Ruh-Roh, Cook Plans to Hold Out?

[VikingLord]

I don’t know why everyone is freaking out. We aren’t trading Cook and this holdout won’t last long. When was the last Vikings player that held out?? It doesn’t happen because they take care of their players. Cook will get a deal and everything will go back to normal.

Do they even have enough cap space to give Cook the money? According to this SI Article they either have 13.1 million in cap space left or 11.4 million in cap space (there's some disagreement about Josh Kline's dead money).

They're projected to spend $10m of that space signing their rookies.

**Edit - Perhaps they'll cut Reiff to free up some cap space? It'd be 8.8 million. That might be what they're trying to get Cook to take and why they aren't getting to 10.

While I agree the Vikings do generally take care of their players as Pondering mentions, I think the main reason we haven't seen too many holdouts as of late league-wide is because of the provisions in the CBA that discourage them. Whether they are "fair" or not, they've had the desired effect so far.

As for cutting Reiff to extend Cook, does that make the overall team better or worse?

Who plays LT if Reiff is cut? If they shift O'Neill to LT, who plays RT?

And then there is larger question - does it make sense to spend that kind of money at RB? Cook has missed 19 games in 3 years, and that fails to reflect the fact that he played with injury in several more games last season where he was significantly less effective.

Do winning teams invest big chunks of their cap at QB and injury-prone RB? Is that the model that has proven successful recently?

I personally think Cook has more value to the Vikings in trade than he does at $10 million per year. If the team should invest anywhere on offense, it should be along the OL. Dumping big money into both the QB and RB positions and going with the "star power" approach on offense is highly unlikely to result in more post-season success IMHO.

Riley Reiff might not be a star LT, but at least he stays on the field.

[Cliff]

Do they even have enough cap space to give Cook the money? According to this SI Article they either have 13.1 million in cap space left or 11.4 million in cap space (there's some disagreement about Josh Kline's dead money).

They're projected to spend $10m of that space signing their rookies.

**Edit - Perhaps they'll cut Reiff to free up some cap space? It'd be 8.8 million. That might be what they're trying to get Cook to take and why they aren't getting to 10.

While I agree the Vikings do generally take care of their players as Pondering mentions, I think the main reason we haven't seen too many holdouts as of late league-wide is because of the provisions in the CBA that discourage them. Whether they are "fair" or not, they've had the desired effect so far.

As for cutting Reiff to extend Cook, does that make the overall team better or worse?

Who plays LT if Reiff is cut? If they shift O'Neill to LT, who plays RT?

And then there is larger question - does it make sense to spend that kind of money at RB? Cook has missed 19 games in 3 years, and that fails to reflect the fact that he played with injury in several more games last season where he was significantly less effective.

Do winning teams invest big chunks of their cap at QB and injury-prone RB? Is that the model that has proven successful recently?

I personally think Cook has more value to the Vikings in trade than he does at $10 million per year. If the team should invest anywhere on offense, it should be along the OL. Dumping big money into both the QB and RB positions and going with the "star power" approach on offense is highly unlikely to result in more post-season success IMHO.

Riley Reiff might not be a star LT, but at least he stays on the field.

I wasn't necessarily advocating cutting Reiff. I don't disagree not having him would put the team in a tight spot. Just that I didn't know how else they'd come up with the money. Not just the "higher" 10m range but even just something like 8m didn't seem possible. Since then StumpHunter pointed out that they'd probably be able to fit him in by giving him a signing bonus or something similar.

As far as "heavily investing in RB" - it's not as if it would break the team. At 10m a year he'd still be something like the 8th highest paid player on the team.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Do they even have enough cap space to give Cook the money? According to this SI Article they either have 13.1 million in cap space left or 11.4 million in cap space (there's some disagreement about Josh Kline's dead money).

They're projected to spend $10m of that space signing their rookies.

