Dalvin Cook

[J. Kapp 11]

Gotta disagree with you here, PHP. And it kills me because I LOVE Dalvin Cook. (I'm sorta partial to running backs, anyway.)

Dalvin was injured three times in college before ever being drafted. He of course had the ACL tear, but missed a lot of time in 2018 with hamstring and other injuries. He only missed five games completely but was on a pitch count for several others.

Last year, Cook finished 12th in the NFL in touches, but 243 of his 303 came in the first 10 weeks of the season. In the four games he played through the end of the regular season, he averaged 12.5 touches per game, an average that would have ranked him 33rd for the overall season. He did have a stellar game against the Saints in the playoffs and had 31 touches, but then had 9 carries for 18 yards against the 49ers, even though the game was close throughout the first half.

But the biggest thing, and it PAINS me to say this, is that teams that pay running backs big money tend to not make the playoffs. Of the top 10 highest-paid running backs in 2019, only three of their teams made the playoffs. Two of those, Jerrick McKinnon and Lamar Miller, didn't even play during the season. The other was Duke Johnson, who will never be confused with Gayle Sayers.

It's the case every year in today's NFL. You can't blow the cap on running backs. And you certainly can't pay running backs the kind of money Dalvin is likely to demand and expect to win. And if Gary Kubiak can make 1,000 yard rushers out of Reuben Droughns, Arian Foster and Justin Forsett, then we'll probably be fine without Dalvin Cook.

Even though I hate the idea of not having him, this is probably the time to deal him, when his value is highest, if the Vikings can find a partner. Let somebody else worry about paying him or not paying him.

No worries Kapp but I guess this is my question, when should you ever extend a RB? Do we just rent them for 4 years and let them walk every time? For RBs to stay healthy for entire seasons year after year is low to begin with. It’s just not realistic anymore even though mccaffery somehow pulled it off. But look many of the big time backs. Barkley, Fournette, Kamara, Gurley, Gordon, Elliott, etc. Any idea how many full 16 game seasons were played out of those 6 RBs total in their careers? 5 out of a possible 22 seasons, those RBs played a full season. So given that statistic does that really make dalvin cook injury prone or is that just the nature of the position. I’m going with the latter.

I get what some are saying that you don’t want to pay that much for a guy that’s going to miss games but what else do you do other than rent a RB for 4 years and draft a new one when his 4 years is up. The chances of finding a RB that plays FULL consecutive seasons year after year is about as high as me hitting the lottery. So given that it’s the nature of the position, doesn’t it make sense to pay the elite ones when you have the chance? Just a different way to look at it I guess. Many of you make some very fair points but you gotta look at the other side of it too

I haven't made myself clear.

I don't want to pay a running back that kind of money PERIOD, no matter if he plays every game. Even if his name is Dalvin Cook.

The league is demonstrating that teams that pay running backs huge salaries don't typically fare all that well. I'd rather direct the cap toward the lines, CBs, receivers and a QB.

Look at last year's best teams. KC paid their kicker more than their starting RB. San Francisco paid their top 3 running backs about $3 million total (this doesn't count Jerick McKinnon's salary). Derrick Henry earned just $1.7 million. Green Bay's total RB salary was just shy of $2 million. These are the four top teams from last year. Meanwhile, the Ravens paid Mark Ingram $6.5 million, and look where it got them. New England, believe it or not, had nearly $8 million allocated to RBs ... one and done.

Again, if you look at the top 10 highest paid RBs in the league last year, only two of their teams made the playoffs -- Houston and San Francisco -- and NONE of those running backs actually played in the playoffs (Jerick McKinnon and Lamar Miller were hurt all year). Paying a huge salary to a running back (huge, in my mind, being defined as more than about $4 million) hamstrings the salary cap and weakens the team in more important areas.

It just doesn't benefit the Vikings to pay Dalvin Cook anywhere near what he's likely to demand, even though he's elite, and even if he stays healthy all year.

