isn't much different than a great RB in the same system, but when you break it down by game you see the great RB carrying the offense when the passing game struggles, and the okay RB never doing that. It is the difference between a couple of wins a season and a couple of close losses.

You mean like Cook was effective when the Vikings needed him to be against San Fran in the playoffs?

I think it is debatable that Cook can consistently be that RB for the next 3 seasons

It's debatable that Cook can consistently be that RB for a single season, much less the next 3 seasons.

Kubiak understands that, and paid his great RBs when he had them despite his system getting a lot out of mediocre backs. There is a reason for that.

Well, they still haven't paid Cook yet so the jury is still out on your claim.

[VikingLord]

Viking Lord my apologies to you, but I think your argument is ridiculous.

Apology not accepted, but thanks for your condescension nonetheless.

Teams pay a lot of money to the QB. That in no way stops them from being run first teams. Also even if they are run first teams they want to have the best passer possible when they do pass. Have you heard of a team called the Tennessee Titans?

Have you heard of a team called the 2017 Vikings who managed to get to the NFC Championship game with their 3rd string backup QB?

Here's my response to your opinion - teams may indeed pay a lot of money to the QB. Good teams, the sort of teams that actually compete for championships, align their contracts with a plan. They don't just pay a guy top dollar to take snaps and throw screens. Well, apparently some of them do according to you and others here.

They have the NFL's leading Rusher. They are a run first team. The QB is getting $32 million a year. The RB Henry just signed for $12.5 million. The QB is making nearly 3 times what the RB is making.

That's a fantastic observation.

How about another one?

The Titans haven't won nor competed for a championship while paying their QB top dollar and dolling out big bucks to Henry.

Nor will they.

That's an opinion, of course.

[VikingLord]

Even in a run first offense, the passing attack needs to be good enough to keep defenses off balance and honest . If they always put 8 men in the box to stop the run and the QB can’t take advantage of that, it’s a huge problem

Absolutely. The best example of this is probably Seattle. They can easily run 40+ times a game but you just can’t sleep on Wilson. And their OL was absolutely awful a few years back but they were able to get it to a point where run blocking was decent, pass blocking was still sub par. But Wilson is so good, he can extend plays and cover up a lot of the line’s deficiencies.

So you're comparing Wilson to Cousins? You think Cousins is good enough to extend plays and cover up a lot of the line's deficiencies (assuming you concede that the Vikings OL has similar deficiencies to cover)?

[VikingLord]

So if we are going to be paying big bucks for a running back...Why are we paying big bucks for a passing QB

Because that is the market and is an more important position than running back

The market doesn't dictate that teams pay top dollar for average production regardless of the position, much less at QB.

The 2017 Vikings got plenty of production out of a 3rd string QB who quite honestly did an overall better job of extending plays and making big passing plays than Cousins has done and he did it for a fraction of the cost. The Vikings could have kept said QB around the following year for a fraction of the cost. Maybe he wouldn't have done as much as Cousins has in subsequent years, but it's a long shot to claim that a team can only get acceptable passing production by paying premium dollars based on that single recent example alone.

The Vikings did not, and do not, need to pay top dollar to Cousins to field a respectable or even potent passing attack.

Along those lines, I doubt they need to pay top dollar to Cook to field a respectable or even potent running attack.

[VikingsVictorious]

Viking Lord my apologies to you, but I think your argument is ridiculous.

Apology not accepted, but thanks for your condescension nonetheless.

Teams pay a lot of money to the QB. That in no way stops them from being run first teams. Also even if they are run first teams they want to have the best passer possible when they do pass. Have you heard of a team called the Tennessee Titans?

Have you heard of a team called the 2017 Vikings who managed to get to the NFC Championship game with their 3rd string backup QB?

Here's my response to your opinion - teams may indeed pay a lot of money to the QB. Good teams, the sort of teams that actually compete for championships, align their contracts with a plan. They don't just pay a guy top dollar to take snaps and throw screens. Well, apparently some of them do according to you and others here.

They have the NFL's leading Rusher. They are a run first team. The QB is getting $32 million a year. The RB Henry just signed for $12.5 million. The QB is making nearly 3 times what the RB is making.

That's a fantastic observation.

How about another one?

The Titans haven't won nor competed for a championship while paying their QB top dollar and dolling out big bucks to Henry.

Nor will they.

That's an opinion, of course.

OK no apologies to you, but I still think your arguments are ridiculous. Teams don't have to go low on RBs if they go strong on QB or vice versa. How much or how little our QB is making has nothing to do with how much we should or shouldn't pay our RB. So freaking what if Tennessee didn't win the SB. It wasn't the fault of either Tannehill or Henry. If all their players performed like those two Tennessee would have been SB champs easy and they came pretty close as it was.

