Vikings Message Board.Com

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:10 am

VikingsVictorious wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:38 pm
I'm going to do what I believe is most successful. Sometimes that will be similar to what somebody else did and other times it won't.
If I were running the Vikings I would do what is best for the Vikings NOT what is best for the Patriots.

You mean to tell me that you reject good ideas simply because somebody else came up with them? You can’t find anything the Patriots do that would be universally applicable? How about the way they set up contracts so they can move on from players before they decline? Sure, not every player is going to decline at the same point, but you can’t see where such a concept would apply to the Vikings or any other team?

Even Steve Jobs, as much a genius as he was, had to be fired because he refused to learn smart business practices that others were trying to show him. He had a million ideas but couldn’t run a company — a skill he needed to learn from others.

If a person can’t learn from the successes and failures of others, then I want no part of working with that person.

Look at the bolded above!!!!!!! In what world does that indicate I would reject good ideas simply because somebody else came up with them? I would utilize them where I see fit. Not utilize them if I don't think they are a good fit for our team. Something that was successful for the Patriots last year or previously does not mean it will be a good fit for our team this year.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:19 am

VikingLord wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:44 pm

And yet, Cousins got the big dollar extension and Cook hasn't, at least not yet. Why do you think that is?

I'm curious what people on this board feel Spielman could get in trade for Cook. Look around the league as it stands right now. Who is in need of a Dalvin Cook and what do people think they'd be willing to offer to get him?

Given the state of the NFL and the running back position, the uncertainty of future cap and CBA concerns, Cook’s demands to be overpaid, and his inability to stay on the field, I’m not sure ANYONE would trade ANYTHING for him. If they did, it would be a lowball offer.

I know what some of you are going to say — that I don’t think much of Dalvin Cook. That’s not it at all. It’s more like you need a heavy-duty truck and somebody tries to sell you a Ferrari. You may like the Ferrari. You may think it’s the coolest car on the planet. But you don’t need it, and you don’t want to pay for it.

Cook is a Ferrari. Fast, sleek, high performer — but costs a fortune and is in the shop a lot.

Anyone arguing Cook's worth to this team should be forced to watch the GB game until they conform.
The value of Cousin's vs. Cook should not be an argument. Cousins had a wealth of riches that most QBs do not have and his production was elevated as a result. Without Cook he #### the bed. 16/31 and 122 yards.

YikesVikes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:56 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:19 am
Given the state of the NFL and the running back position, the uncertainty of future cap and CBA concerns, Cook’s demands to be overpaid, and his inability to stay on the field, I’m not sure ANYONE would trade ANYTHING for him. If they did, it would be a lowball offer.

I know what some of you are going to say — that I don’t think much of Dalvin Cook. That’s not it at all. It’s more like you need a heavy-duty truck and somebody tries to sell you a Ferrari. You may like the Ferrari. You may think it’s the coolest car on the planet. But you don’t need it, and you don’t want to pay for it.

Cook is a Ferrari. Fast, sleek, high performer — but costs a fortune and is in the shop a lot.

Anyone arguing Cook's worth to this team should be forced to watch the GB game until they conform.
The value of Cousin's vs. Cook should not be an argument. Cousins had a wealth of riches that most QBs do not have and his production was elevated as a result. Without Cook he #### the bed. 16/31 and 122 yards.

So you are excusing the defense? The defense #### the bed too allowing Aaron Jones to rush for 154 yards and 2 touchdowns so it is not all Cousin’s fault

RandyMoss84 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 3:33 pm

YikesVikes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:56 pm

Anyone arguing Cook's worth to this team should be forced to watch the GB game until they conform.
The value of Cousin's vs. Cook should not be an argument. Cousins had a wealth of riches that most QBs do not have and his production was elevated as a result. Without Cook he #### the bed. 16/31 and 122 yards.

So you are excusing the defense? The defense #### the bed too allowing Aaron Jones to rush for 154 yards and 2 touchdowns so it is not all Cousin’s fault

The defense gave the Vikings 3 points right off the bat turning over the Packers and giving the offense the ball on the ten. The offense picked up 5 yards and failed to score a TD of course.