[fiestavike]

No worries Kapp but I guess this is my question, when should you ever extend a RB? Do we just rent them for 4 years and let them walk every time? For RBs to stay healthy for entire seasons year after year is low to begin with. It’s just not realistic anymore even though mccaffery somehow pulled it off. But look many of the big time backs. Barkley, Fournette, Kamara, Gurley, Gordon, Elliott, etc. Any idea how many full 16 game seasons were played out of those 6 RBs total in their careers? 5 out of a possible 22 seasons, those RBs played a full season. So given that statistic does that really make dalvin cook injury prone or is that just the nature of the position. I’m going with the latter.

I get what some are saying that you don’t want to pay that much for a guy that’s going to miss games but what else do you do other than rent a RB for 4 years and draft a new one when his 4 years is up. The chances of finding a RB that plays FULL consecutive seasons year after year is about as high as me hitting the lottery. So given that it’s the nature of the position, doesn’t it make sense to pay the elite ones when you have the chance? Just a different way to look at it I guess. Many of you make some very fair points but you gotta look at the other side of it too

I haven't made myself clear.

I don't want to pay a running back that kind of money PERIOD, no matter if he plays every game. Even if his name is Dalvin Cook.

The league is demonstrating that teams that pay running backs huge salaries don't typically fare all that well. I'd rather direct the cap toward the lines, CBs, receivers and a QB.

Look at last year's best teams. KC paid their kicker more than their starting RB. San Francisco paid their top 3 running backs about $3 million total (this doesn't count Jerick McKinnon's salary). Derrick Henry earned just $1.7 million. Green Bay's total RB salary was just shy of $2 million. These are the four top teams from last year. Meanwhile, the Ravens paid Mark Ingram $6.5 million, and look where it got them. New England, believe it or not, had nearly $8 million allocated to RBs ... one and done.

Again, if you look at the top 10 highest paid RBs in the league last year, only two of their teams made the playoffs -- Houston and San Francisco -- and NONE of those running backs actually played in the playoffs (Jerick McKinnon and Lamar Miller were hurt all year). Paying a huge salary to a running back (huge, in my mind, being defined as more than about $4 million) hamstrings the salary cap and weakens the team in more important areas.

It just doesn't benefit the Vikings to pay Dalvin Cook anywhere near what he's likely to demand, even though he's elite, and even if he stays healthy all year.

Dalvin is dynamic, and I would go to 6 in his case, but that's it. If he wants 10, it would be with 0 guaranteed so that it effectively becomes a year to year deal.

[Pondering Her Percy]

No worries Kapp but I guess this is my question, when should you ever extend a RB? Do we just rent them for 4 years and let them walk every time? For RBs to stay healthy for entire seasons year after year is low to begin with. It’s just not realistic anymore even though mccaffery somehow pulled it off. But look many of the big time backs. Barkley, Fournette, Kamara, Gurley, Gordon, Elliott, etc. Any idea how many full 16 game seasons were played out of those 6 RBs total in their careers? 5 out of a possible 22 seasons, those RBs played a full season. So given that statistic does that really make dalvin cook injury prone or is that just the nature of the position. I’m going with the latter.

I get what some are saying that you don’t want to pay that much for a guy that’s going to miss games but what else do you do other than rent a RB for 4 years and draft a new one when his 4 years is up. The chances of finding a RB that plays FULL consecutive seasons year after year is about as high as me hitting the lottery. So given that it’s the nature of the position, doesn’t it make sense to pay the elite ones when you have the chance? Just a different way to look at it I guess. Many of you make some very fair points but you gotta look at the other side of it too

I haven't made myself clear.

I don't want to pay a running back that kind of money PERIOD, no matter if he plays every game. Even if his name is Dalvin Cook.

The league is demonstrating that teams that pay running backs huge salaries don't typically fare all that well. I'd rather direct the cap toward the lines, CBs, receivers and a QB.

