Ruh-Roh, Cook Plans to Hold Out?

[J. Kapp 11]

It wasn't really after week 8, not sure why anybody would start there. He was the best offensive weapon on the team in weeks 9 and 10.

Honestly I think he was actually injured after the Cowboys game in week 10. Only 11 carries in week 11 was really out of character for the team.

Week 11 he only had 11 attempts 2.4 yards. Rushing game never really got going. He still caught 5 passes for 31 yards
Week 12 was a bye.
Week 13 only 9 attempts. Injury to shoulder reported in this game, I believe. Even so, he still had the most all purpose yards on the team (64).
Week 14 he had 18 attempts for 62 yards and nearly split carries with Mattison who had 14 for 46. He also had 2 passes for 13 yards. He had the second most yards on the team behind Diggs who got 92 yards that game.
Week 15 he went out early and didn't make a significant impact
Week 16 he was out (Cousins goes 16/31 for 122 yards 1TD/1INT - Mike Boone gets 2.5 YPC in 11 attempts)
Week 17 starters sat, no useful information

From week to 11 to 17 (5 possible games discounting Bye and 17). Though his output was low he still mostly performed well compared to the rest of the team.

1 game he was out completely, 1 game he left early, 1 game (Week 11) he had limited impact, and 2 games he was 1st or 2nd in yards on the team.

In other words, 3 games in that stretch Cook didn't make an impact for the team. In the game he was completely out the team got stomped.

He left two games early. Seattle and the Chargers. And in Week 13, Mattison had more yards from scrimmage. I know it sounds like nit-picking, but if you're going to make the argument that he was still the most effective player on the team, I'm gonna push back on the details.

Also the games you cite as Cook being the most effective ... you call 18 carries for 62 yards with a long of 9 effective? Kirk Cousins was the player of that game, going 24-of-30 for 242, along with the defense, which shut down hapless David Blough.

From week 9 to the end of the season, Cook never once averaged more than 3.7 YPA on the ground in any game, including the playoff game against New Orleans. That is not effective. And if he was the most effective player on the team, then that's sort of like being the world's tallest midget (or whatever the PC term is).

If Dalvin Cook had continued his first-half success to any degree, I would have a hard time arguing he can't be replaced. But come on. Cook was not the same player in the second half, and there's no argument that can be made that he was. Neither the numbers nor the eye test back that up.

I know fantasy doesn't mean squat, but even fantasy experts don't recommend drafting Dalvin Cook in the first round. The reason is that you simply don't know what you're going to get with him. I personally think he's the most talented back in football. But he's not the best back in football. That title goes to Christian McCaffrey, largely because McCaffrey is almost always available and effective. With Cook, all we ever get are glimpses of what he can do. Your mileage may vary, but to me, glimpses are not worth $10 million a year.

[StumpHunter]

Cliff is correct, he injured himself in the Cowboys game. He played through it for a few games but wasn't 100%.

Also Mattison hasn't been the healthiest either. Both he and Cook were injured. I know this because I handcuffed Cook with Mattison and it did absolutely nothing for me

Only 100 carries over 15 weeks and he still missed time.

His production slowed in the second half of the season as well, btw.

[VikingLord]

If Dalvin Cook had continued his first-half success to any degree, I would have a hard time arguing he can't be replaced. But come on. Cook was not the same player in the second half, and there's no argument that can be made that he was. Neither the numbers nor the eye test back that up.

I know fantasy doesn't mean squat, but even fantasy experts don't recommend drafting Dalvin Cook in the first round. The reason is that you simply don't know what you're going to get with him. I personally think he's the most talented back in football. But he's not the best back in football. That title goes to Christian McCaffrey, largely because McCaffrey is almost always available and effective. With Cook, all we ever get are glimpses of what he can do. Your mileage may vary, but to me, glimpses are not worth $10 million a year.