**Edit - Perhaps they'll cut Reiff to free up some cap space? It'd be 8.8 million. That might be what they're trying to get Cook to take and why they aren't getting to 10.

While I agree the Vikings do generally take care of their players as Pondering mentions, I think the main reason we haven't seen too many holdouts as of late league-wide is because of the provisions in the CBA that discourage them. Whether they are "fair" or not, they've had the desired effect so far.

As for cutting Reiff to extend Cook, does that make the overall team better or worse?

Who plays LT if Reiff is cut? If they shift O'Neill to LT, who plays RT?

And then there is larger question - does it make sense to spend that kind of money at RB? Cook has missed 19 games in 3 years, and that fails to reflect the fact that he played with injury in several more games last season where he was significantly less effective.

Do winning teams invest big chunks of their cap at QB and injury-prone RB? Is that the model that has proven successful recently?

I personally think Cook has more value to the Vikings in trade than he does at $10 million per year. If the team should invest anywhere on offense, it should be along the OL. Dumping big money into both the QB and RB positions and going with the "star power" approach on offense is highly unlikely to result in more post-season success IMHO.

Riley Reiff might not be a star LT, but at least he stays on the field.

I mean I think they can afford to cut Reiff given we drafted Ezra Cleveland in round 2. Cleveland would be an immediate plug and play at LT if Reiff was cut. Whether that is an upgrade or not is yet to be seen but Cleveland is very similar to O’Neill coming out and I think he can be just as good as O’Neill

[StumpHunter]

While I agree the Vikings do generally take care of their players as Pondering mentions, I think the main reason we haven't seen too many holdouts as of late league-wide is because of the provisions in the CBA that discourage them. Whether they are "fair" or not, they've had the desired effect so far.

As for cutting Reiff to extend Cook, does that make the overall team better or worse?

Who plays LT if Reiff is cut? If they shift O'Neill to LT, who plays RT?

And then there is larger question - does it make sense to spend that kind of money at RB? Cook has missed 19 games in 3 years, and that fails to reflect the fact that he played with injury in several more games last season where he was significantly less effective.

Do winning teams invest big chunks of their cap at QB and injury-prone RB? Is that the model that has proven successful recently?

I personally think Cook has more value to the Vikings in trade than he does at $10 million per year. If the team should invest anywhere on offense, it should be along the OL. Dumping big money into both the QB and RB positions and going with the "star power" approach on offense is highly unlikely to result in more post-season success IMHO.

Riley Reiff might not be a star LT, but at least he stays on the field.

I mean I think they can afford to cut Reiff given we drafted Ezra Cleveland in round 2. Cleveland would be an immediate plug and play at LT if Reiff was cut. Whether that is an upgrade or not is yet to be seen but Cleveland is very similar to O’Neill coming out and I think he can be just as good as O’Neill

I would think if Cleveland were a plug and play LT he would have been off the board well before we took him in the 2nd round.

At this point the Vikings aren't even sure he is a tackle in the NFL.

That being said, if the Vikings don't feel this year is one where they can realistically compete for a SB, I don't see any reason to keep him, Stephen or Rudy (although Rudy is a bit of a special case since his play on the field doesn't seem to factor into his contract). Cutting them this year versus next would allow the Vikings to roll their current salaries into next year, giving the Vikings around 22 million more in cap next year. That would be huge in a year where the cap might actually go down, allowing them to be one of the few teams able to spend big in free agency next year.

If you think you can compete, you obviously don't handicap yourself by cutting your starting LT, but if not, time to move on from a guy who has no future on the team.

[VikingLord]

I wasn't necessarily advocating cutting Reiff. I don't disagree not having him would put the team in a tight spot. Just that I didn't know how else they'd come up with the money. Not just the "higher" 10m range but even just something like 8m didn't seem possible. Since then StumpHunter pointed out that they'd probably be able to fit him in by giving him a signing bonus or something similar.

As far as "heavily investing in RB" - it's not as if it would break the team. At 10m a year he'd still be something like the 8th highest paid player on the team.

