Cook or Mattison?

[Pondering Her Percy]

I will say it again.

With the current salary cap, I would not divest more than 2% of the cap to a running back. With a $200 million cap, that’s $4 million.

That is NOT to say I’m somehow anti-Cook. I’m a huge fan, not only of his production but of his leadership. He’s been a great Viking. And he HAS made some huge plays this year for the Vikings. Long, game-changing touchdowns against Miami, Buffalo and Indy come to mind.

At $4 million, Cook’s production is a great value. But at $11.9 million (his cap hit this year) it’s not. And at $14.1 million for next year, it’s just plain out of whack.

This is the problem with rookie-scale contracts. It rewards players for past performance. And that is NOT how you run a successful business. At successful companies, people don’t get promoted because of what they’ve done in the past. They get promoted for what you believe they CAN do in the future. If you want to reward somebody for doing a great job, you bonus them after the fact.

In the NFL, it’s backwards. I suppose it’s backwards in all sports, but it’s amplified in the NFL because of how short careers are. Steph Curry is in his 15th year, averaging 30. How many 15-year NFL vets are there?

Guy comes in the league in a rookie scale. He plays out of his mind. Like AP his rookie season. Sets the league on fire. So what happens? You pay him bupkus for 3 more years because you can. Now when it’s time to extend him, he’s already on the decline if he’s a running back. So you either pay him based on what he’s already done, even though the chances of him doing it again are slim — and they’re especially slim 3 years down the road at the end of his new deal. Or you let him walk.

The Vikings loved Cook. So they gave him a big new deal. And now he’s declining, right when the team is in line to pay him the most.

That’s why I’d never pay a running back more than 2% of the cap. It’s cruel, but it’s business.

And for the record, inside (on-ball) linebackers are in the same category. They’re guys with short shelf lives, and they don’t impact the modern NFL as much as corners or edge rushers. They wouldn’t get huge contracts either if I were running the team. Neither would safeties because unless you’ve got Ed Reed back there, you can replace them fairly easily compared to other positions.

Running back, inside linebacker and safety. The 3 positions I wouldn’t give huge contracts. Yet what are the Vikings doing? Cook at $11.9 million, Kendricks at $13.5 million, and Harrison Smith at $19.2 million next year with more than $11 million in dead cap.

That said, I don’t think I’d sign Mattison either. He’s going to see himself as a starter, and he’s going to want to get paid. And if I’m GM, I don’t overpay running backs.

When you pay one position, it means less money to pay another. So a better question might be Cook, Mattison, or a legit deep threat opposite Justin Jefferson? Pick one.

Some of you, as usual, will crucify me for this take. That’s fine. But if you detach yourself emotionally from the individual players, if you leave the names out, you’ll see that I’m right. Pay your quarterback. Pay tackles. Pay edge rushers. Pay lockdown corners. Not running backs.

I definitely dont disagree Kapp. Because by the time they get their big contract, they only have a couple years of big play left. Not only that, but look at the teams finding legit RBs late in the draft. The 2nd round is where the prize RBs are going now but if you look beyond that in the last two years you have guys like:

Dameon Pierce (4th round)
Tyler Allgeier (5th round)
Isiah Pacheco (7th round)
Rhamondre Stevenson (4th round)
Elijah Mitchell (6th round)

Looking at this, who knows, maybe Chandler is the real deal and we just dont know it yet.

[CharVike]

2) Kapp: not sure why you thought you'd get criticized for it, but your take is very commonsensical (per usual): Inside LB, Safety, and RB are not where successful modern NFL teams allocate their resources (draft picks and money). As an analytics guy, I would love to hear Kwesi's thoughts on this. The other thing to consider beyond the abstract statement is that the specific human beings we have playing these positions contribute with their leadership as well. Harrison, Kendricks, and Dalvin are the heart and soul of this team, it seems to me. That also has value. This is probably why you thought you'd get some kick back, Kapp: as fans, we are attached to these three players. They ARE the Vikings. I'm not saying we should hold onto them because they are "the face of the franchise," but I do think we need to consider leadership as an essential ingredient of a winning team.