Look at last year's best teams. KC paid their kicker more than their starting RB. San Francisco paid their top 3 running backs about $3 million total (this doesn't count Jerick McKinnon's salary). Derrick Henry earned just $1.7 million. Green Bay's total RB salary was just shy of $2 million. These are the four top teams from last year. Meanwhile, the Ravens paid Mark Ingram $6.5 million, and look where it got them. New England, believe it or not, had nearly $8 million allocated to RBs ... one and done.

Again, if you look at the top 10 highest paid RBs in the league last year, only two of their teams made the playoffs -- Houston and San Francisco -- and NONE of those running backs actually played in the playoffs (Jerick McKinnon and Lamar Miller were hurt all year). Paying a huge salary to a running back (huge, in my mind, being defined as more than about $4 million) hamstrings the salary cap and weakens the team in more important areas.

It just doesn't benefit the Vikings to pay Dalvin Cook anywhere near what he's likely to demand, even though he's elite, and even if he stays healthy all year.

Ok but I’m still wondering what we should do in terms of running back? Rent one every 4 years?

I mean paying your RB no more than $4 million just isn’t realistic. I get the idea behind it and you’re right in that sense. But unless they are on a rookie contract for the most part, you’re going to eventually have to pay them more unless you draft one every 4 years like I’m saying.

The example you used of SF, I have a hard time buying into that example because they DID pay big money for a RB in McKinnon. A much lesser version of dalvin cook. You said that paying RBs cripple the rest of the team. Well they paid McKinnon even though he didn’t play and they were still playing in a SB. And still had a strong OL and DL.

And yeah GB had a good season but Aaron Jones is still on a rookie contract just like cook and mattison are. Aaron Jones is going to get paid. And unless they have someone else in line, it’s going to be the packers that pay him.

I mean I could sit here and say that paying just about any position could cripple the team. Some teams pay next to nothing for their QB and get to pay everyone else like we did in 2017. Other teams pay their QBs mega bucks and suffer the consequences elsewhere. I mean the chiefs had 177 dollars of cap room at one point this offseason and they haven’t even paid Mahomes yet. His contract is going to explode that team. No less the past few years they haven’t had many draft picks. In the end, paying dalvin cook doesn’t cripple this team anymore than paying Anthony Harris does. And honestly, as good as Harris is, dalvin cook makes more of an impact when he’s on the field than Harris does.

You have someone like Dallas that has had one of the better OLs in the nfl for quite a while. And when was the last time they won a playoff game? The raiders had a great one at one point, 1 playoff appearance. Chicago has a great DL, nothing to show for it.

Bottom line is, you need a good overall nucleus of a team to get to the promised land. GM, coaching, players (positions aside). You can look at every SB winner and say “oh they were paying big money to this guy, this guy and that guy) but the following year a team might be paying big money to 3 completely different positions. There is no consistency to it IMO. I could be wrong but thinking back to other SB teams and rosters I don’t think I am.

I say pay your best players, the ones that truly want to be there and have one goal, a super bowl, not their statistics. That’s dalvin cook in a nutshell.

[VikingsVictorious]

No worries Kapp but I guess this is my question, when should you ever extend a RB? Do we just rent them for 4 years and let them walk every time? For RBs to stay healthy for entire seasons year after year is low to begin with. It’s just not realistic anymore even though mccaffery somehow pulled it off. But look many of the big time backs. Barkley, Fournette, Kamara, Gurley, Gordon, Elliott, etc. Any idea how many full 16 game seasons were played out of those 6 RBs total in their careers? 5 out of a possible 22 seasons, those RBs played a full season. So given that statistic does that really make dalvin cook injury prone or is that just the nature of the position. I’m going with the latter.

I get what some are saying that you don’t want to pay that much for a guy that’s going to miss games but what else do you do other than rent a RB for 4 years and draft a new one when his 4 years is up. The chances of finding a RB that plays FULL consecutive seasons year after year is about as high as me hitting the lottery. So given that it’s the nature of the position, doesn’t it make sense to pay the elite ones when you have the chance? Just a different way to look at it I guess. Many of you make some very fair points but you gotta look at the other side of it too

I haven't made myself clear.