That's why I said Cook needs this year to show he can stay healthy and stay productive before the Vikings consider substantially increasing his pay. If they want to increase it based on his past performance, at least as it applies to this upcoming season, that increase simply has to account for his inability to stay healthy over the prior 3 seasons. I agree with you 100% that there is no way Cook should get $10 million next year based on what we've seen so far.

The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that big play RBs are fool's gold, at least as far as it affects their team's ability to be competitive in the playoffs. If a team wants to be competitive at that level, as least as it applies to the offense of said team, it needs to invest in the OL and get consistent and even explosive plays out of the QB position with the running game being able to churn out consistent yards. Guys like Cook, even when they are healthy, simply aren't correlated with playoff success. There are exceptions, but not enough to justify investing substantial cap there.

[VikingsVictorious]

It wasn't really after week 8, not sure why anybody would start there. He was the best offensive weapon on the team in weeks 9 and 10.

Honestly I think he was actually injured after the Cowboys game in week 10. Only 11 carries in week 11 was really out of character for the team.

Week 11 he only had 11 attempts 2.4 yards. Rushing game never really got going. He still caught 5 passes for 31 yards
Week 12 was a bye.
Week 13 only 9 attempts. Injury to shoulder reported in this game, I believe. Even so, he still had the most all purpose yards on the team (64).
Week 14 he had 18 attempts for 62 yards and nearly split carries with Mattison who had 14 for 46. He also had 2 passes for 13 yards. He had the second most yards on the team behind Diggs who got 92 yards that game.
Week 15 he went out early and didn't make a significant impact
Week 16 he was out (Cousins goes 16/31 for 122 yards 1TD/1INT - Mike Boone gets 2.5 YPC in 11 attempts)
Week 17 starters sat, no useful information

From week to 11 to 17 (5 possible games discounting Bye and 17). Though his output was low he still mostly performed well compared to the rest of the team.

1 game he was out completely, 1 game he left early, 1 game (Week 11) he had limited impact, and 2 games he was 1st or 2nd in yards on the team.

In other words, 3 games in that stretch Cook didn't make an impact for the team. In the game he was completely out the team got stomped.

He left two games early. Seattle and the Chargers. And in Week 13, Mattison had more yards from scrimmage. I know it sounds like nit-picking, but if you're going to make the argument that he was still the most effective player on the team, I'm gonna push back on the details.

Also the games you cite as Cook being the most effective ... you call 18 carries for 62 yards with a long of 9 effective? Kirk Cousins was the player of that game, going 24-of-30 for 242, along with the defense, which shut down hapless David Blough.

From week 9 to the end of the season, Cook never once averaged more than 3.7 YPA on the ground in any game, including the playoff game against New Orleans. That is not effective. And if he was the most effective player on the team, then that's sort of like being the world's tallest midget (or whatever the PC term is).

If Dalvin Cook had continued his first-half success to any degree, I would have a hard time arguing he can't be replaced. But come on. Cook was not the same player in the second half, and there's no argument that can be made that he was. Neither the numbers nor the eye test back that up.

I know fantasy doesn't mean squat, but even fantasy experts don't recommend drafting Dalvin Cook in the first round. The reason is that you simply don't know what you're going to get with him. I personally think he's the most talented back in football. But he's not the best back in football. That title goes to Christian McCaffrey, largely because McCaffrey is almost always available and effective. With Cook, all we ever get are glimpses of what he can do. Your mileage may vary, but to me, glimpses are not worth $10 million a year.

Considering what a team often gets for money spent on other players these glimpses of Cook are worth exactly 10 Million a year going forward IMO with the hopes that he can recreate or improve on last year.

[VikingLord]

Considering what a team often gets for money spent on other players these glimpses of Cook are worth exactly 10 Million a year going forward IMO with the hopes that he can recreate or improve on last year.

That doesn't jibe with what we're seeing from teams that are making conference championships and the Superbowl. Teams that are investing heavily on star RBs are not generally getting to, nor winning, in the playoffs at that level.

