Dalvin Cook

[VikingsVictorious]

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.

What player will you sign for that $4 million you saved on Cook will make a bigger impact than Cook. That's what it comes down to.

[VikingLord]

Fascinating thread watching how the different viewpoints play out against the reality that most Superbowl contenders are not getting to that position on the basis of their running back(s).

How about flip this question and look at it from a slightly different perspective?

Take the individual players out of it and just focus on how you'd design a team that you think should be able to compete for a Superbowl. Take the overall cap, divide that up between the amount dedicated to the offense overall, the defense overall, and the special teams overall. How does that break down for your Superbowl competitors?

Then divide those percentages among the position and position groups. Once again, no names. No personal attachments to individual players. Just "here are the 4 teams that were in the mix at the end and here is how their cap broke down across the position groups".

Based on the above, is there a standing model that closely approximates what successful teams do in terms of their overall team team building strategy?

Because if there is, then the discussion about what to pay a given RB isn't a matter of opinion, and teams that deviate substantially from a proven overall formula are taking an objective risk in terms of moving towards their presumed goal of winning a Superbowl.

So when Kapp says pay Cook no more than $4 million, that could be objectively aligned with what teams that are *actually* competing for Superbowls are paying at that position.

If that is the case, the only justification for paying more, much less substantially more, is if a team is convinced that the individual at that position is so truly special and unique that they can justify a significant departure from what other competitive teams are paying at the position, because the increased amount they pay there has to necessarily be taken from somewhere else.

My gut feel without doing the above analysis is that the competitive teams roughly align. To the degree they don't it is probably due to the fact that they've become highly competitive because they got lucky in the draft and have key players on rookie deals. The above analysis also wipes out the effect of large deals for individual (sans the QB position) as it evaluates cap allocated to position groups. So an individual DB might make a lot, but because other DBs make less, the overall cap dedicated to the group probably aligns with what other successful teams are doing.

[J. Kapp 11]

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.

This illustrates the difference between you and me. You're thinking now. I'm thinking about the end of his deal.

We just fundamentally disagree on this. Running backs are a poor long-term investment. It's been proven over and over. In some ways, we hit the lottery with Dalvin Cook. We got a great year out of him on his rookie deal. In other ways, we didn't. He missed half of his first two seasons. A reasonable person actually could've hoped for more. But to pay a running back ... any running back ... $10 million or more per season is just not wise.

[VikingsVictorious]

Fascinating thread watching how the different viewpoints play out against the reality that most Superbowl contenders are not getting to that position on the basis of their running back(s).

How about flip this question and look at it from a slightly different perspective?

Take the individual players out of it and just focus on how you'd design a team that you think should be able to compete for a Superbowl. Take the overall cap, divide that up between the amount dedicated to the offense overall, the defense overall, and the special teams overall. How does that break down for your Superbowl competitors?

Then divide those percentages among the position and position groups. Once again, no names. No personal attachments to individual players. Just "here are the 4 teams that were in the mix at the end and here is how their cap broke down across the position groups".

Based on the above, is there a standing model that closely approximates what successful teams do in terms of their overall team team building strategy?

Because if there is, then the discussion about what to pay a given RB isn't a matter of opinion, and teams that deviate substantially from a proven overall formula are taking an objective risk in terms of moving towards their presumed goal of winning a Superbowl.

So when Kapp says pay Cook no more than $4 million, that could be objectively aligned with what teams that are *actually* competing for Superbowls are paying at that position.

If that is the case, the only justification for paying more, much less substantially more, is if a team is convinced that the individual at that position is so truly special and unique that they can justify a significant departure from what other competitive teams are paying at the position, because the increased amount they pay there has to necessarily be taken from somewhere else.

My gut feel without doing the above analysis is that the competitive teams roughly align. To the degree they don't it is probably due to the fact that they've become highly competitive because they got lucky in the draft and have key players on rookie deals. The above analysis also wipes out the effect of large deals for individual (sans the QB position) as it evaluates cap allocated to position groups. So an individual DB might make a lot, but because other DBs make less, the overall cap dedicated to the group probably aligns with what other successful teams are doing.

Each team and each player is unique. These sports gambling touts can trot out all kinds of statistics like you are saying and yet they do no better than the average gambler. They lose. Cook has more impact on us winning games than any player getting 4 million or less. Therefore he needs to be paid more than $4 million.

[Sandpounder27]

I’m with Kapp on this. There is only so much money to spend and RB is the last place I would spend big bucks(10m+/year), at least “long term” big bucks. I get where VV and PHP are coming from but I’m in Kapp’s camp on this.