The blowback came from certain people who actually laughed and made fun of my idea that I wouldn't pay a RB more than $4 million a year. Again, I think that has to do with a) really liking Dalvin Cook, and b) the idea, as CharVike has stated, that Cook can break a long run at any time.

Here's the thing though. What is your most efficient way of moving the football with regularity? It is, without a doubt, the passing game.

For example, if a running back averages 6 yards per carry, we consider that Hall of Fame worthy. If a receiver (or even a running back) averages 6 yards per reception, we call that a practice squad player. So it becomes a matter of asset allocation. If I have a choice between spending a dollar on the passing game or spending a dollar on the running game, I choose the passing game. It's not just a trend. It's' the way the NFL is set up. The quarterback in the pocket is protected like a china doll. You can't impede a receiver past 5 yards. The game is set up to favor the passing game because the passing game produces more points, and more points means more eyeballs, and more eyeballs mean more TV revenue.

Look at it another way. We all see Dalvin Cook as a home-run threat. Well, in 2022, Cook has exactly 5 rushes of 20 yards or longer. Nick Chubb who led the entire NFL in 20+ yard runs, only had 13. Meanwhile Justin Jefferson has 28 receptions of at least 20 yards. Adam Thielen, who we all see as in severe decline, has 7.

So when you're trying to decide how you're going to allocate your salary cap, why on earth would you ever emphasize the running game?

People see Dalvin Cook and the VERY occasional long run, and they say, "We gotta have that guy." The truth is, no you don't. Does Kansas City have that guy? Does Buffalo have that guy? Did New England EVER have that guy? No, no, and no. Heck, even with Christian McCaffrey, the 49ers don't have that guy. He's not a home run threat. He's a guy who can rush for 1,000 yards AND gain 1,000 yards receiving. THAT is valuable. Is it worth his $12 million cap hit? I honestly don't think so.

So again, I would not allocate more than 2% of the cap to ANY running back — because you don't NEED that to contend for Super Bowls. In 1975, you did. In 2023, you don't.

The other issue is longevity. By the time a running back gets paid, given the current rookie scale situation, he's already declining. THAT is why I WOULD take a running back in the late 1st or early 2nd round, especially if he can excel in the passing game. It's not a bad thing to have a superstar running back. With a guy on his rookie contract, you're getting the benefit of having that production without the huge cost. That's why I say to forget the name of the player. Detach emotionally. Build a PROGRAM that values running backs on rookie scale contracts. Everybody says the key to winning is to have a superstar quarterback on a rookie scale. My first response to that is that those guys come along maybe 3-4 times per DECADE. And then when that quarterback's rookie contract runs out, teams back up the Brink's truck to keep him. Now you've got Kansas City and Buffalo paying huge contracts to their quarterbacks, and they're STILL contending. How is that possible? Because they're not overpaying for things like running backs and inside linebackers.

The Vikings can put together a really good roster with Kirk Cousins at $30 million or more. But they can't do it paying $14 million to a running back, $12 million to an aging inside linebacker, and $19 million to a safety. Bottom line: QUIT BLAMING COUSINS for the salary cap situation. One way or another, if you're going to have sustained success in the NFL, you're eventually going to have to pay your quarterback!

Good god, I could talk on this subject all day.

Here's something you CAN'T do, however. You can't trade away bushel basket fulls of first-round picks for guys like Russell Wilson and Matthew Stafford. Look at what's happened to the Rams. They traded one first-round pick after another, mortgaging their future for all these superstar players. And yes, they put together one really good team. ONE. And even that team had to come from the No. 4 seed to win a Super Bowl. Now they're screwed. They're stuck with an aging Stafford, a decimated O-line, and no first-round picks for the next several years. Same with Denver. My god, Seattle made the playoffs and will have the No. 3 pick in the 2023 draft, as well as Denver's 2nd-round pick in 2023. They FLEECED the Broncos! Even if Seattle doesn't consider Geno Smith the future at QB, they can draft their future 4 months from now.

Think of it this way. We signed Kirk Cousins as a free agent for the largest guaranteed contract in history. He's been good at times, and he's been bad at times. He's a polarizing quarterback, for sure. But imagine if we had TRADED a bunch of first-rounders AND paid him all that money. We probably wouldn't have Justin Jefferson or Christian Darrisaw.

