Ty Chandler

[VikingsVictorious]

I bet Mattison gets more than 1-2 million. He's only a backup because of Cook. He's a starter on many NFL teams. We disagree. I know the RB position is being devalued, but not to the extent you think it is.

Yes, it is to the extent I think it is.

Of the 38 running backs who will account for at least $2 million against their teams’ caps in 2022, only 8 of them played for playoff teams last year. Three of those played for the Raiders. Another was Ezekiel Elliott, who was terrible.

As for my $4 million number, 18 will count at least $4 million against the cap in ‘22. Exactly four of those made the playoffs, and only one (Joe Mixon) made it out of the first round.

The more I research this, the firmer I stand on my $4 million number.

And I continue with my howling laughter at you. It's a ridiculous stance.

[VikingsVictorious]

Give me a break. You obviously know that I'm saying on many teams he would be the starter. If you couldn't grasp that I'm sorry.

Yes, I know that is what you were saying.

I am telling you he would not be a starter on any of the teams in the NFL. He is a middling player.

What about his 150 yards from scrimmage when he starts gives you that belief.

[J. Kapp 11]

Yes, it is to the extent I think it is.

Of the 38 running backs who will account for at least $2 million against their teams’ caps in 2022, only 8 of them played for playoff teams last year. Three of those played for the Raiders. Another was Ezekiel Elliott, who was terrible.

As for my $4 million number, 18 will count at least $4 million against the cap in ‘22. Exactly four of those made the playoffs, and only one (Joe Mixon) made it out of the first round.

The more I research this, the firmer I stand on my $4 million number.

And I continue with my howling laughter at you. It's a ridiculous stance.

And once again you’ve brought nothing to support your position, so you’re really just laughing in the mirror.

[VikingsVictorious]

And I continue with my howling laughter at you. It's a ridiculous stance.

And once again you’ve brought nothing to support your position, so you’re really just laughing in the mirror.

What I've brought is common sense.
You keep talking about what playoff teams did. You understand that correlation does not mean causation. Cook does far more good for us than anyone else we could spend the $4million. Now of course we're actually spending 12Million so that's a different story, but if you would let Cook walk rather than pay him over $4million I find that howlingly laughable. It's flat out ridiculous. However, you are digging in on this.

[J. Kapp 11]

And once again you’ve brought nothing to support your position, so you’re really just laughing in the mirror.

What I've brought is common sense.
You keep talking about what playoff teams did. You understand that correlation does not mean causation. Cook does far more good for us than anyone else we could spend the $4million. Now of course we're actually spending 12Million so that's a different story, but if you would let Cook walk rather than pay him over $4million I find that howlingly laughable. It's flat out ridiculous. However, you are digging in on this.

I’m trying to be patient, but it’s getting tough. Most of your takes are solid, and I enjoy most exchanges with you. But when you disagree, you resort to personal attacks like “laughable.”

Here’s where you’re losing your way, my friend.

You’re giving an opinion. An opinion, by definition, cannot be proved. If it can be proved, it becomes fact. So what you’re saying about Dalvin Cook can’t be proved. One guy thinks one thing, the other guy thinks something else.

Guess what? What I’m saying about Dalvin Cook can’t be proved, either. It’s an opinion. On its own, my opinion is no more valid than yours.

Now, I’m sure you know this, but in court, opinions are not admitted as evidence UNLESS such an opinion is rendered by someone the court considers an expert. And even then, that expert must back his/her opinion with facts … things that CAN be proven. If the expert doesn’t present facts, opposing counsel will object on the grounds that the expert testimony is argumentative. It’s the old “is not … is too” thing that children do. It gets nowhere.

When you say Dalvin Cook is worth more than $4 million, that’s argumentative. And when I say he’s not, that’s argumentative, too. Neither of us are experts, and neither of us have presented any facts. So basically our opinions are like you-know-whats … everybody has one.

To advance the conversation, I have presented many facts since I first expressed my opinion. For example, only one team paying its RB1 more than $4 million won even a single playoff game, and only four teams in that situation even MADE the playoffs. Is that the greatest fact ever presented in an argument? No, it’s not. But it’s something. And it gives my opinion a little credibility. The more facts I present, the better my case becomes.