Even if they played it like Stump suggested they're still borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. That increased contract gets paid out at some point in the future, and that point might require even more painful tradeoffs than the one being suggested here (cutting Reiff to pay Cook).

My point about how the cap is allocated isn't about breaking the team per se - it's more an observation that recent Superbowl competitors and winners aren't spending big chunks of cap on both QB and RB. I'm questioning the wisdom in that sort of allocation given what is proven to work.

[VikingLord]

I mean I think they can afford to cut Reiff given we drafted Ezra Cleveland in round 2. Cleveland would be an immediate plug and play at LT if Reiff was cut. Whether that is an upgrade or not is yet to be seen but Cleveland is very similar to O’Neill coming out and I think he can be just as good as O’Neill

I would think if Cleveland were a plug and play LT he would have been off the board well before we took him in the 2nd round.

At this point the Vikings aren't even sure he is a tackle in the NFL.

That being said, if the Vikings don't feel this year is one where they can realistically compete for a SB, I don't see any reason to keep him, Stephen or Rudy (although Rudy is a bit of a special case since his play on the field doesn't seem to factor into his contract). Cutting them this year versus next would allow the Vikings to roll their current salaries into next year, giving the Vikings around 22 million more in cap next year. That would be huge in a year where the cap might actually go down, allowing them to be one of the few teams able to spend big in free agency next year.

If you think you can compete, you obviously don't handicap yourself by cutting your starting LT, but if not, time to move on from a guy who has no future on the team.

I agree Cleveland is not a plug-and-play LT.

I think the Vikings intend to compete this year. At least, they believe they can. I say that because extending Cousins only makes sense if they believe that.

If they feel strongly about extending Cook they have to find a way to do it that doesn't contradict the move to extend Cousins.

[VikingsVictorious]

While I agree the Vikings do generally take care of their players as Pondering mentions, I think the main reason we haven't seen too many holdouts as of late league-wide is because of the provisions in the CBA that discourage them. Whether they are "fair" or not, they've had the desired effect so far.

As for cutting Reiff to extend Cook, does that make the overall team better or worse?

Who plays LT if Reiff is cut? If they shift O'Neill to LT, who plays RT?

And then there is larger question - does it make sense to spend that kind of money at RB? Cook has missed 19 games in 3 years, and that fails to reflect the fact that he played with injury in several more games last season where he was significantly less effective.

Do winning teams invest big chunks of their cap at QB and injury-prone RB? Is that the model that has proven successful recently?

I personally think Cook has more value to the Vikings in trade than he does at $10 million per year. If the team should invest anywhere on offense, it should be along the OL. Dumping big money into both the QB and RB positions and going with the "star power" approach on offense is highly unlikely to result in more post-season success IMHO.

Riley Reiff might not be a star LT, but at least he stays on the field.

I wasn't necessarily advocating cutting Reiff. I don't disagree not having him would put the team in a tight spot. Just that I didn't know how else they'd come up with the money. Not just the "higher" 10m range but even just something like 8m didn't seem possible. Since then StumpHunter pointed out that they'd probably be able to fit him in by giving him a signing bonus or something similar.

As far as "heavily investing in RB" - it's not as if it would break the team. At 10m a year he'd still be something like the 8th highest paid player on the team.

If he will sign for $10 million and not WHINE about it I think we should do it. That seems unlikely. If he signs for less that $13 million he might feel disrespected and taken advantage of. That would not be worth it.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I mean I think they can afford to cut Reiff given we drafted Ezra Cleveland in round 2. Cleveland would be an immediate plug and play at LT if Reiff was cut. Whether that is an upgrade or not is yet to be seen but Cleveland is very similar to O’Neill coming out and I think he can be just as good as O’Neill

I would think if Cleveland were a plug and play LT he would have been off the board well before we took him in the 2nd round.