In the end, I think we have to allow Kwesi to implement his long-term plan for the Vikings. I think he understands this stuff — way better than I do — and he'll do the right things. His first draft, at least on paper at this point, wasn't the greatest. But the other moves he's made — picking up guys like Hockenson, Shelley and Tonga — have been absolutely brilliant. I think once he's out from under the Spielman signings, he'll allocate cap to the correct positions. And I think he'll look at the Rams, Broncos and Browns and say, "I'm not repeating their mistakes."

This season has been a blast. But the real fun may not start for 2-3 years.

The Titians are trying to win with a RB. The Giants are doing the same thing. We did that with AP forever and it was boring as hell until Farve came along and he made it happen. The Rams might have made a bad decision but they did win a Super Bowl. That's not easy. But we are stuck with these #### contracts and it handcuffs the team. You win with a QB. Without that you have very little chance unless you have a monster D.

[J. Kapp 11]

Cook has game changing ability. Hard to allow an elite playmaker leave.

Is he an elite playmaker?

He certainly WAS an elite playmaker. But I’d say those days are in the rear view mirror. If you look at this year’s Total Rushing Yards Over Expected stat, Cook ranks last in the NFL for backs with at least 130 carries. You read that right. Last. He’s rushed for about 200 yards UNDER expected. Travis Etienne and Nick Chubb have rushed for about 150 yards over expected. That’s a 350-yard difference.

[VikingLord]

Cook won't get very much in trade, but it is worth a try.

Now when I'm talking trade though, I'm not looking to get a first round pick or anything. But what was just traded for McCaffrey makes me think we could get more than people expect. McCaffrey was coming off of 2 seasons in a row where he played in just 10 of 33 possible games. I'm not saying we would get what Carolina got for CMC but we could definitely get some worthwhile picks.

And also lets not forget, Dalvin has played in all 17 games this year with zero hiccups and went for roughly 1400 all purpose yards. I can just about guarantee that this will be the highest Dalvin Cook's value will ever be again for the rest of his career.

Which makes this all that much more intriguing, is this offseason the time to make that move?

Because I'm also thinking, if we continue to keep him, he's costing us a lot of money, his play will start to dip sooner than later and we will eventually have to release him outright because there wont be any takers at all. And in the end, what did we get out of it? Hopefully a SB this year but if not, it's almost a waste at this point.

I like the idea. If they want to try a trade, trade when the value is highest and as you point out, this would be the point at which Cook's value is highest.

I really want to see how Cook performs in the playoffs. This is the time of the year when a team needs guys to step up and perform at their highest level. Cook is one of the stars of the Vikings offense and his absence due to injury concerns in the latter part of the last few seasons has been one of the excuses as to why the Vikings didn't make the playoffs or didn't perform as well in the playoffs. Here is a chance to change that narrative.

If Cook performs well and the Vikings have success in the playoffs this year, that makes him potentially even more valuable in a possible trade.

I'm sure Cook wouldn't like to read these comments. By all accounts he's a great teammate and a hard worker, and I'm expressing hope he performs well so the Vikings can get more for him if they trade him to another team. Still, he has a chance on this team and this year to step up and do something for both himself and the team, so hopefully he helps himself while helping the present and future of the Vikings as well.

[VikingLord]

Cook has game changing ability. Hard to allow an elite playmaker leave.

Is he an elite playmaker?

He certainly WAS an elite playmaker. But I’d say those days are in the rear view mirror. If you look at this year’s Total Rushing Yards Over Expected stat, Cook ranks last in the NFL for backs with at least 130 carries. You read that right. Last. He’s rushed for about 200 yards UNDER expected. Travis Etienne and Nick Chubb have rushed for about 150 yards over expected. That’s a 350-yard difference.

I've been wondering for several weeks now why KOC is running so frequently out of bunched formations that allow the defense to crowd around the ball pre-snap and I think the stat you listed offers a clue.

In the bunched formation more defenders are closer to the running back, but it is also more likely for the offense to get a hat on a hat quickly and spring the runner. With fewer defenders deeper, if the blocks are made and you have an explosive back like Cook, you can get him into the secondary and then he's got to beat the safety and he's gone. Problem with the bunched formations is if the blocking isn't executed perfectly, the running back is much more likely to be met close to the line of scrimmage, which increases the number of low or no yardage runs.