They then held the Packers to 9 points until they just got worn down in the 3rd quarter and gave up a TD after a Cousins int to lose the lead.

The D actually turned the Packers over 3 times in that game, giving the offense great field position twice. They played really well until the end when they just couldn't hold up any more. The Vikings had 7 first downs in that game and you are blaming the D for giving up rushing yards late?

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:06 am

RandyMoss84 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 3:33 pm

So you are excusing the defense? The defense #### the bed too allowing Aaron Jones to rush for 154 yards and 2 touchdowns so it is not all Cousin’s fault

The defense gave the Vikings 3 points right off the bat turning over the Packers and giving the offense the ball on the ten. The offense picked up 5 yards and failed to score a TD of course.

They then held the Packers to 9 points until they just got worn down in the 3rd quarter and gave up a TD after a Cousins int to lose the lead.

The D actually turned the Packers over 3 times in that game, giving the offense great field position twice. They played really well until the end when they just couldn't hold up any more. The Vikings had 7 first downs in that game and you are blaming the D for giving up rushing yards late?

Yes so stop blaming the loss on Cousins, I guess you are the kind of person to blame on Cousins every time Vikings lose and when Vikings win, you do not give Cousins any credit

YikesVikes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:56 pm
Anyone arguing Cook's worth to this team should be forced to watch the GB game until they conform.
The value of Cousin's vs. Cook should not be an argument. Cousins had a wealth of riches that most QBs do not have and his production was elevated as a result. Without Cook he #### the bed. 16/31 and 122 yards.

What about the San Fran game in the playoffs with Cook? I don't recall Cook's presence in that game having particular impact, nor being very beneficial to Cousins.

RandyMoss84 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 12:50 pm

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:06 am
The defense gave the Vikings 3 points right off the bat turning over the Packers and giving the offense the ball on the ten. The offense picked up 5 yards and failed to score a TD of course.

They then held the Packers to 9 points until they just got worn down in the 3rd quarter and gave up a TD after a Cousins int to lose the lead.

The D actually turned the Packers over 3 times in that game, giving the offense great field position twice. They played really well until the end when they just couldn't hold up any more. The Vikings had 7 first downs in that game and you are blaming the D for giving up rushing yards late?

Yes so stop blaming the loss on Cousins, I guess you are the kind of person to blame on Cousins every time Vikings lose and when Vikings win, you do not give Cousins any credit

I specifically did not blame Cousins for that loss and put it on the entire offense, of which Cook was not a part of.

The defense played great in that game until the end when the just got worn down. Rodgers had a 68 passer rating and the Vikes kicked his butt the entire game. With a better offensive product, the runs in the 3rd and 4th don't happen and the QB who had been playing poorly would have had to throw it more.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 7:26 pm

RandyMoss84 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 12:50 pm

Yes so stop blaming the loss on Cousins, I guess you are the kind of person to blame on Cousins every time Vikings lose and when Vikings win, you do not give Cousins any credit

I specifically did not blame Cousins for that loss and put it on the entire offense, of which Cook was not a part of.

The defense played great in that game until the end when the just got worn down. Rodgers had a 68 passer rating and the Vikes kicked his butt the entire game. With a better offensive product, the runs in the 3rd and 4th don't happen and the QB who had been playing poorly would have had to throw it more.

Got it

VikingLord wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 1:18 pm

YikesVikes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:56 pm
Anyone arguing Cook's worth to this team should be forced to watch the GB game until they conform.
The value of Cousin's vs. Cook should not be an argument. Cousins had a wealth of riches that most QBs do not have and his production was elevated as a result. Without Cook he #### the bed. 16/31 and 122 yards.

What about the San Fran game in the playoffs with Cook? I don't recall Cook's presence in that game having particular impact, nor being very beneficial to Cousins.

There you go.

We can also go back to 2017, when we were 2-2 with Cook and 11-1 without him. And we had one of the better rushing offenses in the league with Latavius Murray and Jerick McKinnon carrying the load.