At this point the Vikings aren't even sure he is a tackle in the NFL.

That being said, if the Vikings don't feel this year is one where they can realistically compete for a SB, I don't see any reason to keep him, Stephen or Rudy (although Rudy is a bit of a special case since his play on the field doesn't seem to factor into his contract). Cutting them this year versus next would allow the Vikings to roll their current salaries into next year, giving the Vikings around 22 million more in cap next year. That would be huge in a year where the cap might actually go down, allowing them to be one of the few teams able to spend big in free agency next year.

If you think you can compete, you obviously don't handicap yourself by cutting your starting LT, but if not, time to move on from a guy who has no future on the team.

O’Neill should’ve been a plug and play RT his rookie year but zimmer gave him the classic rookie treatment. I see Cleveland being very similar to O’Neill in that regard. Or hell if Zim wants to pull that again, just start rashod hill the first few weeks and then plug Cleveland in. The only reason O’Neill started playing his rookie year is because of injury though so it worries me that Zim might try to keep guys like O’Neill and Cleveland on the bench for longer than they need to be. But Cleveland is definitely the superior athlete compared to reiff. Pull the trigger and save yourself some money. I don’t see Cleveland being any worse than Reiff that’s for sure

[VikingLord]

O’Neill should’ve been a plug and play RT his rookie year but zimmer gave him the classic rookie treatment. I see Cleveland being very similar to O’Neill in that regard. Or hell if Zim wants to pull that again, just start rashod hill the first few weeks and then plug Cleveland in. The only reason O’Neill started playing his rookie year is because of injury though so it worries me that Zim might try to keep guys like O’Neill and Cleveland on the bench for longer than they need to be. But Cleveland is definitely the superior athlete compared to reiff. Pull the trigger and save yourself some money. I don’t see Cleveland being any worse than Reiff that’s for sure

What makes you say that "O'Neill should've been a plug and play RT his rookie year"?

O'Neill lasted into the latter half of the 2nd round for a good reason. The consensus on him coming out was that he needed time to mature and build strength. I think if Zimmer felt he was ready to start on Day One he would have started him, and I also think when circumstances forced O'Neill into the starting lineup the Vikings got very lucky he performed as well as he did.

I trust both Zimmer and Kubiak to be able to properly evaluate where Cleveland is on that maturity curve and whether he would, as you put it, not be any worse than Reiff. That might be true. It might also be wishful thinking at this point in Cleveland's career.

[J. Kapp 11]

"Decided for him"...

You mean by the collective bargaining agreement which is negotiated between the owners and the players? You're arguing that the CBA is unfair to guys like Cook?

If the Vikings tear it up, Cook is a free agent is he not? He can sign elsewhere for any amount of money he can get. I'd argue that is actually fair to Cook.

Plus, as Victorious pointed out earlier, the Vikings could not escape the guaranteed portions of Cook's contract even if they tore it up. You make it sound like Cook plays at the whim of the Vikings and they can treat him how they choose and pay him what they want. And for every Cook who outperforms his rookie deal, there are more rookies who underperform theirs. Their teams still have to pay the guaranteed portions of those contracts. I don't see how that is unfair in that situation, either. Both sides bear risk and both sides are protected.

The CBA dictates the parameters of player contracts and what teams can and can't do in those contracts. If Cook doesn't like that reality he should find another line of work. He can join the rest of us in regular jobs making regular wages and living regular lives with regular risk.

He can choose to work a regular job, just like he can choose to sit out. That isn't a selfish move or "not honoring the contract" anymore than the Vikings not honoring the contract if they cut him. Both have consequences, with the Vikings having to pay the guaranteed no matter what(an amount that is 0 btw) and with Cook getting fined and losing salary. The Vikings will do, and have done what they can to deal with bad contracts, and no one bats an eye when Rhodes, Joseph and Kline are cut. Yet when a player does what they have in their power to deal with a bad contract that was decided before they ever entered the NFL, they are selfish and not honoring the contract. Hypocrisy at its finest.