KOC's assessment of whether the Vikings OL and TEs can execute blocking on run plays might have something to do with this. If he's not confident in his blockers, he might conclude it's better to ask them to make quick blocks and sustain them relatively briefly as compared to more sustained blocks that might take movement in space to develop. I this same concern also drives the seeming lack of deep pass attempts in the early part of most games. If KOC was running out of bunched formations because he is aggressive in his mentality, he'd be swinging for the fences early in the passing game as well. We aren't seeing that much. Most of the Vikings deeper passing attempts are happening later in games when they have been behind and have no choice.

I don't think KOC trusts the OL. The offensive gameplan seems built around an assumption that the blocking on average won't be consistent or reliable in either aspect of the offense.

[VikingLord]

What are your thoughts on Will Levis? It looks like he has every physical tool there is including a very strong arm.
A mock has us taking 28. MINNESOTA VIKINGS: QB TANNER MCKEE, STANFORD. Any thoughts? We need to take a hard look at QB. That should always top the list IMO.

I don't like him. He doesn't process the field well at all and makes too many mistakes to warrant anything before the 5th round. He's got all the physical tools you could want though. He's tall and has a strong arm, but he's just not likely to be a great NFL starting QB. Maybe a backup who might develop with the right system and coach, though.

I really don't like this QB class in general. The best prospects will be off the board long before the Vikings pick in the 1st, and the 2nd tier of prospects are all marginal in my view, with most of them destined to become backups or journeyman starters.

If someone said I had to take a QB in this upcoming draft, I'd probably snag Hendon Hooker out of Tennessee if he's there in the 5th round. Hooker might slide that far due to the ACL injury he suffered late in the season since he'll be unlikely to be able to play much, if at all, next season, but he has good physical traits and decent college production. He has starting potential as a pro in my opinion, but any team taking him would have to assume the risk that he'll recover completely from the injury and accept they won't know that until his 2nd year in the pros.

Sorry, I didn't answer on McKee earlier.

McKee strikes me as a developmental prospect who could emerge into a starter under the right circumstances, but I don't see an impact starter in him. He's tall and big and I believe can handle pressure pretty well, but there is something missing with him and I can't quite put my finger on it. He didn't have a lot of talent around him at Stanford, but he also didn't show an ability to elevate the talent he did have. I don't think he's a first round talent, but I could see someone taking him in the first round due to his physical attributes and potential.

I guess I see McKee as a taller and stronger version of Christian Ponder if that helps. He's a guy who is probably going to make a QB-needy team fall in love with him pre-draft and will go a lot sooner than he merits as a result, but he's unlikely to be the answer at QB for that team.

[CharVike]

What are your thoughts on Will Levis? It looks like he has every physical tool there is including a very strong arm.
A mock has us taking 28. MINNESOTA VIKINGS: QB TANNER MCKEE, STANFORD. Any thoughts? We need to take a hard look at QB. That should always top the list IMO.

I don't like him. He doesn't process the field well at all and makes too many mistakes to warrant anything before the 5th round. He's got all the physical tools you could want though. He's tall and has a strong arm, but he's just not likely to be a great NFL starting QB. Maybe a backup who might develop with the right system and coach, though.

I really don't like this QB class in general. The best prospects will be off the board long before the Vikings pick in the 1st, and the 2nd tier of prospects are all marginal in my view, with most of them destined to become backups or journeyman starters.

If someone said I had to take a QB in this upcoming draft, I'd probably snag Hendon Hooker out of Tennessee if he's there in the 5th round. Hooker might slide that far due to the ACL injury he suffered late in the season since he'll be unlikely to be able to play much, if at all, next season, but he has good physical traits and decent college production. He has starting potential as a pro in my opinion, but any team taking him would have to assume the risk that he'll recover completely from the injury and accept they won't know that until his 2nd year in the pros.

Sorry, I didn't answer on McKee earlier.