[J. Kapp 11]

Fascinating thread watching how the different viewpoints play out against the reality that most Superbowl contenders are not getting to that position on the basis of their running back(s).

How about flip this question and look at it from a slightly different perspective?

Take the individual players out of it and just focus on how you'd design a team that you think should be able to compete for a Superbowl. Take the overall cap, divide that up between the amount dedicated to the offense overall, the defense overall, and the special teams overall. How does that break down for your Superbowl competitors?

Then divide those percentages among the position and position groups. Once again, no names. No personal attachments to individual players. Just "here are the 4 teams that were in the mix at the end and here is how their cap broke down across the position groups".

Based on the above, is there a standing model that closely approximates what successful teams do in terms of their overall team team building strategy?

Because if there is, then the discussion about what to pay a given RB isn't a matter of opinion, and teams that deviate substantially from a proven overall formula are taking an objective risk in terms of moving towards their presumed goal of winning a Superbowl.

So when Kapp says pay Cook no more than $4 million, that could be objectively aligned with what teams that are *actually* competing for Superbowls are paying at that position.

If that is the case, the only justification for paying more, much less substantially more, is if a team is convinced that the individual at that position is so truly special and unique that they can justify a significant departure from what other competitive teams are paying at the position, because the increased amount they pay there has to necessarily be taken from somewhere else.

My gut feel without doing the above analysis is that the competitive teams roughly align. To the degree they don't it is probably due to the fact that they've become highly competitive because they got lucky in the draft and have key players on rookie deals. The above analysis also wipes out the effect of large deals for individual (sans the QB position) as it evaluates cap allocated to position groups. So an individual DB might make a lot, but because other DBs make less, the overall cap dedicated to the group probably aligns with what other successful teams are doing.

You hit the nail on the head, VL.

I think to look at this objectively, you have to remove the name Dalvin Cook and look at it the position he plays. Name the last team that rode the shoulders of a running back to a Super Bowl title. It just doesn't happen anymore. This is my entire point. As special as he is, Dalvin Cook wore down as 2019 went on. He had a nice game in New Orleans, mostly because he'd gotten a few weeks rest, then did nothing against SF. Running backs just don't carry teams anymore.

About 10 years ago, the Vikings were in the same place with Adrian Peterson as they are now with Dalvin Cook -- going into the last year of AP's rookie deal. They sign him to $100 million over seven years. Why? Because he's Adrian Peterson. He's special. So now I ask ... how'd that work out? The best we could do with AP after he signed that deal was one-and-done in the playoffs on two different occasions. Do we really want to go down that road again with Dalvin Cook? I certainly hope not.

This actually brings up something I was thinking about this morning. In the corporate world, you aren't promoted for performance. You're bonused for performance. That is to say, you're promoted not because you're better at your job than others, but because you demonstrate you can handle the next position up.

In sports, however, it's totally backwards. Even though we always say, "Past performance is not a guarantee of future success," salaries are based on what a player has done in the past. And that makes it absolutely fraught with pitfalls.

I wish there were a system where teams could pay player salaries based on what the team feels they're capable of doing in the future, and bonus them for what they've done in the past. it just seems silly to sign a guy to something like a 7-year, $100 million deal based on what he did last year, knowing full well that the contract is meaningless. The team has no intention of ever paying the full contract, and the player has no real incentive to keep performing, in part because he knows he'll never be paid the whole thing. What if you could reward a player for a great season, after the season, WITHOUT jamming up your cap space? I have no idea how that would work. Maybe you have a salary pool and a bonus pool. I don't know.

It's just stupid the way it works now. All the owners and players do is keep coming up with different iterations of what they already have. Why doesn't somebody look at what the real needs of both sides are and come up with something actually new?

[Pondering Her Percy]

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.

This illustrates the difference between you and me. You're thinking now. I'm thinking about the end of his deal.

We just fundamentally disagree on this. Running backs are a poor long-term investment. It's been proven over and over. In some ways, we hit the lottery with Dalvin Cook. We got a great year out of him on his rookie deal. In other ways, we didn't. He missed half of his first two seasons. A reasonable person actually could've hoped for more. But to pay a running back ... any running back ... $10 million or more per season is just not wise.

I get what you're saying but unfortunately, elite RBs are going to continue to get paid that and if anything, it's going to go up. Guys like Barkley are going to reset the market all over again.

[Pondering Her Percy]

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.

What player will you sign for that $4 million you saved on Cook will make a bigger impact than Cook. That's what it comes down to.

Good luck finding one. The only one that has came out since Cook was drafted is Barkley. That's 1 RB out of 47 drafted in the last two years. ONE! No less Barkley was the 2nd overall pick and is getting paid $8 million a year on a rookie contract which is fully guaranteed.