I don't want to pay a running back that kind of money PERIOD, no matter if he plays every game. Even if his name is Dalvin Cook.

The league is demonstrating that teams that pay running backs huge salaries don't typically fare all that well. I'd rather direct the cap toward the lines, CBs, receivers and a QB.

Look at last year's best teams. KC paid their kicker more than their starting RB. San Francisco paid their top 3 running backs about $3 million total (this doesn't count Jerick McKinnon's salary). Derrick Henry earned just $1.7 million. Green Bay's total RB salary was just shy of $2 million. These are the four top teams from last year. Meanwhile, the Ravens paid Mark Ingram $6.5 million, and look where it got them. New England, believe it or not, had nearly $8 million allocated to RBs ... one and done.

Again, if you look at the top 10 highest paid RBs in the league last year, only two of their teams made the playoffs -- Houston and San Francisco -- and NONE of those running backs actually played in the playoffs (Jerick McKinnon and Lamar Miller were hurt all year). Paying a huge salary to a running back (huge, in my mind, being defined as more than about $4 million) hamstrings the salary cap and weakens the team in more important areas.

It just doesn't benefit the Vikings to pay Dalvin Cook anywhere near what he's likely to demand, even though he's elite, and even if he stays healthy all year.

You just stated we shouldn't even pay Cook more than $4 million a year. Kapp I totally respect you, but now you are being ridiculous.

[VikingsVictorious]

I haven't made myself clear.

I don't want to pay a running back that kind of money PERIOD, no matter if he plays every game. Even if his name is Dalvin Cook.

The league is demonstrating that teams that pay running backs huge salaries don't typically fare all that well. I'd rather direct the cap toward the lines, CBs, receivers and a QB.

Look at last year's best teams. KC paid their kicker more than their starting RB. San Francisco paid their top 3 running backs about $3 million total (this doesn't count Jerick McKinnon's salary). Derrick Henry earned just $1.7 million. Green Bay's total RB salary was just shy of $2 million. These are the four top teams from last year. Meanwhile, the Ravens paid Mark Ingram $6.5 million, and look where it got them. New England, believe it or not, had nearly $8 million allocated to RBs ... one and done.

Again, if you look at the top 10 highest paid RBs in the league last year, only two of their teams made the playoffs -- Houston and San Francisco -- and NONE of those running backs actually played in the playoffs (Jerick McKinnon and Lamar Miller were hurt all year). Paying a huge salary to a running back (huge, in my mind, being defined as more than about $4 million) hamstrings the salary cap and weakens the team in more important areas.

It just doesn't benefit the Vikings to pay Dalvin Cook anywhere near what he's likely to demand, even though he's elite, and even if he stays healthy all year.

Dalvin is dynamic, and I would go to 6 in his case, but that's it. If he wants 10, it would be with 0 guaranteed so that it effectively becomes a year to year deal.

No more than $6 million for Dalvin Cook is ludicrous. You guys are taking this not investing in RBs WAY TOO FAR. I would be good with $10 million which wouldn't be enough anyway.

[VikingsVictorious]

I haven't made myself clear.

I don't want to pay a running back that kind of money PERIOD, no matter if he plays every game. Even if his name is Dalvin Cook.

The league is demonstrating that teams that pay running backs huge salaries don't typically fare all that well. I'd rather direct the cap toward the lines, CBs, receivers and a QB.

Look at last year's best teams. KC paid their kicker more than their starting RB. San Francisco paid their top 3 running backs about $3 million total (this doesn't count Jerick McKinnon's salary). Derrick Henry earned just $1.7 million. Green Bay's total RB salary was just shy of $2 million. These are the four top teams from last year. Meanwhile, the Ravens paid Mark Ingram $6.5 million, and look where it got them. New England, believe it or not, had nearly $8 million allocated to RBs ... one and done.