You could do the exact same thing to counter my argument. You are absolutely free — in fact encouraged — to present facts. If you did that, it not only would help your case, it would help the conversation. I would enjoy it immensely.

But you haven’t done that. Not even once, in any disagreement you and I have ever had, including this one, have you presented a fact to back your opinion. The best you’ve done is find a writer whose opinion, also not backed with facts, matches yours. Finding someone who agrees with you is not fact.

And yet … you say you laugh at me. That takes the argument into the realm of “now you’re just pissing me off.” And it weakens your argument, big time.

Here’s the deal, dude. I don’t care who “wins.” I just know that I have done my best to present a reasonably solid case, backed in facts. You have not. So until you present a fact, I’m done talking about this.

Have a good day.

[VikingsVictorious]

What I've brought is common sense.
You keep talking about what playoff teams did. You understand that correlation does not mean causation. Cook does far more good for us than anyone else we could spend the $4million. Now of course we're actually spending 12Million so that's a different story, but if you would let Cook walk rather than pay him over $4million I find that howlingly laughable. It's flat out ridiculous. However, you are digging in on this.

I’m trying to be patient, but it’s getting tough. Most of your takes are solid, and I enjoy most exchanges with you. But when you disagree, you resort to personal attacks like “laughable.”

Here’s where you’re losing your way, my friend.

You’re giving an opinion. An opinion, by definition, cannot be proved. If it can be proved, it becomes fact. So what you’re saying about Dalvin Cook can’t be proved. One guy thinks one thing, the other guy thinks something else.

Guess what? What I’m saying about Dalvin Cook can’t be proved, either. It’s an opinion. On its own, my opinion is no more valid than yours.

Now, I’m sure you know this, but in court, opinions are not admitted as evidence UNLESS such an opinion is rendered by someone the court considers an expert. And even then, that expert must back his/her opinion with facts … things that CAN be proven. If the expert doesn’t present facts, opposing counsel will object on the grounds that the expert testimony is argumentative. It’s the old “is not … is too” thing that children do. It gets nowhere.

When you say Dalvin Cook is worth more than $4 million, that’s argumentative. And when I say he’s not, that’s argumentative, too. Neither of us are experts, and neither of us have presented any facts. So basically our opinions are like you-know-whats … everybody has one.

To advance the conversation, I have presented many facts since I first expressed my opinion. For example, only one team paying its RB1 more than $4 million won even a single playoff game, and only four teams in that situation even MADE the playoffs. Is that the greatest fact ever presented in an argument? No, it’s not. But it’s something. And it gives my opinion a little credibility. The more facts I present, the better my case becomes.

You could do the exact same thing to counter my argument. You are absolutely free — in fact encouraged — to present facts. If you did that, it not only would help your case, it would help the conversation. I would enjoy it immensely.

But you haven’t done that. Not even once, in any disagreement you and I have ever had, including this one, have you presented a fact to back your opinion. The best you’ve done is find a writer whose opinion, also not backed with facts, matches yours. Finding someone who agrees with you is not fact.

And yet … you say you laugh at me. That takes the argument into the realm of “now you’re just pissing me off.” And it weakens your argument, big time.

Here’s the deal, dude. I don’t care who “wins.” I just know that I have done my best to present a reasonably solid case, backed in facts. You have not. So until you present a fact, I’m done talking about this.

Have a good day.

You're the one who brought up howling laughter. I was just going along with what you said. I'm glad you realize that your facts were not a strong argument at all in this case. Just because a playoff team that didn't pay a RB on their roster an average starting NFL wage proves nothing about how useful a great RB is. I've consistently said that your idea of paying less to RBs has some merit. It's just the extreme you've taken it to that I believe has no merit.

My facts are to check out production of players not on Rookie Contracts and compare them to Dalvin Cook. I'm honestly not up to checking every player in the NFL's contract and production, but I'm HIGHLY CONFIDENT you won't find more productive players than Dalvin Cook in that price range. Check out the Vikings players making ballpark $4 million not on rookie contracts. Show me one who is more productive than Cook. Then look around the entire NFL at players making ballpark 4Million not on rookie contracts. You're not going to find players more productive than Dalvin Cook at that price. Some players on Rookie Contracts might be in Cook's range of production. Joe Burrow for example, but he gets over $4 million anyway. Regardless we can't fill a 53 player roster with all Rookie Contracts. Some will have to be paid market value.