So if we dont want to spend big money on a RB then we cant draft one early and cant pay someone like Cook if or when they come around. So now we're narrowing our options even more. We basically have to draft a RB somewhere between probably the 2nd-4th rounds and hope we find someone that can do what Cook does. Or just not draft one and hope we land on undrafted free agents. I'm really confused as to what the expectation even is if arent going to pay Dalvin Cook or draft a RB in the first round of the draft??

[S197]

Our OC has literally made a career out of taking RBs no one has ever heard of and making them highly productive. I don't see anyone saying Cook isn't worth $4M, and he's not taking $4M from anyone anyway, the question is should the Vikings be the ones to give him his payday.

That's when you need to look at Kubiaks model for success. The lack of prior success by teams who overpay RBs. Our cap situation. And also Cook's durability concerns. It all adds up to a poor investment in my opinion.

[VikingsVictorious]

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.

This illustrates the difference between you and me. You're thinking now. I'm thinking about the end of his deal.

We just fundamentally disagree on this. Running backs are a poor long-term investment. It's been proven over and over. In some ways, we hit the lottery with Dalvin Cook. We got a great year out of him on his rookie deal. In other ways, we didn't. He missed half of his first two seasons. A reasonable person actually could've hoped for more. But to pay a running back ... any running back ... $10 million or more per season is just not wise.

We're not talking $10 million. I might even agree with you about that. We're talking $4 million which you declared to be huge money that you would not be willing to pay any RB. I still have a very hard time believing that you really believe that.

[VikingsVictorious]

I’m with Kapp on this. There is only so much money to spend and RB is the last place I would spend big bucks(10m+/year), at least “long term” big bucks. I get where VV and PHP are coming from but I’m in Kapp’s camp on this.

We're talking $4 million if you are with Kapp on this.

[VikingsVictorious]

Our OC has literally made a career out of taking RBs no one has ever heard of and making them highly productive. I don't see anyone saying Cook isn't worth $4M, and he's not taking $4M from anyone anyway, the question is should the Vikings be the ones to give him his payday.

That's when you need to look at Kubiaks model for success. The lack of prior success by teams who overpay RBs. Our cap situation. And also Cook's durability concerns. It all adds up to a poor investment in my opinion.

I don't know how much the Vikings should be willing to pay Cook, but I can say with certainty that we should be willing to pay him at least $4 million per year. Kapp is the person I normally consider the brightest person on this message board and he said he wouldn't be willing to pay that.

[Sandpounder27]

I’m with Kapp on this. There is only so much money to spend and RB is the last place I would spend big bucks(10m+/year), at least “long term” big bucks. I get where VV and PHP are coming from but I’m in Kapp’s camp on this.

We're talking $4 million if you are with Kapp on this.

Guess we are interpreting Kapp’s statement differently then. I read it as, since the “elite” backs are gonna want $10m+/year and he wouldn’t be willing to pay that much, then he wouldn’t spend more than $4m/ year for a “non-elite” one. That’s what I am in agreement on. I’m sure if Cook would sign for $4m plus a dollar, Kapp would be ok with signing him

[J. Kapp 11]

This illustrates the difference between you and me. You're thinking now. I'm thinking about the end of his deal.

We just fundamentally disagree on this. Running backs are a poor long-term investment. It's been proven over and over. In some ways, we hit the lottery with Dalvin Cook. We got a great year out of him on his rookie deal. In other ways, we didn't. He missed half of his first two seasons. A reasonable person actually could've hoped for more. But to pay a running back ... any running back ... $10 million or more per season is just not wise.

We're not talking $10 million. I might even agree with you about that. We're talking $4 million which you declared to be huge money that you would not be willing to pay any RB. I still have a very hard time believing that you really believe that.

You're not quite quoting me accurately.

I said I wouldn't pay MORE than $4 million for a RB, and I stand by that.

[VikingsVictorious]

We're not talking $10 million. I might even agree with you about that. We're talking $4 million which you declared to be huge money that you would not be willing to pay any RB. I still have a very hard time believing that you really believe that.

You're not quite quoting me accurately.

I said I wouldn't pay MORE than $4 million for a RB, and I stand by that.

So you're OK with $4 million, but not $4,000,001.
Thinks of all the bums making 5-14 million in the NFL. Waynes for $14 million does not help a team win any more than Cook does.
It's obviously irrelevant because IMO the absolute minimum extension Cook would sign would be $10 million with incentives to earn up to $16 million. Really all that matters is the guaranteed money.