A guy works his butt off, giving up years of his life, sacrificing his body to be one of the best in the world at what he does, entertaining millions of fans, including you, and wants to be compensated fairly for it. Yet some fans want to rip him for that and don't understand why he would hold out?

I totally understand not wanting to pay Cook big money, but I don't understand how people can look at his situation and think he should honor his contract. He shouldn't. It would be a bad financial decision and life decision to not put up a stink when the Vikings are low balling him on a contract because they have him over a barrel.

Who's ripping him? He's just not going to get what he wants. He can hold out if he wants, but it's not going to work. Under the CBA, he loses a year of service time. That would be the same CBA that his own Players Association negotiated on his behalf.

On the other hand, you're ripping the Vikings ... and for WHAT? Why are the Vikings are the bad guys here? They signed Cook to a 4-year contract, complete with guaranteed money, and they're asking him to honor it.

[VikingLord]

If he will sign for $10 million and not WHINE about it I think we should do it. That seems unlikely. If he signs for less that $13 million he might feel disrespected and taken advantage of. That would not be worth it.

I don't know why Cook is worth $10 million per year.

Here are the 10 highest paid running backs in the NFL for the upcoming 2020 season:

NFL's highest paid running backs (average salary per year):

1. Panthers RB Christian McCaffrey: $16 million
2. Cowboys RB Ezekiel Elliott: $15 million
3. Jets RB Le’Veon Bell: $13.1 million
4. Texans RB David Johnson: $13 million
5. Titans RB Derrick Henry: $10.3 million
6. Cardinals RB Kenyan Drake: $8.5 million
7. Broncos RB Melvin Gordon: $8 million
8. Giants RB Saquon Barkley: $7.8 million
9. Jaguars RB Leonard Fournette: $6.8 million
10. Chargers RB Austin Ekeler: $6.1 million

Here are the top 10 running back statistics from the 2019 regular season:

GP Att Att/G Yds Avg Yds/G TD Lng 100+
1 Henry, Derrick TEN
15 303 20.2 1540 5.1 102.7 16 74 0
2 Chubb, Nick CLE
16 298 18.6 1494 5.0 93.4 8 88 0
3 McCaffrey, Christian CAR
16 287 17.9 1387 4.8 86.7 15 84 0
4 Elliott, Ezekiel DAL
16 301 18.8 1357 4.5 84.8 12 33 0
5 Carson, Chris SEA
15 278 18.5 1230 4.4 82.0 7 59 0
6 Jackson, Lamar BAL
15 176 11.7 1206 6.9 80.4 7 47 0
7 Fournette, Leonard JAX
15 265 17.7 1152 4.3 76.8 3 81 0
8 Jacobs, Josh OAK
13 242 18.6 1150 4.8 88.5 7 51 0
9 Mixon, Joe CIN
16 278 17.4 1137 4.1 71.1 5 41 0
10 Cook, Dalvin MIN
14 250 17.9 1135 4.5 81.1 13 75 0

Now that list is ordered by total yards and doesn't include receiving yardage or TDs receiving. There are different ways to order that list, and depending on how it is ordered Cook can rise into the top 5, or he falls between 5-10.

So I'm struggling with why Cook would feel he deserves to get paid as a top 5 RB when he has never performed to the overall level of a top 5 RB. It doesn't matter if he has the potential to do so. He has to actually do it.

When I look at the above and put his injury history into context, I feel even more strongly that Cook needs a true "prove it" year before the Vikings could justify spending top 5 money on him. He's just not a top 5 RB yet. Not in terms of on-field, consistent performance.

With that said, he's also not a $1.5 million performer. He probably merits a pay bump based on his performance (although I still think he should meet the terms of his rookie contract and the Vikings could make up that difference in an extension if he performs at that level and shows he can do it for an entire season), but if he wants $13 million for what he's produced thus far I say ship him ASAP. Even if he wants $10 million I say "where's the beef?". I just don't see enough from him to justify that. The flashes he's shown are great, but not enough for that kind of contract.