It’s disingenuous to cite one game as proof that any one player is irreplaceable.

VikingsVictorious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:03 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:10 am
You mean to tell me that you reject good ideas simply because somebody else came up with them? You can’t find anything the Patriots do that would be universally applicable? How about the way they set up contracts so they can move on from players before they decline? Sure, not every player is going to decline at the same point, but you can’t see where such a concept would apply to the Vikings or any other team?

Even Steve Jobs, as much a genius as he was, had to be fired because he refused to learn smart business practices that others were trying to show him. He had a million ideas but couldn’t run a company — a skill he needed to learn from others.

If a person can’t learn from the successes and failures of others, then I want no part of working with that person.

Look at the bolded above!!!!!!! In what world does that indicate I would reject good ideas simply because somebody else came up with them? I would utilize them where I see fit. Not utilize them if I don't think they are a good fit for our team. Something that was successful for the Patriots last year or previously does not mean it will be a good fit for our team this year.

Wasn’t referring to the bolded part. I was referring to your comment that you don’t believe in modeling.

Doesn’t make you a bad person ... just someone I would have a hard time working with.

And who said anything about the Patriots and last year? I’ve clearly cited the last 20 years. Your mileage may vary, but I pay attention to organizations that have sustained success. It’s the longest-running dynasty in NFL history. If I were a GM, I’d be interested in understanding what makes them so successful and implementing whatever makes sense to implement.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:56 pm

VikingsVictorious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:03 pm
Look at the bolded above!!!!!!! In what world does that indicate I would reject good ideas simply because somebody else came up with them? I would utilize them where I see fit. Not utilize them if I don't think they are a good fit for our team. Something that was successful for the Patriots last year or previously does not mean it will be a good fit for our team this year.

Wasn’t referring to the bolded part. I was referring to your comment that you don’t believe in modeling.

Doesn’t make you a bad person ... just someone I would have a hard time working with.

And who said anything about the Patriots and last year? I’ve clearly cited the last 20 years. Your mileage may vary, but I pay attention to organizations that have sustained success. It’s the longest-running dynasty in NFL history. If I were a GM, I’d be interested in understanding what makes them so successful and implementing whatever makes sense to implement.

here is the bolded part again to try to help you.
VikingsVictorious wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 7:38 pm

I'm going to do what I believe is most successful. Sometimes that will be similar to what somebody else did and other times it won't.
If I were running the Vikings I would do what is best for the Vikings NOT what is best for the Patriots.
Kapp you are too intelligent to be spouting this nonsense. I said in the bolded part I would use things similar to what was successful for another team which may or may not include the Patriots where I saw fit. I also said I would not use similar things to what was successful for them where I did not see fit. Since you did reply to my comment with the bolded part you were indeed referring to the bolded part. If you had any reading comprehension at all which I am sure you do it was plainly typed for all to see that I would utilize things that were successful from other franchises which may include the patriots where I saw fit to use them.
I am not going to do what any other organization happened to do where it is unlikely to be successful for the team I am running in this fictitious exercise. Why on Earth would I follow something any other team had been doing now or 20 years ago in a case where it was unlikely to be successful for our team.

Maybe this will help you. I am not going to copycat another teams successful maneuvers just for the sake of copying them. That would be idiotic. There is no guarantee those maneuvers would be successful now. There was a time the Wing T formation was successful in football. I'm not going to copycat that. I would incorporate ideas that are likely to be successful for us along with coming up with my/our own ideas that are likely to be successful for us or is that not allowed in your we must copy the Patriots rhetoric.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:49 pm

VikingLord wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 1:18 pm

What about the San Fran game in the playoffs with Cook? I don't recall Cook's presence in that game having particular impact, nor being very beneficial to Cousins.

There you go.

We can also go back to 2017, when we were 2-2 with Cook and 11-1 without him. And we had one of the better rushing offenses in the league with Latavius Murray and Jerick McKinnon carrying the load.

It’s disingenuous to cite one game as proof that any one player is irreplaceable.