McKee strikes me as a developmental prospect who could emerge into a starter under the right circumstances, but I don't see an impact starter in him. He's tall and big and I believe can handle pressure pretty well, but there is something missing with him and I can't quite put my finger on it. He didn't have a lot of talent around him at Stanford, but he also didn't show an ability to elevate the talent he did have. I don't think he's a first round talent, but I could see someone taking him in the first round due to his physical attributes and potential.

I guess I see McKee as a taller and stronger version of Christian Ponder if that helps. He's a guy who is probably going to make a QB-needy team fall in love with him pre-draft and will go a lot sooner than he merits as a result, but he's unlikely to be the answer at QB for that team.

Thanks McKee is considered more of a project but that mock indicated that our GM might want him for his intelligence level and of course skill set. We don't have a round 2 pick and I doubt the guy falls to round 3. If they like him he could be the pick. Kirk has one year left on his contract. He could pack it in. He's taking a beating this year. Does he really need that at this point in life.

[VikingsVictorious]

Mind you, I have always been a Dalvin Cook fan and still very much am. But I have been pondering something over the past month or so.

One thing I'm starting to want to see more and more in games..... Alexander Mattison. In that Chicago game (granted it's Chicago but still), Cook sort of struggled early on but when Mattison went in, our run game really improved. I feel like Cook gets too "dancy" at the line at times. Where he's pitter-pattering his feet waiting for a hole to open up. Where Mattison is a pure downhill runner and hits the hole fast to grind out what he can. He doesnt have the breakaway ability that Cook has but Mattison seems more likely to turn a 1st and 10 into a 2nd and 4. I would love to see more of a 60/40 split in favor of Cook in the playoffs. Not sure KOC will do it but I think he should. I dont necessarily believe Cook lost a big step or anything, I just think KOC uses him differently than Zimmer did and we arent use to seeing that. He was featured in this offense under Zim, JJ is featured in this offense under KOC.

My hot take: Trade Dalvin Cook this offseason and re-sign Mattison to a multi-year deal.

Reason #1- Mattison isnt your flashy back but is still very good.

#2- Mattison's durability is at least projected to be better than Cook's

#3- Mattison will be much cheaper than what Cook will cost you in another year

#4- This is probably the highest Cook's value will ever be the rest of his career. Played all 17 games and ran for 1100 yards. That's a perfect line for a RB that you're trying to trade.

Again, I love Dalvin but I'm starting to lean towards going this route instead. Makes me wonder if this is what Spielman was projecting if he was still our GM. He always said he planned 3-4 years ahead of time. Interested to see what you guys think regarding these two.

I disagree with you right from your first stance. Cook does not pitter patter his feet at the line. He's an excellent short yardage runner. If we can get good value for Cook sure trade him.

[VikingsVictorious]

I will say it again.

With the current salary cap, I would not divest more than 2% of the cap to a running back. With a $200 million cap, that’s $4 million.

That is NOT to say I’m somehow anti-Cook. I’m a huge fan, not only of his production but of his leadership. He’s been a great Viking. And he HAS made some huge plays this year for the Vikings. Long, game-changing touchdowns against Miami, Buffalo and Indy come to mind.

At $4 million, Cook’s production is a great value. But at $11.9 million (his cap hit this year) it’s not. And at $14.1 million for next year, it’s just plain out of whack.

This is the problem with rookie-scale contracts. It rewards players for past performance. And that is NOT how you run a successful business. At successful companies, people don’t get promoted because of what they’ve done in the past. They get promoted for what you believe they CAN do in the future. If you want to reward somebody for doing a great job, you bonus them after the fact.

In the NFL, it’s backwards. I suppose it’s backwards in all sports, but it’s amplified in the NFL because of how short careers are. Steph Curry is in his 15th year, averaging 30. How many 15-year NFL vets are there?

Guy comes in the league in a rookie scale. He plays out of his mind. Like AP his rookie season. Sets the league on fire. So what happens? You pay him bupkus for 3 more years because you can. Now when it’s time to extend him, he’s already on the decline if he’s a running back. So you either pay him based on what he’s already done, even though the chances of him doing it again are slim — and they’re especially slim 3 years down the road at the end of his new deal. Or you let him walk.