[J. Kapp 11]

So ... let's recall the past few months.

I called the Diggs trade many weeks before it happened, and y'all ripped me. I said that somebody would overpay for him, and sure enough, the Bills did. And they did it just days after Arizona sent Houston a bag of balls for D'Andre Hopkins (OK, they threw in David Johnson, too). Meanwhile, the Vikings got a first, a fourth, a fifth and a sixth for a guy in Diggs who has never come close to equaling an average Hopkins season. The Bills gave up far more than even I thought any team would give up.

Now we turn to Dalvin Cook and his salary demands.

I told you that the $10 million that so many of you think he deserves is too high. You ripped me again. I went on to say that $4 million is the most I'd pay ANY running back. Y'all ripped me mercilessly. Well, don't look now, but it appears the chickens are coming home to roost.

Forget what's right or wrong. Forget how talented Cook is. These are the economics of the NFL in 2020. Smart teams do not overpay for running backs. And with the salary cap potentially dropping by $40 million next season because of the economic impact of Covid, it makes even less sense to overpay for a running back ... even a back of Cook's ability. Again, look at last year's top 10 highest-paid running backs. All of them except one played for a non-playoff team. And that one ... Lamar Miller ... was injured and didn't even play!

Dalvin Cook has threatened to hold out when only a fool would hold out. He's overplayed his hand, and it's only the flop (Texas Holdem term). Bottom line ... I'll be very surprised if he's a Viking beyond 2020.

[J. Kapp 11]

If he will sign for $10 million and not WHINE about it I think we should do it. That seems unlikely. If he signs for less that $13 million he might feel disrespected and taken advantage of. That would not be worth it.

I don't know why Cook is worth $10 million per year.

Here are the 10 highest paid running backs in the NFL for the upcoming 2020 season:

NFL's highest paid running backs (average salary per year):

1. Panthers RB Christian McCaffrey: $16 million
2. Cowboys RB Ezekiel Elliott: $15 million
3. Jets RB Le’Veon Bell: $13.1 million
4. Texans RB David Johnson: $13 million
5. Titans RB Derrick Henry: $10.3 million
6. Cardinals RB Kenyan Drake: $8.5 million
7. Broncos RB Melvin Gordon: $8 million
8. Giants RB Saquon Barkley: $7.8 million
9. Jaguars RB Leonard Fournette: $6.8 million
10. Chargers RB Austin Ekeler: $6.1 million

Here are the top 10 running back statistics from the 2019 regular season:

GP Att Att/G Yds Avg Yds/G TD Lng 100+
1 Henry, Derrick TEN
15 303 20.2 1540 5.1 102.7 16 74 0
2 Chubb, Nick CLE
16 298 18.6 1494 5.0 93.4 8 88 0
3 McCaffrey, Christian CAR
16 287 17.9 1387 4.8 86.7 15 84 0
4 Elliott, Ezekiel DAL
16 301 18.8 1357 4.5 84.8 12 33 0
5 Carson, Chris SEA
15 278 18.5 1230 4.4 82.0 7 59 0
6 Jackson, Lamar BAL
15 176 11.7 1206 6.9 80.4 7 47 0
7 Fournette, Leonard JAX
15 265 17.7 1152 4.3 76.8 3 81 0
8 Jacobs, Josh OAK
13 242 18.6 1150 4.8 88.5 7 51 0
9 Mixon, Joe CIN
16 278 17.4 1137 4.1 71.1 5 41 0
10 Cook, Dalvin MIN
14 250 17.9 1135 4.5 81.1 13 75 0

Now that list is ordered by total yards and doesn't include receiving yardage or TDs receiving. There are different ways to order that list, and depending on how it is ordered Cook can rise into the top 5, or he falls between 5-10.

