Cook or Mattison?

[Pondering Her Percy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[IIsweet]

I just wrote about RB timing in another thread. Mattison has much better timing with this current group of OL than Cook does.
I would not expect a Cook trade but I do expect Mattison to be allowed to leave. Cook has game changing ability. Hard to allow an elite playmaker leave.
However, they drafted the kid from NC, Ty Chandler, and they were apparently very high on him. I expect Cook to stick for another year and Chandler be the backup and heir apparent.
BUT.... I like your thinking. get what you can for Cook, which will net more than FA Mattison. Sign Mattison, for much less than Cook, and let he and Chandler be the 1-2 punch.

[VikingLord]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[J. Kapp 11]

I will say it again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[J. Kapp 11]

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

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

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

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

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

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

If there’s a potential star running back, I think 2nd round or as high as late 1st, as you suggest, is fine.

“But you said running back is a worthless position,” some of you will say.

No, that’s not what I said. I said I wouldn’t overpay — talking CAP here — for a running back. You’re not overpaying a rookie at any position, especially as you get into the 2nd round.

This is exactly what we did with Dalvin Cook. If not for his unfortunate ACL tear, we would’ve gotten insane production value out of a 2nd-round player. We always say to take best player available. Dalvin was certainly that.

I haven’t seen one second of tape on Robinson. But if he’s as good as you say he is, I wouldn’t be opposed.

[cmoss84]

I will say it again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concur 100%, and I love Cook. RB needs to be a revolving door of fresh legs. $ on both lines.

[Crax]

I agree it may be time to move on from Cook, but if Mattison was in the plans, they should have used him more this year. Before the Bears game, I believe he was at the least amount of carries in a season for his career.

Drafting a RB is probably the right move

[CharVike]

The 49ers just traded for Christian McCaffrey this year. This was the deal - The San Francisco 49ers acquired star running back Christian McCaffrey from the Carolina Panthers in exchange for 2023 second-, third- and fourth-round selections, plus a fifth-round pick in 2024. The guy is 26 years old and has missed his share of time himself. Based on that anything can happen if you find the right sucker. The bigger question is what kind of offense are we? I have no clue. Does anybody have the snap counts based on formation. I thought we were going to be a 3 WR spread offense. Is that the case? Or are we an anything goes type of deal. If that's the case then you need several type of backs. Basically a cluster F at this point. I'll call it the cluster O.
With Cook teams need to worry about him breaking big plays. The guy had an 81 yarder this year and he also had a 64 yard TD reception. A loaded gun in the backfield. The last 2 seasons Matti has averaged 3.6 and 3.8 a pop. That's not very good.

[CharVike]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Texas Vike]

First off: great thread. The first four posts are chock full of substance. I can't figure out how to quote from multiple posts in one post, so I'll just go from memory.

1) I did my grad work at UT Austin, so I follow the Longhorns almost as closely as my Horned Frogs (man, after beating Michigan... they got TORCHED by Georgia, ouch). Bijan is the real deal. He's being compared to Saquon--a once in a decade type of talent. The thing is, I don't see him as a good match for our offense, at all. He belongs in an offense like the Jets or the Seahawks. A team willing to commit to pounding the rock and moving bodies. I think Jamyr Gibbs is a better fit due to his receiving abilities. But as fun as it is to ponder devoting our scant draft resources to get a difference maker at RB, it is not what I would do if I were the GM. We desperately need to get better in the trenches and at CB, IMO. Since we gave up our 2nd to get Hock, I fully expect Kwesi to trade back out of the 1st to acquire more picks. We have too many holes, especially on D, to not do that.

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

3) PHP: I think the major issue is that Cook just isn't going to be worth much on the trade market. If I'm not mistaken, guys like Josh Jacobs (NFL rushing leader) will be in FA this season. What do you think we could get for Cook? Maybe a 3rd? A 2nd? If we can, I might consider it. More likely, we need to renegotiate Cook's contract, let Matty walk and promote Chandler.

[IIsweet]

BTW, Bijan Robinson is an absolute Day 1 starter and 3 down back. I love the take that Kapp refers. I agree that it makes so much sense to continue to draft a RB in late rounds of the draft. They are so similar and you really need to find one that fits your system.
I am a fan of running Chandler out there as our #1. I like these types of RBs.

[makila]

Echo others, really good thread and posts above.

I agree with Kapp's point about not paying too much of the cap to the position. Also with php's point about this being the time to move on. I'm not sure Mattison is a multiple season answer. However I understand that today's nfl there are few players at rb to center your teams around.

I'd like to see Ty Chandler as well. 8ish months ago many thought he could be good in kocs scheme.

Re Bijan Robinson... I am a sooner grad who still lives in the area. He is legit good. As much as it pains me to say, haha. However, imho texasvike is spot on. He fits great with a different scheme. Not saying he wouldn't be good to have. I don't think it would maximize his strongest skills here.

[J. Kapp 11]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pondering Her Percy]

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

100% agree BUT.... the question is, how much longer is the elite playmaking going to be there? He will be 28 to start the season next year. This is what worries me.

[Pondering Her Percy]

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

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

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

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

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