Cook produces well over 100 yards a game. What makes a WR producing 100 yards a game worth $25-30 million a year (the going rate based on recent contracts), but Cook is only worth $4million. I think Cook produces slightly more yards per game than Justin Jefferson. I get it's yards above replacement that matters most and it's more difficult to replace a quality WR than a Quality RB. I do get that, and I realize that Jefferson produces a higher average per attempt, but is Jefferson's production worth 7x per yard more than Cook's (we do agree he will be getting $25million per year or more on his next contract right?) ? If Cook breaks a 70 yard run is it worthless because it was a run, but what if he catches a pass for 70 yards. Is it valuable then or only when it's a WR doing that does it become valuable?

How idiotic do you really consider Rick Spielman for giving Cook $12 million a year going up? Did he overpay? Maybe, but did he overpay by $8 million a year or more? By triple what he should be paying? Is he really that much of an idiot? Is every GM in the NFL paying over $4 million a year to their star RB an idiot? My answer to that is NO. It's common sense that if you have a great RB producing 100 plus yards per game that player is VALUABLE to his team. They can't be replaced adequately by a UDFA making league minimum just so you can go out and sign somebody for $4 million. Maybe the correct answer is somewhere between your $4million and Rick's $12million. $8million I could see as reasonable.

You say you have been patient? I've been extremely patient waiting for you to admit that this $4 million max is an extreme exaggeration. I've given you opportunity again and again to just admit the IMO obvious. However, because of how far our debate has gone I get it would be almost impossible for you to do that.

[fiestavike]

My facts are to check out production of players not on Rookie Contracts and compare them to Dalvin Cook. I'm honestly not up to checking every player in the NFL's contract and production, but I'm HIGHLY CONFIDENT you won't find more productive players than Dalvin Cook in that price range. Check out the Vikings players making ballpark $4 million not on rookie contracts. Show me one who is more productive than Cook. Then look around the entire NFL at players making ballpark 4Million not on rookie contracts. You're not going to find players more productive than Dalvin Cook at that price. Some players on Rookie Contracts might be in Cook's range of production. Joe Burrow for example, but he gets over $4 million anyway. Regardless we can't fill a 53 player roster with all Rookie Contracts. Some will have to be paid market value.

Cook produces well over 100 yards a game. What makes a WR producing 100 yards a game worth $25-30 million a year (the going rate based on recent contracts), but Cook is only worth $4million. I think Cook produces slightly more yards per game than Justin Jefferson. I get it's yards above replacement that matters most and it's more difficult to replace a quality WR than a Quality RB. I do get that, and I realize that Jefferson produces a higher average per attempt, but is Jefferson's production worth 7x per yard more than Cook's (we do agree he will be getting $25million per year or more on his next contract right?) ? If Cook breaks a 70 yard run is it worthless because it was a run, but what if he catches a pass for 70 yards. Is it valuable then or only when it's a WR doing that does it become valuable?

By your own argument, Alexander Mattison, who makes 1.17 million against the cap produces 150 yards per game. If Alexander Mattison costs 1.17 million for his 150 yards per game, then Dalvin Cook is wildly overpaid.

I find that your approach to discerning value by this production is not sound, but so be it. I'll go with you on it for a mile, but I think in assessing both arguments you have been engaged in within this thread, you'll have to conclude that you are wrong about at least one of them. You are fundamentally arguing against yourself one way or the other.

[VikingsVictorious]

My facts are to check out production of players not on Rookie Contracts and compare them to Dalvin Cook. I'm honestly not up to checking every player in the NFL's contract and production, but I'm HIGHLY CONFIDENT you won't find more productive players than Dalvin Cook in that price range. Check out the Vikings players making ballpark $4 million not on rookie contracts. Show me one who is more productive than Cook. Then look around the entire NFL at players making ballpark 4Million not on rookie contracts. You're not going to find players more productive than Dalvin Cook at that price. Some players on Rookie Contracts might be in Cook's range of production. Joe Burrow for example, but he gets over $4 million anyway. Regardless we can't fill a 53 player roster with all Rookie Contracts. Some will have to be paid market value.