More generally, investing in anything based on "hope" is a surefire way to end up poor and disillusioned. Faith and belief are great things. They can power people through very difficult times and sometimes they are rewarded in the end, but in general decisions made based on a "gut feeling" or "glimpses" end up in disappointment.

There is no objective evidence beyond comparing player salaries to production that investing $10 million in Dalvin Cook is a good investment for the Vikings and will alter their competitiveness for the Superbowl in any meaningful way. There is really only a sense of injustice that Cook is making so much less than other players at his position and on the Vikings for what he contributes. If you're the GM of the team and want to put it in the best position to win a Superbowl in the near future, you have to place greater weight on the former concern. If you're a fan of the team or feel strongly that pay should be based on performance, or you have some concern about the injustices of a collective bargaining agreement that determined the pay rate of players like Cook before they even joined the league, then you probably place greater weight on the latter.

I like Cook, but I like the Vikings more. They existed before Cook was born and will hopefully exist long after he retires and I want the team to win a Superbowl or at least be very competitive for one. I'd like that to happen soon as I'm not getting any younger and I've waited for a really long time to see it happen. So I weight the former more. Spielman has to do what is best for the overall team in both the short and longer terms, and paying Cook top RB money is not doing what is best for the team. That is just the cold hard facts of life as it relates to the RB position in the NFL in 2020. I'm not saying don't bump up his salary. I'm not saying don't include him in the longer term plans. I'm just saying spending big at RB likely does not move the team closer to the collective goal we all have of the Vikings winning a Superbowl in the near future.

[S197]

Cliff is correct, he injured himself in the Cowboys game. He played through it for a few games but wasn't 100%.

Also Mattison hasn't been the healthiest either. Both he and Cook were injured. I know this because I handcuffed Cook with Mattison and it did absolutely nothing for me

Only 100 carries over 15 weeks and he still missed time.

His production slowed in the second half of the season as well, btw.

Yup. Cook has injury concerns, and it was one of the main reasons he fell in the draft, but Mattison hasn't shown he can shoulder a full season either.

My position isn't we need to pay Cook top 3 money. My position is this offense doesn't work when the run game doesn't work. The Vikings ranked 3rd in rushing offense and 17th in passing.

Our resource allocation is all screwed up.

[J. Kapp 11]

Only 100 carries over 15 weeks and he still missed time.

His production slowed in the second half of the season as well, btw.

Yup. Cook has injury concerns, and it was one of the main reasons he fell in the draft, but Mattison hasn't shown he can shoulder a full season either.

My position isn't we need to pay Cook top 3 money. My position is this offense doesn't work when the run game doesn't work. The Vikings ranked 3rd in rushing offense and 17th in passing.

Our resource allocation is all screwed up.

Interesting comment. I agree our resource allocation is screwed up, but not because of skill positions. It's because of the O-line.

Teams with great O-lines can have an unbalanced attack. Kansas City ranked 23rd in rushing yards and 5th in passing yards. I wouldn't call their resource allocation screwed up. San Francisco was 2nd in rushing and 13th in passing. There are your Super Bowl teams.

Let's go back to VL's point about the O-line. If our offensive line was really good, don't you think we'd rank higher in passing? Say what you want about Kirk Cousins ... the man can flat-out sling it when he has time.

As for the running game, the only reason we're any good is because of Cook and Mattison. But if the O-line was really good, we could get plenty of mileage out of our running game, no matter who was back there.

Look at the top 10 running teams in the league. Outside of Lamar Jackson in Baltimore (an anomaly as a QB), Zeke in Dallas and MAYBE Derrick Henry in Tennessee, can anyone make a case that the runners on those teams are household names? We're talking teams like San Fran, Seattle, Indy, Buffalo, and Houston. There's no way you can look at those teams and conclude you must have an uber-talented, high-dollar running back to have an effective running game.

I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face. This isn't a Dalvin Cook issue for me. It's a philosophy issue. Paying Cook masks the symptom ... building a great O-line cures the disease.