In 2017 the run game was not featured nearly as much once Cook went down or as much as it was in 2019.

The run game also wasn't very good. 3.9 yards per attempt was bottom ten in the NFL, but they ran the ball a lot late in games with a two score lead which helped the total yards that season. 181 of 501 rushes came in the 4th when up two scores or more, which was the most in the NFL by 50 attempts. You take away all those extra rushes late when they really didn't matter, and it was a well below average rushing attack.

Not all rushing yards are the same.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:56 pm

VikingsVictorious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:03 pm
Look at the bolded above!!!!!!! In what world does that indicate I would reject good ideas simply because somebody else came up with them? I would utilize them where I see fit. Not utilize them if I don't think they are a good fit for our team. Something that was successful for the Patriots last year or previously does not mean it will be a good fit for our team this year.

Wasn’t referring to the bolded part. I was referring to your comment that you don’t believe in modeling.

Doesn’t make you a bad person ... just someone I would have a hard time working with.

And who said anything about the Patriots and last year? I’ve clearly cited the last 20 years. Your mileage may vary, but I pay attention to organizations that have sustained success. It’s the longest-running dynasty in NFL history. If I were a GM, I’d be interested in understanding what makes them so successful and implementing whatever makes sense to implement.

Didn't NE spend a 1st on a RB in 2018? So they do value that position, and will spend resources on it, they just refuse to spend a lot of cap at it. Which is true of nearly every position for the Pats. I mean, they let Tom Brady go to avoid paying him.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:53 am Didn't NE spend a 1st on a RB in 2018? So they do value that position, and will spend resources on it, they just refuse to spend a lot of cap at it. Which is true of nearly every position for the Pats. I mean, they let Tom Brady go to avoid paying him.

Which is the point Kapp is making I believe.

Nobody is saying the RB position doesn't have value or should be ignored, or that the Pats have had success ignoring it.

The Pats have had success largely defining the value of positions sans the players who play those positions and avoiding falling into the trap of believing they need anyone in particular to have success as a team.

Brady is the closest thing the Pats have ever had to an "indispensable" player, and, as you note, were more than willing to part ways with him when his value no longer matched his salary demands.

Whether that has worked is left as another exercise for the reader.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:39 am Not all rushing yards are the same.

That is an excellent observation and sums up what I was trying to say when I wrote that I don't think the Vikings are or want to be a run-first offense.

Cook's heroics behind an offensive line that is not particularly designed with run-blockers in mind does not make the Vikings offensive scheme run-first, nor indicate that is what the Vikings want it to become.

We've seen some recent teams, even good teams, that did have that philosophy. Heck, we saw one last year in the 49ers. But invariably, the teams in recent NFL history that have emphasized the running game have had 2 characteristics:

- They were clearly designed to emphasize the run, from the composition of their offensive linemen to the number and type of their running backs, and usually such teams got significant contributions from multiple backs, weren't particularly explosive, and also had QBs who weren't particularly afraid to run either.
- They usually had poor passing games, either because they lacked good receivers in the passing game, or because their offensive lines had notable weaknesses in pass protection, or because their QBs were not particularly good.

I can't think of a run-oriented team in recent history that relied on a star RB for explosive runs. The teams that ran well came at defenses with a stable of backs and consistency. If they got explosive runs that was icing on the cake, but due to their lack of explosion in the passing game they rarely did. And the ones that had playoff success usually did so on the back of a strong defense that kept games close and allowed the methodical run-oriented offense to remain viable.

I don't believe Spielman and Zimmer want to be a run-first offense, and as a result I don't believe they will ever offer Cook the kind of money he probably wants. I think they could go a little higher than the $4 million or so Kapp thinks the position is worth, but not a lot higher than that. I think Cook should get as much guarantee as the Vikings can give him that they won't franchise him after this upcoming season ends, and then he should blow the doors off the barn and hit FA and see what he can get. That's the best thing for him, for the Vikings for next year, and if the Vikings feel differently about him towards the end of the year or really want to keep him in the fold, they can pay him whatever the market rate is at that time.