Cook produces well over 100 yards a game. What makes a WR producing 100 yards a game worth $25-30 million a year (the going rate based on recent contracts), but Cook is only worth $4million. I think Cook produces slightly more yards per game than Justin Jefferson. I get it's yards above replacement that matters most and it's more difficult to replace a quality WR than a Quality RB. I do get that, and I realize that Jefferson produces a higher average per attempt, but is Jefferson's production worth 7x per yard more than Cook's (we do agree he will be getting $25million per year or more on his next contract right?) ? If Cook breaks a 70 yard run is it worthless because it was a run, but what if he catches a pass for 70 yards. Is it valuable then or only when it's a WR doing that does it become valuable?

By your own argument, Alexander Mattison, who makes 1.17 million against the cap produces 150 yards per game. If Alexander Mattison costs 1.17 million for his 150 yards per game, then Dalvin Cook is wildly overpaid.

I find that your approach to discerning value by this production is not sound, but so be it. I'll go with you on it for a mile, but I think in assessing both arguments you have been engaged in within this thread, you'll have to conclude that you are wrong about at least one of them. You are fundamentally arguing against yourself one way or the other.

I already figured that somebody was going to use this argument against me and it's not a bad one, BUT..........
He's on a rookie contract so that throws out the comparison of pay to production vs Cook.
Mattison doesn't produce 150 yards per game. He's nowhere close to that. He only does that in starts and it's probably a bit less (I was counting his better games so I probably exaggerated a bit. Sorry). Small sample size and he's not as dynamic as Cook. I'd put Mattison as a $5million RB and Cook as a $10million RB. I totally get people who would value them at less. My disagreement level would depend on how much less. The only argument I'm really making is that the $4million limit, no matter how good the RB is, is way too extreme.
How do you feel about Top WRs getting paid 7X per yard vs Top RBs. That's the way it is if you accept the $4million limit for RBs.

[J. Kapp 11]

I’m trying to be patient, but it’s getting tough. Most of your takes are solid, and I enjoy most exchanges with you. But when you disagree, you resort to personal attacks like “laughable.”

Here’s where you’re losing your way, my friend.

You’re giving an opinion. An opinion, by definition, cannot be proved. If it can be proved, it becomes fact. So what you’re saying about Dalvin Cook can’t be proved. One guy thinks one thing, the other guy thinks something else.

Guess what? What I’m saying about Dalvin Cook can’t be proved, either. It’s an opinion. On its own, my opinion is no more valid than yours.

Now, I’m sure you know this, but in court, opinions are not admitted as evidence UNLESS such an opinion is rendered by someone the court considers an expert. And even then, that expert must back his/her opinion with facts … things that CAN be proven. If the expert doesn’t present facts, opposing counsel will object on the grounds that the expert testimony is argumentative. It’s the old “is not … is too” thing that children do. It gets nowhere.

When you say Dalvin Cook is worth more than $4 million, that’s argumentative. And when I say he’s not, that’s argumentative, too. Neither of us are experts, and neither of us have presented any facts. So basically our opinions are like you-know-whats … everybody has one.

To advance the conversation, I have presented many facts since I first expressed my opinion. For example, only one team paying its RB1 more than $4 million won even a single playoff game, and only four teams in that situation even MADE the playoffs. Is that the greatest fact ever presented in an argument? No, it’s not. But it’s something. And it gives my opinion a little credibility. The more facts I present, the better my case becomes.

You could do the exact same thing to counter my argument. You are absolutely free — in fact encouraged — to present facts. If you did that, it not only would help your case, it would help the conversation. I would enjoy it immensely.

But you haven’t done that. Not even once, in any disagreement you and I have ever had, including this one, have you presented a fact to back your opinion. The best you’ve done is find a writer whose opinion, also not backed with facts, matches yours. Finding someone who agrees with you is not fact.