[S197]

Yup. Cook has injury concerns, and it was one of the main reasons he fell in the draft, but Mattison hasn't shown he can shoulder a full season either.

My position isn't we need to pay Cook top 3 money. My position is this offense doesn't work when the run game doesn't work. The Vikings ranked 3rd in rushing offense and 17th in passing.

Our resource allocation is all screwed up.

Interesting comment. I agree our resource allocation is screwed up, but not because of skill positions. It's because of the O-line.

Teams with great O-lines can have an unbalanced attack. Kansas City ranked 23rd in rushing yards and 5th in passing yards. I wouldn't call their resource allocation screwed up. San Francisco was 2nd in rushing and 13th in passing. There are your Super Bowl teams.

Let's go back to VL's point about the O-line. If our offensive line was really good, don't you think we'd rank higher in passing? Say what you want about Kirk Cousins ... the man can flat-out sling it when he has time.

As for the running game, the only reason we're any good is because of Cook and Mattison. But if the O-line was really good, we could get plenty of mileage out of our running game, no matter who was back there.

Look at the top 10 running teams in the league. Outside of Lamar Jackson in Baltimore (an anomaly as a QB), Zeke in Dallas and MAYBE Derrick Henry in Tennessee, can anyone make a case that the runners on those teams are household names? We're talking teams like San Fran, Seattle, Indy, Buffalo, and Houston. There's no way you can look at those teams and conclude you must have an uber-talented, high-dollar running back to have an effective running game.

I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face. This isn't a Dalvin Cook issue for me. It's a philosophy issue. Paying Cook masks the symptom ... building a great O-line cures the disease.

A balanced attack is not necessary but I think KC and SF are different than the Vikings in a few ways. KC has Mahommes so no surprise there that they are pass heavy. But they are able to rely on the run game when needed. Look no further than the Vikings game where they beat us with Matt Moore. He made a few good throws, including a long bomb to Hill, but we also got gashed by big runs by Damien Williams. SF is in a similar situation to the Vikings. I actually think Jimmy G and Cousins are very similar. Both are quite average and overpaid. The difference is SF has an elite defense with a lot of high draft picks still on rookie deals. So they are misallocated as well but they are able to cover it up due to this difference. Similar to the Rams when they had everyone on rookie contracts. If you look at the 2 NFC playoff games for SF, in the first, Jimmy didn't have to do anything. The run game dominated. When they played us, their defense shut down our run game and that was the end.

I agree that working on the OL would be another way to better allocate resources. And Spielman over the last couple of years is finally starting to address this after years of neglect. But his ability to scout lineman is still suspect. Bradbury was a rookie but he played very poorly. Elflein is basically a bust. His two big splash FA's, Reiff and Remmers, both didn't live up to their contracts. Clemmings and Beavers were both mid-round picks that were misses. Who knows what we have in Samia. And then there's the head scratcher with letting Kline go. Right now he has O'Neill and that's about it.

Cousins would certainly benefit from better OL play. But that goes for all QB's. So again it comes back to resource allocation. You cannot allocate a large share of your cap space to your QB and also expect to get an OL and a slew of offensive weapons. Our OL (especially our guards) are an issue but having Cook, Thielen, Diggs, and Rudolph isn't exactly leaving him out to dry.

Cousins had his big pay day and now he's dipping back into the trough. He's bleeding the team just like Stafford bled the Lions for years. If he said, "You know, I've made my money. Now I'll sign a team friendly deal to help get the other chess pieces in place" I wouldn't have as much of a problem. But it's another short-term extension with heavy guarantees. I think the no trade clause is also still in effect. I don't blame anyone for looking out for their own interests but this is a problem for the Vikings. And to make things worse, no contingency plan. Other than this year's Kyle Sloter, which is all we can bank on because heaven forbid Rick uses one of his 10+ draft picks he insists on every year on a QB before the 7th round.