So I'm struggling with why Cook would feel he deserves to get paid as a top 5 RB when he has never performed to the overall level of a top 5 RB. It doesn't matter if he has the potential to do so. He has to actually do it.

When I look at the above and put his injury history into context, I feel even more strongly that Cook needs a true "prove it" year before the Vikings could justify spending top 5 money on him. He's just not a top 5 RB yet. Not in terms of on-field, consistent performance.

With that said, he's also not a $1.5 million performer. He probably merits a pay bump based on his performance (although I still think he should meet the terms of his rookie contract and the Vikings could make up that difference in an extension if he performs at that level and shows he can do it for an entire season), but if he wants $13 million for what he's produced thus far I say ship him ASAP. Even if he wants $10 million I say "where's the beef?". I just don't see enough from him to justify that. The flashes he's shown are great, but not enough for that kind of contract.

Thank you.

[Cliff]

If he will sign for $10 million and not WHINE about it I think we should do it. That seems unlikely. If he signs for less that $13 million he might feel disrespected and taken advantage of. That would not be worth it.

I don't know why Cook is worth $10 million per year.

Here are the 10 highest paid running backs in the NFL for the upcoming 2020 season:

NFL's highest paid running backs (average salary per year):

1. Panthers RB Christian McCaffrey: $16 million
2. Cowboys RB Ezekiel Elliott: $15 million
3. Jets RB Le’Veon Bell: $13.1 million
4. Texans RB David Johnson: $13 million
5. Titans RB Derrick Henry: $10.3 million
6. Cardinals RB Kenyan Drake: $8.5 million
7. Broncos RB Melvin Gordon: $8 million
8. Giants RB Saquon Barkley: $7.8 million
9. Jaguars RB Leonard Fournette: $6.8 million
10. Chargers RB Austin Ekeler: $6.1 million

Here are the top 10 running back statistics from the 2019 regular season:

GP Att Att/G Yds Avg Yds/G TD Lng 100+
1 Henry, Derrick TEN
15 303 20.2 1540 5.1 102.7 16 74 0
2 Chubb, Nick CLE
16 298 18.6 1494 5.0 93.4 8 88 0
3 McCaffrey, Christian CAR
16 287 17.9 1387 4.8 86.7 15 84 0
4 Elliott, Ezekiel DAL
16 301 18.8 1357 4.5 84.8 12 33 0
5 Carson, Chris SEA
15 278 18.5 1230 4.4 82.0 7 59 0
6 Jackson, Lamar BAL
15 176 11.7 1206 6.9 80.4 7 47 0
7 Fournette, Leonard JAX
15 265 17.7 1152 4.3 76.8 3 81 0
8 Jacobs, Josh OAK
13 242 18.6 1150 4.8 88.5 7 51 0
9 Mixon, Joe CIN
16 278 17.4 1137 4.1 71.1 5 41 0
10 Cook, Dalvin MIN
14 250 17.9 1135 4.5 81.1 13 75 0

Now that list is ordered by total yards and doesn't include receiving yardage or TDs receiving. There are different ways to order that list, and depending on how it is ordered Cook can rise into the top 5, or he falls between 5-10.

So I'm struggling with why Cook would feel he deserves to get paid as a top 5 RB when he has never performed to the overall level of a top 5 RB. It doesn't matter if he has the potential to do so. He has to actually do it.

When I look at the above and put his injury history into context, I feel even more strongly that Cook needs a true "prove it" year before the Vikings could justify spending top 5 money on him. He's just not a top 5 RB yet. Not in terms of on-field, consistent performance.

With that said, he's also not a $1.5 million performer. He probably merits a pay bump based on his performance (although I still think he should meet the terms of his rookie contract and the Vikings could make up that difference in an extension if he performs at that level and shows he can do it for an entire season), but if he wants $13 million for what he's produced thus far I say ship him ASAP. Even if he wants $10 million I say "where's the beef?". I just don't see enough from him to justify that. The flashes he's shown are great, but not enough for that kind of contract.