Again, if you look at the top 10 highest paid RBs in the league last year, only two of their teams made the playoffs -- Houston and San Francisco -- and NONE of those running backs actually played in the playoffs (Jerick McKinnon and Lamar Miller were hurt all year). Paying a huge salary to a running back (huge, in my mind, being defined as more than about $4 million) hamstrings the salary cap and weakens the team in more important areas.

It just doesn't benefit the Vikings to pay Dalvin Cook anywhere near what he's likely to demand, even though he's elite, and even if he stays healthy all year.

Ok but I’m still wondering what we should do in terms of running back? Rent one every 4 years?

I mean paying your RB no more than $4 million just isn’t realistic. I get the idea behind it and you’re right in that sense. But unless they are on a rookie contract for the most part, you’re going to eventually have to pay them more unless you draft one every 4 years like I’m saying.

The example you used of SF, I have a hard time buying into that example because they DID pay big money for a RB in McKinnon. A much lesser version of dalvin cook. You said that paying RBs cripple the rest of the team. Well they paid McKinnon even though he didn’t play and they were still playing in a SB. And still had a strong OL and DL.

And yeah GB had a good season but Aaron Jones is still on a rookie contract just like cook and mattison are. Aaron Jones is going to get paid. And unless they have someone else in line, it’s going to be the packers that pay him.

I mean I could sit here and say that paying just about any position could cripple the team. Some teams pay next to nothing for their QB and get to pay everyone else like we did in 2017. Other teams pay their QBs mega bucks and suffer the consequences elsewhere. I mean the chiefs had 177 dollars of cap room at one point this offseason and they haven’t even paid Mahomes yet. His contract is going to explode that team. No less the past few years they haven’t had many draft picks. In the end, paying dalvin cook doesn’t cripple this team anymore than paying Anthony Harris does. And honestly, as good as Harris is, dalvin cook makes more of an impact when he’s on the field than Harris does.

You have someone like Dallas that has had one of the better OLs in the nfl for quite a while. And when was the last time they won a playoff game? The raiders had a great one at one point, 1 playoff appearance. Chicago has a great DL, nothing to show for it.

Bottom line is, you need a good overall nucleus of a team to get to the promised land. GM, coaching, players (positions aside). You can look at every SB winner and say “oh they were paying big money to this guy, this guy and that guy) but the following year a team might be paying big money to 3 completely different positions. There is no consistency to it IMO. I could be wrong but thinking back to other SB teams and rosters I don’t think I am.

I say pay your best players, the ones that truly want to be there and have one goal, a super bowl, not their statistics. That’s dalvin cook in a nutshell.

Very well stated PHP. People are getting IMO ridiculously carried away on this don't pay the RB thing. I believe Cook has every bit as much impact on our winning or losing as Harris does.

[S197]

Kapp's argument makes a lot of sense to me. Is there a single team, let's say in the last 5 years, that has done well for itself after shelling out a major RB contract?

[Pondering Her Percy]

Dalvin is dynamic, and I would go to 6 in his case, but that's it. If he wants 10, it would be with 0 guaranteed so that it effectively becomes a year to year deal.

No more than $6 million for Dalvin Cook is ludicrous. You guys are taking this not investing in RBs WAY TOO FAR. I would be good with $10 million which wouldn't be enough anyway.

Yeah 4-6 million just isn’t realistic. You can’t expect dalvin cook (at age 24 no less) to take the same or less than someone like Mark Ingram who is 30 and nowhere near as good.

It’s no different than the QB market. All positions really. It’s about leverage and what the going rate is. Cook isn’t going to be an exception. His market is going to fall where all young elite RBs do. Not as high as mccaffery but it’s going to be $10+ million and rightfully so. You can’t expect cook to just see mccaffery net $16 million a year and him say, “yeah I’ll take 6, let’s do this”. He might walk on that alone given how insulting it would be. When you look at who’s making $4-6 million a year you’re looking at guys like:

James white
Tevin Coleman
Gio Bernard
Jordan Howard
Mark Ingram

I’m sorry but to put dalvin cook in that pay scale category is downright insulting. It’s never going to fly and to be honest, shouldn’t even be attempted by our front office. Again, paying him can cripple a team just as much as paying a guy like Anthony Harris. It’s no different and cook has a much bigger impact than Harris does IMO. Harris is an elite piece in a decent defense. Dalvin cook is an elite piece that the offense is built around. When cook goes the offense goes. We all saw what it was like with mike Boone. And the crazy thing is it’s not even cooks elite ability to carry the ball and catch the ball but also how much attention he takes away from everyone else. When teams play the Vikings, their number one priority is stopping cook. Not cousins, not Thielen, not diggs (or any new WR), not our tight ends. It’s cook. Running play action to dalvin cook compared to running play action to mattison or even Mike Boone is so drastically different it’s not even funny. It’s exactly why play action didn’t work vs GB week 16. Because GB wasn’t scared of mike Boone. If that was cook, you have to throw every bit of your attention at him. And then add in not only keying on him with play action but also when cousins drops back. You have to have all eyes on cook in terms of the screen game, check downs, swing passes, etc. You don’t have to do that with mattison or Boone. And I think mattison is a very solid back but he’s no cook that’s for sure

[VikingsVictorious]

Kapp's argument makes a lot of sense to me. Is there a single team, let's say in the last 5 years, that has done well for itself after shelling out a major RB contract?

Correlation doesn't imply causation. The simple fact is that Cook is one of the best few RBs in the game and his skills contribute to winning football games. I get that big contracts to RBs have not worked out well, but to imply that Cook isn't worth more than $4 million a year is ridiculous and so unlike Kapp. I would like for him to explain if he really meant what I read. That Cook shouldn't get a contract of more than $4 million.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Kapp's argument makes a lot of sense to me. Is there a single team, let's say in the last 5 years, that has done well for itself after shelling out a major RB contract?

Correlation doesn't imply causation. The simple fact is that Cook is one of the best few RBs in the game and his skills contribute to winning football games. I get that big contracts to RBs have not worked out well, but to imply that Cook isn't worth more than $4 million a year is ridiculous and so unlike Kapp. I would like for him to explain if he really meant what I read. That Cook shouldn't get a contract of more than $4 million.

Agreed just because it hasn’t worked out for a few teams doesn’t necessarily mean it was a bad move or that it can’t work. Just because they give big money to their RB doesn’t mean the rest of their team all of the sudden can’t do their job as well. Are you going to tell me that if by chance the rams gave Todd Gurley an extension the year prior to him actually getting one that they wouldn’t have made the super bowl that year still?

And again another perfect example is the 49ers. I think when McKinnon got his contract he was like the 4th highest paid RB in the nfl. He was recently restructured this offseason but he still had that big contract this past year. And they still made the SB. Granted McKinnon didn’t play but San Fran still had to pay it, it still counted towards their cap and that contract could’ve effected the rest of the roster.

But on top of all that, not only did the 49ers make McKinnon the 4th highest paid RB but he also never played a game for them in 2 years. Not even a single rep in 2 whole seasons. And they STILL made the super bowl. Not only does this show that dishing out a big RB contract has no more effect on a roster than any other position landing a big contract but it also shows the importance of having a good #2 back or backs like SF had. We have that in mattison and then Boone/Abdullah are a decent #3/4. The only thing that didn’t work out for SF is they never got a single game out of him and wasted a bunch of money (literally). But in the end how much did it matter? They still had a SB roster and could’ve won the thing if they didn’t collapse in the end. This simply shows that it can very well be done and you can still have success. And I’d have a hard time believing cook wouldn’t play a single snap for us the next two years (knock on wood) if he landed an extension soon.

This is why I said before, it doesn’t matter who you give the money to, it’s all about drafting and developing a good nucleus as a team and having great coaching. You could have a $10+ million a year RB or a $10+ million a year punter, if you draft and put together a great TEAM, anything can happen.