[VikingLord]

Cousins had his big pay day and now he's dipping back into the trough. He's bleeding the team just like Stafford bled the Lions for years. If he said, "You know, I've made my money. Now I'll sign a team friendly deal to help get the other chess pieces in place" I wouldn't have as much of a problem. But it's another short-term extension with heavy guarantees. I think the no trade clause is also still in effect. I don't blame anyone for looking out for their own interests but this is a problem for the Vikings. And to make things worse, no contingency plan. Other than this year's Kyle Sloter, which is all we can bank on because heaven forbid Rick uses one of his 10+ draft picks he insists on every year on a QB before the 7th round.

I don't see how Cousins can be blamed for his deal when it is the Vikings who negotiated and offered it to him. I guess I can see how Cousins could have asked for less, but if the argument for giving Cook a big payday is along the lines of "football is risky" or "look at what other top performers at a given position are getting paid" then I find it difficult to accept someone arguing for Cook to get paid more would credibly argue that Cousins should accept less than what he can get, especially when Cousins' stats put him in the same general 5-10 overall ranking at his position as Cook's stats did at his.

The point you make strikes right at the heart of the cap allocation argument and how that has to be fitted to a larger strategy and not tied to the GM falling in love with a particular player or his "potential". The Cousins deal makes sense only if the obscene amount of money he's making fits into a larger overall picture of how the offense should be constructed. While I have no doubt that Cousins' deal will impinge on Spielman's ability to pay someone like Cook, I'd hope that is an intentional action on Spielman's part because he has a vision and a plan (hopefully developed in concert with the coaching staff). If Spielman does have such a plan, that would necessarily put a ceiling on how much the Vikings would be willing to pay a guy like Cook, and if so, I'd argue that is a good thing, not because I don't like Cook or think he is explosive at the position, but because the Vikings understand the relative importance of the position sans any particular player who plays it.

Hard to say if that is the case, but we know that Spielman has invested heavily at the TE position and at QB. He traded Diggs while drafting a rookie WR to replace him, so overall $$$ invested at WR are less. He's drafted heavily along the OL in recent years while not signing many high priced free agents except for Rieff and Remmers, and even those guys weren't particulary high-priced. He's drafted relatively high at RB, but not invested a lot of cap there. Most of the bigger stretch cap deals have gone to the defensive side of the football, which makes sense given Zimmer's background and general approach.

[VikingsVictorious]

Considering what a team often gets for money spent on other players these glimpses of Cook are worth exactly 10 Million a year going forward IMO with the hopes that he can recreate or improve on last year.

That doesn't jibe with what we're seeing from teams that are making conference championships and the Superbowl. Teams that are investing heavily on star RBs are not generally getting to, nor winning, in the playoffs at that level.

More generally, investing in anything based on "hope" is a surefire way to end up poor and disillusioned. Faith and belief are great things. They can power people through very difficult times and sometimes they are rewarded in the end, but in general decisions made based on a "gut feeling" or "glimpses" end up in disappointment.

There is no objective evidence beyond comparing player salaries to production that investing $10 million in Dalvin Cook is a good investment for the Vikings and will alter their competitiveness for the Superbowl in any meaningful way. There is really only a sense of injustice that Cook is making so much less than other players at his position and on the Vikings for what he contributes. If you're the GM of the team and want to put it in the best position to win a Superbowl in the near future, you have to place greater weight on the former concern. If you're a fan of the team or feel strongly that pay should be based on performance, or you have some concern about the injustices of a collective bargaining agreement that determined the pay rate of players like Cook before they even joined the league, then you probably place greater weight on the latter.

I like Cook, but I like the Vikings more. They existed before Cook was born and will hopefully exist long after he retires and I want the team to win a Superbowl or at least be very competitive for one. I'd like that to happen soon as I'm not getting any younger and I've waited for a really long time to see it happen. So I weight the former more. Spielman has to do what is best for the overall team in both the short and longer terms, and paying Cook top RB money is not doing what is best for the team. That is just the cold hard facts of life as it relates to the RB position in the NFL in 2020. I'm not saying don't bump up his salary. I'm not saying don't include him in the longer term plans. I'm just saying spending big at RB likely does not move the team closer to the collective goal we all have of the Vikings winning a Superbowl in the near future.