And yet … you say you laugh at me. That takes the argument into the realm of “now you’re just pissing me off.” And it weakens your argument, big time.

Here’s the deal, dude. I don’t care who “wins.” I just know that I have done my best to present a reasonably solid case, backed in facts. You have not. So until you present a fact, I’m done talking about this.

Have a good day.

You're the one who brought up howling laughter. I was just going along with what you said. I'm glad you realize that your facts were not a strong argument at all in this case. Just because a playoff team that didn't pay a RB on their roster an average starting NFL wage proves nothing about how useful a great RB is. I've consistently said that your idea of paying less to RBs has some merit. It's just the extreme you've taken it to that I believe has no merit.

My facts are to check out production of players not on Rookie Contracts and compare them to Dalvin Cook. I'm honestly not up to checking every player in the NFL's contract and production, but I'm HIGHLY CONFIDENT you won't find more productive players than Dalvin Cook in that price range. Check out the Vikings players making ballpark $4 million not on rookie contracts. Show me one who is more productive than Cook. Then look around the entire NFL at players making ballpark 4Million not on rookie contracts. You're not going to find players more productive than Dalvin Cook at that price. Some players on Rookie Contracts might be in Cook's range of production. Joe Burrow for example, but he gets over $4 million anyway. Regardless we can't fill a 53 player roster with all Rookie Contracts. Some will have to be paid market value.

Cook produces well over 100 yards a game. What makes a WR producing 100 yards a game worth $25-30 million a year (the going rate based on recent contracts), but Cook is only worth $4million. I think Cook produces slightly more yards per game than Justin Jefferson. I get it's yards above replacement that matters most and it's more difficult to replace a quality WR than a Quality RB. I do get that, and I realize that Jefferson produces a higher average per attempt, but is Jefferson's production worth 7x per yard more than Cook's (we do agree he will be getting $25million per year or more on his next contract right?) ? If Cook breaks a 70 yard run is it worthless because it was a run, but what if he catches a pass for 70 yards. Is it valuable then or only when it's a WR doing that does it become valuable?

How idiotic do you really consider Rick Spielman for giving Cook $12 million a year going up? Did he overpay? Maybe, but did he overpay by $8 million a year or more? By triple what he should be paying? Is he really that much of an idiot? Is every GM in the NFL paying over $4 million a year to their star RB an idiot? My answer to that is NO. It's common sense that if you have a great RB producing 100 plus yards per game that player is VALUABLE to his team. They can't be replaced adequately by a UDFA making league minimum just so you can go out and sign somebody for $4 million. Maybe the correct answer is somewhere between your $4million and Rick's $12million. $8million I could see as reasonable.

You say you have been patient? I've been extremely patient waiting for you to admit that this $4 million max is an extreme exaggeration. I've given you opportunity again and again to just admit the IMO obvious. However, because of how far our debate has gone I get it would be almost impossible for you to do that.

You’ve been patient with me because you’re waiting for me to admit I’m wrong about this?

I hope you have an ocean of patience because I will NEVER admit that. Because I have facts on my side.

To answer your question, yes … Rick Spielman really was that much of an idiot. This isn’t about what Dalvin Cook produces. It’s about what Dalvin Cook produces compared to other running backs, and it’s about the relative value of a running back vs. other positions, such as wide receiver. Cook’s 2021 success rate — the amount of time a play finished with a positive EPA on rushes — was 38 percent, which is about league average. That means you’re paying a $13 million AAV for a league-average running back. And you can’t blame the O-line, which finished 12th in run-block win rate. Add in the fact that he’s played only 56 out of 91 games in his career, and I have to wonder what the hell Spielman was smoking.

Comparing Dalvin Cook’s production to other running backs not on rookie contracts is a ridiculous comparison on its face. The whole point is to determine whether a running back is worth a particular amount. Your comparison purposefully eliminates guys on rookie deals who actually out-produce Cook. By “out-produce,” I’m talking about advanced metrics, not the counting stats still used by people like you who continue to live in the past.