The Vikings loved Cook. So they gave him a big new deal. And now he’s declining, right when the team is in line to pay him the most.

That’s why I’d never pay a running back more than 2% of the cap. It’s cruel, but it’s business.

And for the record, inside (on-ball) linebackers are in the same category. They’re guys with short shelf lives, and they don’t impact the modern NFL as much as corners or edge rushers. They wouldn’t get huge contracts either if I were running the team. Neither would safeties because unless you’ve got Ed Reed back there, you can replace them fairly easily compared to other positions.

Running back, inside linebacker and safety. The 3 positions I wouldn’t give huge contracts. Yet what are the Vikings doing? Cook at $11.9 million, Kendricks at $13.5 million, and Harrison Smith at $19.2 million next year with more than $11 million in dead cap.

That said, I don’t think I’d sign Mattison either. He’s going to see himself as a starter, and he’s going to want to get paid. And if I’m GM, I don’t overpay running backs.

When you pay one position, it means less money to pay another. So a better question might be Cook, Mattison, or a legit deep threat opposite Justin Jefferson? Pick one.

Some of you, as usual, will crucify me for this take. That’s fine. But if you detach yourself emotionally from the individual players, if you leave the names out, you’ll see that I’m right. Pay your quarterback. Pay tackles. Pay edge rushers. Pay lockdown corners. Not running backs.

I will once again go on record that I think your 4M max for Cook is every bit as out of whack as his $14.1 Million contract for next year. I can leave the names out and I still don't see that your right. I see that you're wrong. If you would place a more reasonable number like $8M I wouldn't find your stance laughable, but at $4M that's how I see it.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Mind you, I have always been a Dalvin Cook fan and still very much am. But I have been pondering something over the past month or so.

One thing I'm starting to want to see more and more in games..... Alexander Mattison. In that Chicago game (granted it's Chicago but still), Cook sort of struggled early on but when Mattison went in, our run game really improved. I feel like Cook gets too "dancy" at the line at times. Where he's pitter-pattering his feet waiting for a hole to open up. Where Mattison is a pure downhill runner and hits the hole fast to grind out what he can. He doesnt have the breakaway ability that Cook has but Mattison seems more likely to turn a 1st and 10 into a 2nd and 4. I would love to see more of a 60/40 split in favor of Cook in the playoffs. Not sure KOC will do it but I think he should. I dont necessarily believe Cook lost a big step or anything, I just think KOC uses him differently than Zimmer did and we arent use to seeing that. He was featured in this offense under Zim, JJ is featured in this offense under KOC.

My hot take: Trade Dalvin Cook this offseason and re-sign Mattison to a multi-year deal.

Reason #1- Mattison isnt your flashy back but is still very good.

#2- Mattison's durability is at least projected to be better than Cook's

#3- Mattison will be much cheaper than what Cook will cost you in another year

#4- This is probably the highest Cook's value will ever be the rest of his career. Played all 17 games and ran for 1100 yards. That's a perfect line for a RB that you're trying to trade.

Again, I love Dalvin but I'm starting to lean towards going this route instead. Makes me wonder if this is what Spielman was projecting if he was still our GM. He always said he planned 3-4 years ahead of time. Interested to see what you guys think regarding these two.

I disagree with you right from your first stance. Cook does not pitter patter his feet at the line. He's an excellent short yardage runner. If we can get good value for Cook sure trade him.

I guess we're watching two different Dalvin Cook's then

[Pondering Her Percy]

Cook won't get very much in trade, but it is worth a try. I don't see the Vikings paying him what he's scheduled to earn next year. Of course, his performance in the playoffs could affect my opinion.

I like Mattison, but he has obvious limitations as a feature back. He's more of a north-south runner who would probably fit perfectly behind a big, physical OL. For the Vikings I think the most you'd get out of a Mattison-type feature back is steady, if unspectacular, running. Not a bad thing necessarily, but I think the Vikings can do better at the position if they want.