Call it hope or expectations or whatever. Cook is Cook and the Vikings are the Vikings. It is irrelevant what other teams or other RBs have done. Money is passed out willie Nillie in the NFL. $10 million for a player of cooks quality isn't an over-investment. If you follow the trend 4 games first year was it 8 games second year and 14 out of 15 or 16 year three Cook would be expected to play 100% of the games in year 4. My expectation is that if the Vikings have enough common sense to offer $10 million and Cook has the common sense to accept good things will come.

[VikingsVictorious]

Only 100 carries over 15 weeks and he still missed time.

His production slowed in the second half of the season as well, btw.

Yup. Cook has injury concerns, and it was one of the main reasons he fell in the draft, but Mattison hasn't shown he can shoulder a full season either.

My position isn't we need to pay Cook top 3 money. My position is this offense doesn't work when the run game doesn't work. The Vikings ranked 3rd in rushing offense and 17th in passing.

Our resource allocation is all screwed up.

A combination of 3rd and 17th is IMO a pretty good combination.

[VikingsVictorious]

Yup. Cook has injury concerns, and it was one of the main reasons he fell in the draft, but Mattison hasn't shown he can shoulder a full season either.

My position isn't we need to pay Cook top 3 money. My position is this offense doesn't work when the run game doesn't work. The Vikings ranked 3rd in rushing offense and 17th in passing.

Our resource allocation is all screwed up.

Interesting comment. I agree our resource allocation is screwed up, but not because of skill positions. It's because of the O-line.

Teams with great O-lines can have an unbalanced attack. Kansas City ranked 23rd in rushing yards and 5th in passing yards. I wouldn't call their resource allocation screwed up. San Francisco was 2nd in rushing and 13th in passing. There are your Super Bowl teams.

Let's go back to VL's point about the O-line. If our offensive line was really good, don't you think we'd rank higher in passing? Say what you want about Kirk Cousins ... the man can flat-out sling it when he has time.

As for the running game, the only reason we're any good is because of Cook and Mattison. But if the O-line was really good, we could get plenty of mileage out of our running game, no matter who was back there.

Look at the top 10 running teams in the league. Outside of Lamar Jackson in Baltimore (an anomaly as a QB), Zeke in Dallas and MAYBE Derrick Henry in Tennessee, can anyone make a case that the runners on those teams are household names? We're talking teams like San Fran, Seattle, Indy, Buffalo, and Houston. There's no way you can look at those teams and conclude you must have an uber-talented, high-dollar running back to have an effective running game.

I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face. This isn't a Dalvin Cook issue for me. It's a philosophy issue. Paying Cook masks the symptom ... building a great O-line cures the disease.

I'm the biggest fan of having a good O line there is. A good O Line can make a mediocre QB and RB look quite good. However, a good O Line and a Great QB and RB like we have can be the stuff championships are built on. I fully agree with you that we should not overpay Cook. I just think $10 million isn't an overpay.

[S197]

Cousins had his big pay day and now he's dipping back into the trough. He's bleeding the team just like Stafford bled the Lions for years. If he said, "You know, I've made my money. Now I'll sign a team friendly deal to help get the other chess pieces in place" I wouldn't have as much of a problem. But it's another short-term extension with heavy guarantees. I think the no trade clause is also still in effect. I don't blame anyone for looking out for their own interests but this is a problem for the Vikings. And to make things worse, no contingency plan. Other than this year's Kyle Sloter, which is all we can bank on because heaven forbid Rick uses one of his 10+ draft picks he insists on every year on a QB before the 7th round.