[S197]

Absolutely. The best example of this is probably Seattle. They can easily run 40+ times a game but you just can’t sleep on Wilson. And their OL was absolutely awful a few years back but they were able to get it to a point where run blocking was decent, pass blocking was still sub par. But Wilson is so good, he can extend plays and cover up a lot of the line’s deficiencies.

So you're comparing Wilson to Cousins? You think Cousins is good enough to extend plays and cover up a lot of the line's deficiencies (assuming you concede that the Vikings OL has similar deficiencies to cover)?

Considering I didn’t even mention Cousins or the Vikings for that matter, I’m not understanding how you’re coming to that conclusion. But since you asked, no, I do not think Cousins is good enough to do either of those things.

[VikingLord]

So you're comparing Wilson to Cousins? You think Cousins is good enough to extend plays and cover up a lot of the line's deficiencies (assuming you concede that the Vikings OL has similar deficiencies to cover)?

Considering I didn’t even mention Cousins or the Vikings for that matter, I’m not understanding how you’re coming to that conclusion. But since you asked, no, I do not think Cousins is good enough to do either of those things.

Sorry, I thought you were drawing a comparison there, but to be fair to me, I did ask a question and don't think I drew a conclusion.

[VikingsVictorious]

OK no apologies to you, but I still think your arguments are ridiculous.

Yours wasn't an apology, but it's OK, I still think you're a jack@$$.

Teams don't have to go low on RBs if they go strong on QB or vice versa.

Never said they did.

I pointed out that so far, Cousins has an extension and Cook doesn't.

So freaking what if Tennessee didn't win the SB. It wasn't the fault of either Tannehill or Henry. If all their players performed like those two Tennessee would have been SB champs easy and they came pretty close as it was.

For being such an expert at identifying ridiculous arguments, you must see the irony in what you just wrote.

Who's the Jacka$$???????????????
You out of the blue calling me a Jacka$$ for no reason whatsoever is the perfect description of a Jacka$$. I did nothing to you. I just think your arguments are ridiculous.
My apology to you was sincere. I meant that I was sorry to call your arguments ridiculous on this subject, because I usually see your ideas as reasonably intelligent.
I see no irony whatsoever. I think it's wise of Tennessee to pay both Tannehill and Henry well, because they make that team work.

[J. Kapp 11]

Yeah, I've been fairly outspoken that we shouldn't pay big bucks to a running back. But I've come to grips with the fact that it's probably going to happen with Cook. And as I said before, if it does, I'll continue being a big Dalvin Cook fan. It's not how I would do things, but I'm not in charge.

So Adrian was not worth the money?

Well ... no, he wasn't.

Let's not forget that Adrian Peterson played 12 games or fewer in three of the 6 seasons he played under the 7-year, $100 million deal he signed in 2011. That included one game played in 2014 and two games in 2016. He also rushed for fewer than 1,000 yards in three of those six seasons. Obviously he was otherworldly in 2012 and deserved every dime (and more) of his contract's $14.5 million AAV, and he played well enough in 2015 to justify such a large payday. But not in the other four seasons.

So no ... on balance, over the life of the contract, I'd say he wasn't worth the overall money. And understand, this is coming from a serious AP fan. But we're not talking about legacy here. We're talking about contract value.

Also, consider this. During AP's first four years, he rushed for nearly 6,000 yards. He truly earned a monster deal. Dalvin Cook, in 3 seasons, has 2,104 yards. In other words, Cook has proven far less, yet he's asking for top dollar. Good for him if he gets it.

[S197]

So Adrian was not worth the money?

Well ... no, he wasn't.

Let's not forget that Adrian Peterson played 12 games or fewer in three of the 6 seasons he played under the 7-year, $100 million deal he signed in 2011. That included one game played in 2014 and two games in 2016. He also rushed for fewer than 1,000 yards in three of those six seasons. Obviously he was otherworldly in 2012 and deserved every dime (and more) of his contract's $14.5 million AAV, and he played well enough in 2015 to justify such a large payday. But not in the other four seasons.

So no ... on balance, over the life of the contract, I'd say he wasn't worth the overall money. And understand, this is coming from a serious AP fan. But we're not talking about legacy here. We're talking about contract value.

Also, consider this. During AP's first four years, he rushed for nearly 6,000 yards. He truly earned a monster deal. Dalvin Cook, in 3 seasons, has 2,104 yards. In other words, Cook has proven far less, yet he's asking for top dollar. Good for him if he gets it.

I think there are other considerations besides stats as to whether you earned your contract. Teams game planned to stop AD. They would throw 8 or 9 guys in the box. He was one of if not the most hit RBs behind the LOS. The main problem was despite how good AD was, the offense had great difficulty capitalizing on defenses keying in on him. In several of those years we had no one else to really keep “defenses honest” and so his production wasn’t stellar.