As for Alexander Mattison, his success rate was only 27 percent, 11 points lower than Cook’s and well below league average. So yes, he can easily be replaced by a solid UDFA. Since you like to talk about laughable things, your assertion that Mattison is worth $5 million is one of the most laughable takes in the history of Vikings Message Board.

This is really a conversation about dinosaur methods of evaluating players, such as counting stats, vs. modern methods. So yeah, for one given play, a 70-yard run is the same as a 70-yard pass. But when GMs look at advanced metrics such as EPA/play, they see that rushing for 1,000 yards isn’t worth nearly as much as a receiver gaining 1,000 yards. If you can’t understand that, then I would suggest you spend less time ridiculing people like me and more time studying advanced metrics, as well as the methods used to value players.

[VikingsVictorious]

You're the one who brought up howling laughter. I was just going along with what you said. I'm glad you realize that your facts were not a strong argument at all in this case. Just because a playoff team that didn't pay a RB on their roster an average starting NFL wage proves nothing about how useful a great RB is. I've consistently said that your idea of paying less to RBs has some merit. It's just the extreme you've taken it to that I believe has no merit.

My facts are to check out production of players not on Rookie Contracts and compare them to Dalvin Cook. I'm honestly not up to checking every player in the NFL's contract and production, but I'm HIGHLY CONFIDENT you won't find more productive players than Dalvin Cook in that price range. Check out the Vikings players making ballpark $4 million not on rookie contracts. Show me one who is more productive than Cook. Then look around the entire NFL at players making ballpark 4Million not on rookie contracts. You're not going to find players more productive than Dalvin Cook at that price. Some players on Rookie Contracts might be in Cook's range of production. Joe Burrow for example, but he gets over $4 million anyway. Regardless we can't fill a 53 player roster with all Rookie Contracts. Some will have to be paid market value.

Cook produces well over 100 yards a game. What makes a WR producing 100 yards a game worth $25-30 million a year (the going rate based on recent contracts), but Cook is only worth $4million. I think Cook produces slightly more yards per game than Justin Jefferson. I get it's yards above replacement that matters most and it's more difficult to replace a quality WR than a Quality RB. I do get that, and I realize that Jefferson produces a higher average per attempt, but is Jefferson's production worth 7x per yard more than Cook's (we do agree he will be getting $25million per year or more on his next contract right?) ? If Cook breaks a 70 yard run is it worthless because it was a run, but what if he catches a pass for 70 yards. Is it valuable then or only when it's a WR doing that does it become valuable?

How idiotic do you really consider Rick Spielman for giving Cook $12 million a year going up? Did he overpay? Maybe, but did he overpay by $8 million a year or more? By triple what he should be paying? Is he really that much of an idiot? Is every GM in the NFL paying over $4 million a year to their star RB an idiot? My answer to that is NO. It's common sense that if you have a great RB producing 100 plus yards per game that player is VALUABLE to his team. They can't be replaced adequately by a UDFA making league minimum just so you can go out and sign somebody for $4 million. Maybe the correct answer is somewhere between your $4million and Rick's $12million. $8million I could see as reasonable.

You say you have been patient? I've been extremely patient waiting for you to admit that this $4 million max is an extreme exaggeration. I've given you opportunity again and again to just admit the IMO obvious. However, because of how far our debate has gone I get it would be almost impossible for you to do that.

You’ve been patient with me because you’re waiting for me to admit I’m wrong about this?

I hope you have an ocean of patience because I will NEVER admit that. Because I have facts on my side.

To answer your question, yes … Rick Spielman really was that much of an idiot. This isn’t about what Dalvin Cook produces. It’s about what Dalvin Cook produces compared to other running backs, and it’s about the relative value of a running back vs. other positions, such as wide receiver. Cook’s 2021 success rate — the amount of time a play finished with a positive EPA on rushes — was 38 percent, which is about league average. That means you’re paying a $13 million AAV for a league-average running back. And you can’t blame the O-line, which finished 12th in run-block win rate. Add in the fact that he’s played only 56 out of 91 games in his career, and I have to wonder what the hell Spielman was smoking.