I don't see how Cousins can be blamed for his deal when it is the Vikings who negotiated and offered it to him. I guess I can see how Cousins could have asked for less, but if the argument for giving Cook a big payday is along the lines of "football is risky" or "look at what other top performers at a given position are getting paid" then I find it difficult to accept someone arguing for Cook to get paid more would credibly argue that Cousins should accept less than what he can get, especially when Cousins' stats put him in the same general 5-10 overall ranking at his position as Cook's stats did at his.

The point you make strikes right at the heart of the cap allocation argument and how that has to be fitted to a larger strategy and not tied to the GM falling in love with a particular player or his "potential". The Cousins deal makes sense only if the obscene amount of money he's making fits into a larger overall picture of how the offense should be constructed. While I have no doubt that Cousins' deal will impinge on Spielman's ability to pay someone like Cook, I'd hope that is an intentional action on Spielman's part because he has a vision and a plan (hopefully developed in concert with the coaching staff). If Spielman does have such a plan, that would necessarily put a ceiling on how much the Vikings would be willing to pay a guy like Cook, and if so, I'd argue that is a good thing, not because I don't like Cook or think he is explosive at the position, but because the Vikings understand the relative importance of the position sans any particular player who plays it.

Hard to say if that is the case, but we know that Spielman has invested heavily at the TE position and at QB. He traded Diggs while drafting a rookie WR to replace him, so overall $$$ invested at WR are less. He's drafted heavily along the OL in recent years while not signing many high priced free agents except for Rieff and Remmers, and even those guys weren't particulary high-priced. He's drafted relatively high at RB, but not invested a lot of cap there. Most of the bigger stretch cap deals have gone to the defensive side of the football, which makes sense given Zimmer's background and general approach.

I don’t blame Cousins. I said I don’t blame anyone looking out for their own interests, which I’m specifically referring to Cousins. I blame the overall strategy that Spielman and Zimmer are putting out. It just seems to lack any sort of cohesiveness to me. We blew up the defense and drafted more players in the draft than anyone in modern history, which is indicative of a rebuild. Especially when considering the number of draftees last year. And yet we extended a QB to another team unfriendly contract when we have been a run first, ball control, defensive oriented team since Zimmer got here. That’s what I mean by a misallocation. You don’t need to pay a guy $30M to run play action and screens to your RB.

Then there’s the contingency issue which has been a Spielman problem for over a decade. And the “mid round QBs rarely work out” argument doesn’t hold water because 1) we’re paying a 4th round QB $30M+ a year and 2) you need to take shots even if they don’t work out. The position is simply too important not to take shots. It’s the reason why fans have to pin their hopes on the Kyle Sloters of the world, it’s quite literally all the crumbs this GM will give. We won’t get more draft picks than we had this year and he still waited until the 7th round to take a shot.

I guess what I’m saying is we are in a catch-22 situation because we have a QB that needs a strong cast around him to be successful. But his contract makes keeping a strong cast near impossible.

[VikingLord]

My expectation is that if the Vikings have enough common sense to offer $10 million and Cook has the common sense to accept good things will come.

Unfortunately, we know only that the Vikings made an extension offer and Cook turned it down. We don't know what they offered, nor do we know what Cook wants, so it's hard to say.

What we do know is that no other team paying a RB top-5 money made the Superbowl in recent memory. It wouldn't be a move based on modeling what has worked for other competitive teams.

[VikingLord]

I guess what I’m saying is we are in a catch-22 situation because we have a QB that needs a strong cast around him to be successful. But his contract makes keeping a strong cast near impossible.

You seem awfully dismissive of Cousins' performance despite the fact that his stats put him solidly in the top 10 at his position last year. In fact, his overall stats in some categories would put him among the top 5 and, at least to me, aren't much less compelling than those put forward to claim Cook is a top 5 RB.

For the record, I don't think *anyone* deserves to make $30 million a year playing football, but that is the market rate for QBs. If Spielman and Zimmer don't think Cousins is worth that, they wouldn't have signed him to the deal.