Why in the world would you factor out receiving yards when they are every bit as important? Especially in the modern NFL. The guy had the second highest receiving yards on the team. Even missing 2 games he had 7th most overall yards in the league. 2nd most average yards per game from scrimmage in the league.

This offense without Dalvin Cook and Diggs would be one of the worst we've ever seen.

[VikingLord]

Why in the world would you factor out receiving yards when they are every bit as important? Especially in the modern NFL. The guy had the second highest receiving yards on the team. Even missing 2 games he had 7th most overall yards in the league. 2nd most average yards per game from scrimmage in the league.

This offense without Dalvin Cook and Diggs would be one of the worst we've ever seen.

I'm not factoring them out per se - the stats I showed are consistent across the position. I showed running stats for each player listed not to minimize the importance or impact of receiving stats, but because Cook plays the RB position.

OK, so let's look at another set of measures, these provided by Football Outsiders (https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/nfl/rb/2019):

Player Team DYAR Rk YAR Rk DVOA ▴ Rk VOA Runs Yards EYds TD FUM Suc
Rate Rk
R.Mostert SF 191 7 188 7 26.8% 1 26.3% 137 772 775 8 1 53% 9
M.Ingram BAL 257 3 249 3 19.8% 2 19.0% 202 1,018 1,194 10 2 60% 1
K.Drake 2TM 202 5 176 8 19.7% 3 16.0% 170 817 942 8 2 51% 16
E.Elliott DAL 324 1 271 1 16.5% 4 12.4% 301 1,358 1,637 12 3 56% 4
C.McCaffrey CAR 278 2 190 6 14.9% 5 7.5% 287 1,387 1,468 15 1 47% 28
J.Howard PHI 113 14 105 14 14.2% 6 12.7% 119 525 608 6 0 53% 8
A.Jones GB 207 4 226 4 12.0% 7 13.8% 236 1,091 1,202 16 2 56% 5
G.Edwards BAL 126 11 124 12 11.8% 8 11.5% 133 710 736 2 2 56% 6
L.Murray NO 125 13 118 13 10.7% 9 9.6% 146 637 760 5 0 60% 2
D.Cook MIN 183 8 191 5 9.3% 10 10.1% 250 1,135 1,178 13 3 49% 23
D.Henry TEN 192 6 251 2 6.7% 11 11.4% 303 1,542 1,391 16 5 50% 17

Sorry for the formatting.

This doesn't include receiving yards either, but it includes the DVOA metric (per the website, DVOA means

This number represents value, per play, over an average running back in the same game situations. The more positive the DVOA rating, the better the player's performance. Negative DVOA represents below-average offense

By DVOA Cook is the 10th best back in the league.

In short, as a running back, Cook is a top 10 back, but not a top 5. Even if one includes his total offensive yards as you did, he's still only 7th in that metric. It's nothing to sneeze at for sure, and maybe if he had two more games under his 2019 belt he'd have finished top 5, but he didn't. He has yet to finish a full season healthy, so we don't have any historical record to indicate what that would look like for Cook.

He's not a top 5 RB. He is explosive. He shows some real flashes. He's just not done that for a full year, and based on what he has done, no way should the Vikings pony up 13 million for him. I'd argue 10 million is too much for several reasons, not the least of which is he's not a top 5 RB and that is top 5 RB money.

I really don't care if he's the 2nd or 1st best offensive weapon for the Vikings. The 2019 Vikings barely made the playoffs and didn't sniff the Superbowl. Why exactly is Cook so critical in the big scheme of things for 2020 given the results of the 2019 season?

For me, it's simple - he's got to show he can be a top 5 back and do it for a whole season. He does that, he's either going to hit free agency and force the Vikings to franchise him and pay him top 5 money if they want to keep him, or he's going to get paid in free agency via an extension or by a different team.