[S197]

The 9ers are a very different circumstance, they’ve drafted in the top 10 four years in a row. Top THREE in two out of those years. Their roster is filled with high draft picks on rookie contracts, not $10M punters. You have a lot more flexibility when you have a ton of talent on cheap contracts. The Rams had the same benefit with Donald, Gurley, and Goff on rookie contracts. Now they’re not and all of a sudden McVey doesn’t look like a boy genius anymore.

It’s not a model the Vikings can emulate. Well they can but not by paying for Cousins, and Cook, and OBJ. It takes a dedicated and multi-year rebuild with a lot of pain along the way. If you commit to that, maybe you can build a championship caliber team with a limited window. The 9ers window will close just like almost every other team. Just look at how many teams in the NFC have made it to the Super Bowl over the last decade. It’s not a coincidence, the salary cap results in a lot of parity in the NFL.

All these big contracts are going to do is keep the team stuck in this perpetual wildcard level of “Kinda good.” I’ve seen enough high floor, low ceiling Viking squads to last me a lifetime. Time to stop the insanity and try something different.

[fiestavike]

Dalvin is dynamic, and I would go to 6 in his case, but that's it. If he wants 10, it would be with 0 guaranteed so that it effectively becomes a year to year deal.

No more than $6 million for Dalvin Cook is ludicrous. You guys are taking this not investing in RBs WAY TOO FAR. I would be good with $10 million which wouldn't be enough anyway.

The important point is that neither one of us would pay enough to keep him in purple. I'm not saying he should accept 6m, but that's the max I would be willing to pay him. I realize that means he is not going to be a viking. I've already accepted that. Now my interest is in moving on from him in a way that provides the most return to the team and doesnt screw over dalvin cook, who has been a great player for us.

[J. Kapp 11]

Kapp's argument makes a lot of sense to me. Is there a single team, let's say in the last 5 years, that has done well for itself after shelling out a major RB contract?

Correlation doesn't imply causation. The simple fact is that Cook is one of the best few RBs in the game and his skills contribute to winning football games. I get that big contracts to RBs have not worked out well, but to imply that Cook isn't worth more than $4 million a year is ridiculous and so unlike Kapp. I would like for him to explain if he really meant what I read. That Cook shouldn't get a contract of more than $4 million.

Sure. I’ll explain myself. For me, it’s simple.

I would not pay any running back more than $4 million. Period. Including Dalvin Cook.

Do I think Dalvin Cook is worth more? Well, sure, I suppose. He’s worth whatever the market will bear. I just wouldn’t be the team to pay it. I also wouldn’t insult him by offering it. I’d treat him like a king until I could find a trade partner who IS willing to pay it.

Bottom line: Dalvin Cook should get a contract for whatever anybody is willing to pay him.

As for the idea of “renting” a running back for 4 years ... yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. The average length of career for an NFL running back is 3.3 years. I know it sounds harsh, but it’s reality. “But Dalvin is special.” OK, sure. But will he be special in 2024? Because if you re-sign him, that’s the question you’re going to face.

The worst possible combination for a team is to have no cap space and a roster full of aging, underperforming players on big contracts. The way you avoid doing that is to not sign players to big contracts who are likely to fall into that category during the life of the contract. By the time Christian McCaffrey is in the final year of his contract, he’ll be in his 8th year in the league making north of $15 million. I guarantee you, before that happens, people will be wondering if they should find a way to dump his salary. Is that really what you want with Dalvin Cook, who has shown himself to be less durable than McCaffrey?

I realize you can’t simply sign nobody to big deals. But you have to be smart about it. Who is likely to give you production for all the years of his deal? Those are the players you sign to bigger deals. The worst possible reason to sign someone is to keep him from seeking a bigger deal somewhere else. You end up with Antonio Brown or LeVeon Bell, guys who are aging out of their most productive years and gaining contracts based on the hope they have something left. That’s likely to be Dalvin in year 3 of a 4-year deal.

And by the way, Mike Boone ran for 148 yards in his only start, so don’t tell me that Dalvin Cook is the only back who can produce. Gary Kubiak has made multiple Pro Bowlers out of low draft choices and UFAs.