Speaking of better at the position, I've been dabbling in mock draft sims a bit and there are several where Bijan Robinson of Texas falls to the Vikings. For those of you who don't know the name Bijan Robinson yet, I strongly encourage you to do a little research and watch some of his highlight videos. The guy is a complete back - he runs it well, catches it well, blocks well, and is just a solid, pro-ready player who I think can step into the feature back role from Day One and make an immediate impact. He seems to drop a bit not because of anything he has or hasn't put on tape or any physical trait he lacks or any off-field concerns, but because he happens to play a position that has fallen out of favor in recent years. But if you think having a feature back with moves, wheels and who can do it all and make an immediate impact is worth a mid-20's-ish 1st round pick and who, based purely on tape and talent should be a top 5 pick in any draft, Bijan fits that bill to a 'T'.

I feel like if Bijan drops to the Vikings in the 20's where they are likely to pick, that is the RB equivalent of Randy Moss falling to them the year he came out in terms of potential immediate impact.

See https://walterfootball.com/scoutingrepo ... binson.php for a summary.

What are your thoughts on Will Levis? It looks like he has every physical tool there is including a very strong arm.
A mock has us taking 28. MINNESOTA VIKINGS: QB TANNER MCKEE, STANFORD. Any thoughts? We need to take a hard look at QB. That should always top the list IMO.

I personally love Levis. I brought him up during last football season and a few of my buddies were like "who?!" lol

But yeah I've liked him for a long time and at Kentucky, he's not surrounded by 10+ NFL prospects that can help carry his team. I actually think that will help him in the NFL.

[IIsweet]

I feel that there is a common feeling among most. It is hard to say 2% when someone else feels 4% should be designated to RB room. In the scheme of $200million, 4-8 million is not a lot, but it can be very significant. If allowing up to $8 mil, you can have a #1 type RB with rookie contract players. If working with the $4m number, then you will have a committee type of backfield.
For example, CJ Ham does well for us, but his salary is $3mil. Is he overpaid? Probably.
I understand the idea of only committing specific % of salary cap to positions, but I do feel it depends on the makeup of your team and what type of offense you are trying to run

[VikingLord]

Kirk has one year left on his contract. He could pack it in. He's taking a beating this year. Does he really need that at this point in life.

A person can put up with a lot for $45 million per year...

[VikingLord]

Cook does not pitter patter his feet at the line. He's an excellent short yardage runner. If we can get good value for Cook sure trade him.

I see what Pondering is saying about Cook's running style, but I don't think he's pittering or pattering per se. I think the scheme is designed to open up a crease he needs to hit quickly and hard. The problem is when the crease isn't there and Cook has to pause to either let it develop or try to find an alternative opening quickly. It looks like he's shuffling but what I see is he's committing to where the hole is supposed to be and when it isn't there he's got to stop his momentum quickly and try to find an alternative.

Mattison isn't as explosive and that can help him in situations where either the hole isn't where it is supposed to be or it is less open.

It isn't a huge difference in terms of the time from when the RB gets the ball to where he reaches the LOS, but there is a big difference in momentum at that point and intent. Cook is looking to bust it open for a big gainer. Mattison is looking to churn it out for a reliable chunk of yards. Cook's approach (which is what I believe KOC wants him to do) is going to result in more short or no yardage runs, while Mattison's approach (which I believe KOC wants him to do) is going to result in fewer explosive runs but more consistent positive yardage.

My biggest issue with Cook right now is the fumbles. Explosive or not, he's got to get that cleaned up because turnovers are a death knell in the playoffs.

[CharVike]

What are your thoughts on Will Levis? It looks like he has every physical tool there is including a very strong arm.
A mock has us taking 28. MINNESOTA VIKINGS: QB TANNER MCKEE, STANFORD. Any thoughts? We need to take a hard look at QB. That should always top the list IMO.

I personally love Levis. I brought him up during last football season and a few of my buddies were like "who?!" lol

But yeah I've liked him for a long time and at Kentucky, he's not surrounded by 10+ NFL prospects that can help carry his team. I actually think that will help him in the NFL.

I like Levis also. The draft is a great part of football and brings up some good posts. We should always be looking for a QB. IMO KOC will look for a guy that can throw a football. He don't care about QB rushing yards and I don't either. If we picked both those guys it wouldn't bother me at all. We haven't had a young guy in the hole for a long time. That's a bad why to run a team. A guy like McKee could fall in the draft. Levis could also. They aren't the sexy picks.