Comparing Dalvin Cook’s production to other running backs not on rookie contracts is a ridiculous comparison on its face. The whole point is to determine whether a running back is worth a particular amount. Your comparison purposefully eliminates guys on rookie deals who actually out-produce Cook. By “out-produce,” I’m talking about advanced metrics, not the counting stats still used by people like you who continue to live in the past.

As for Alexander Mattison, his success rate was only 27 percent, 11 points lower than Cook’s and well below league average. So yes, he can easily be replaced by a solid UDFA. Since you like to talk about laughable things, your assertion that Mattison is worth $5 million is one of the most laughable takes in the history of Vikings Message Board.

This is really a conversation about dinosaur methods of evaluating players, such as counting stats, vs. modern methods. So yeah, for one given play, a 70-yard run is the same as a 70-yard pass. But when GMs look at advanced metrics such as EPA/play, they see that rushing for 1,000 yards isn’t worth nearly as much as a receiver gaining 1,000 yards. If you can’t understand that, then I would suggest you spend less time ridiculing people like me and more time studying advanced metrics, as well as the methods used to value players.

You wanted facts I gave them and you ignored them. The facts are not on your side. WRs aren't 7X per yard more valuable than RBs. I already pointed out that not all yards gained are created equal. So stop the misrepresentation of my position. It's like you never even read my posts and then argue against them. Or you do read them and intentionally lie about my stance. I acknowledged every argument you are making, some before you even made them, and still pointed out how IMO ridiculous your stance is. You're saying the best RB in the league is worth below the pay for an average NFL starter. It's ridiculous. You keep holding to that. The funny thing is I finally think you may actually believe this stuff.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Not sure if you guys mentioned this or not but I do see that there is a potential out in his contract in 2023. I wonder what we will do in that instance. I'm sure a lot of it will depend on how he does this year. There's an outside chance we can lose both Cook and Mattison next offseason.

[JJBreaksRecords]

Not sure if you guys mentioned this or not but I do see that there is a potential out in his contract in 2023. I wonder what we will do in that instance. I'm sure a lot of it will depend on how he does this year. There's an outside chance we can lose both Cook and Mattison next offseason.

What would the out be? I am agreeing with Kapp on every point he made, but if we were to trade him in 2023, how much cap would we have, whats he worth, and could we get a 5th for him? People think a 5th is a wasted pick but somehow Rick saw the value of Diggs (he also saw the value in JJ right away so there that in Ricks credit).

[fiestavike]

Not sure if you guys mentioned this or not but I do see that there is a potential out in his contract in 2023. I wonder what we will do in that instance. I'm sure a lot of it will depend on how he does this year. There's an outside chance we can lose both Cook and Mattison next offseason.

I would say it is a likelihood rather than an outside chance.

[VikingsVictorious]

Not sure if you guys mentioned this or not but I do see that there is a potential out in his contract in 2023. I wonder what we will do in that instance. I'm sure a lot of it will depend on how he does this year. There's an outside chance we can lose both Cook and Mattison next offseason.

Spotrac has all the answers.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/minnesota-v ... ook-21782/

In summation we can save $8 million by letting him go next year
We can save $12 million by letting him go in 2024.
We have no obligation to him in 2025.

If you subscribe to the Kapp conundrum we should let him go next year. I'd be very iffy on whether losing him for $8 Million is worth it. I'd say most likely we need to rework his deal or let him go in 2024.

[CharVike]

Not sure if you guys mentioned this or not but I do see that there is a potential out in his contract in 2023. I wonder what we will do in that instance. I'm sure a lot of it will depend on how he does this year. There's an outside chance we can lose both Cook and Mattison next offseason.

What would the out be? I am agreeing with Kapp on every point he made, but if we were to trade him in 2023, how much cap would we have, whats he worth, and could we get a 5th for him? People think a 5th is a wasted pick but somehow Rick saw the value of Diggs (he also saw the value in JJ right away so there that in Ricks credit).

There's always an out it's called getting released. Rick also saw value with these 1st round picks. Waynes,Traedwell,Hughes,Bradbury,Gladney. Rick and knowing value don't go together. No team would give anything for Cook. The biggest problem is his contract sucks. No team will take that on. If he was a QB then sure. Every team overpays non rookie QBs. There are not many that can throw effectively.