[StumpHunter]

The worst possible combination for a team is to have no cap space and a roster full of aging, underperforming players on big contracts. The way you avoid doing that is to not sign players to big contracts who are likely to fall into that category during the life of the contract. By the time Christian McCaffrey is in the final year of his contract, he’ll be in his 8th year in the league making north of $15 million. I guarantee you, before that happens, people will be wondering if they should find a way to dump his salary. Is that really what you want with Dalvin Cook, who has shown himself to be less durable than McCaffrey?

I get what you are saying, but McCaffrey's final year probably has 0 guarantees in it. He probably only has to perform at a high level into 2022 and his contract will essentially be a year-by-year deal, where Carolina can cut him with a very small dead cap hit.

The other thing about McCaffrey's deal is that Carolina doesn't really have a lot of guys to pay right now. They can afford to spend big on the RB, because they got a very good deal on a QB and don't have a lot of talent on second contracts right now.

We don't have that luxury and honestly can't afford to take the risk of paying a RB close to that much money. They can, we can't. If the risk of injury wasn't so great, I say do it, his 2019 season was well worth 16 million. The problem is we are more likely to get 2017 or 2018 production out of him in 2021 and beyond than get 2019 production. That isn't a knock on Cook, it is a knock on that position in general.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Correlation doesn't imply causation. The simple fact is that Cook is one of the best few RBs in the game and his skills contribute to winning football games. I get that big contracts to RBs have not worked out well, but to imply that Cook isn't worth more than $4 million a year is ridiculous and so unlike Kapp. I would like for him to explain if he really meant what I read. That Cook shouldn't get a contract of more than $4 million.

Sure. I’ll explain myself. For me, it’s simple.

I would not pay any running back more than $4 million. Period. Including Dalvin Cook.

Do I think Dalvin Cook is worth more? Well, sure, I suppose. He’s worth whatever the market will bear. I just wouldn’t be the team to pay it. I also wouldn’t insult him by offering it. I’d treat him like a king until I could find a trade partner who IS willing to pay it.

Bottom line: Dalvin Cook should get a contract for whatever anybody is willing to pay him.

As for the idea of “renting” a running back for 4 years ... yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. The average length of career for an NFL running back is 3.3 years. I know it sounds harsh, but it’s reality. “But Dalvin is special.” OK, sure. But will he be special in 2024? Because if you re-sign him, that’s the question you’re going to face.

The worst possible combination for a team is to have no cap space and a roster full of aging, underperforming players on big contracts. The way you avoid doing that is to not sign players to big contracts who are likely to fall into that category during the life of the contract. By the time Christian McCaffrey is in the final year of his contract, he’ll be in his 8th year in the league making north of $15 million. I guarantee you, before that happens, people will be wondering if they should find a way to dump his salary. Is that really what you want with Dalvin Cook, who has shown himself to be less durable than McCaffrey?

I realize you can’t simply sign nobody to big deals. But you have to be smart about it. Who is likely to give you production for all the years of his deal? Those are the players you sign to bigger deals. The worst possible reason to sign someone is to keep him from seeking a bigger deal somewhere else. You end up with Antonio Brown or LeVeon Bell, guys who are aging out of their most productive years and gaining contracts based on the hope they have something left. That’s likely to be Dalvin in year 3 of a 4-year deal.

And by the way, Mike Boone ran for 148 yards in his only start, so don’t tell me that Dalvin Cook is the only back who can produce. Gary Kubiak has made multiple Pro Bowlers out of low draft choices and UFAs.

Kapp, Boone ran for 148 against the bears in what was practically a preseason game. And don’t let the 148 vs Chicago fool you, he had some big mistakes that game as well. But that’s a game I’d take with a grain of salt. And that wasn’t his only start. He started vs GB when we needed him most and was terrible.

Also, if we just settle for a bunch of mike Boone type players on the team to save on cap, we won’t be getting near the production and the injury risk is just as high there. So then you have to hope an even lesser guy can carry the load if an injury happens.