What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

RB Dalvin Cook, DAL (1 Viewer)

Biabreakable said:
Every Dalvin Cook Run, Catch vs. Bills
Click to expand...
I hesitate to say opinions as there's a ton of factors that are in play here but I will anyways cause it's fun for me. 

The first play he misses a lane to the right. Again it's his very first play so I wouldn't get too worked up about this but I bring it up because his elite trait is setting up (and finding) holes. It will take an adjustment period to get used to playing against NFL competition. 

Speaking of that, I think Cook is finding out that he is too late when making his jump cuts. He brought down a few times when he can't get out of the way enough. 

On a positive note, while I don't think that Cook is a burner, there's a couple times when guys are trying to catch him from behind and don't. He doesn't look like he's moving that fast but since his feet are always moving they can't get a lock on him. 

***Thanks for posting this video. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He looks like he could get 70+ catches this year if both he and Bradford stay healthy.  The amount of dump offs he got in the 1st quarter was ridiculous.  There could be a large amount of short passes this year because their O-line doesn't look good.  I'm not sure how many starters were playing for the Minn O-line or the Bills D-line, but the O-line was pulled apart almost instantly on every play.

If the O-line can improve, and Cook can be a bit more patient, he could get a ton of opportunity this season.

That said, Fournette looked much better against the Pats, who I think are better than the Bills.

 
The catches were nice, but I thought he looked subpar as a runner. I thought Murray would be able to hold off Cook, which why I had Cook ranked 28. On the contrary, I had McCaffery at 31, and I already realize I need to move him up a lot.

 
Biabreakable said:
First preseason game Cook was very involved on the first 3 drives.

His first run was his best of the game, it went for 6 yards. He pushed the pile running behind his blockers on this run. The Bills were winning the line of scrimmage for most of this game and Cook never really had much room to make things happen.

As a receiver Cook looked very good. Comfortable catching the ball with his hands in stride. He converted the 1st first down of the game on a reception to the right flat after running up the middle twice.

He caught three other passes on the first three series of the game. Two swing passes and two screen passes.

He missed a pass protection assignment on Hughes who came unblocked into the backfield. He just stepped aside and continued to run out to the flat as Bradford got smashed.

The Vikings offensive line did not block very well for most of this game.

Bishop Sankey was the 2nd RB in and they threw the ball to him several times before he left the game with an injury.

Early indications show that the Vikings intend to throw to their RBs often and more than Vikings fans are used to seeing. The running game needs better blocking for any RB to have much of a chance to do anything.
Click to expand...
We don't know what his assignment was on this play though.  It's possible he was supposed to release like this to be an outlet but Hughes was too disruptive and Bradford didn't have time to get around to it.  Watching the continuation of the play he was definitely taking an upfield track when Bradford went down.

 
Hankmoody said:
We don't know what his assignment was on this play though.  It's possible he was supposed to release like this to be an outlet but Hughes was too disruptive and Bradford didn't have time to get around to it.  Watching the continuation of the play he was definitely taking an upfield track when Bradford went down.
Click to expand...
While that likely is the play design, Hughes is unblocked. You have to adjust fire and deal with that.

In my opinion. Perhaps Zimmer thinks differently. If so then I disagree with him.

 
Nero said:
The catches were nice, but I thought he looked subpar as a runner. I thought Murray would be able to hold off Cook, which why I had Cook ranked 28. On the contrary, I had McCaffery at 31, and I already realize I need to move him up a lot.
Click to expand...
Murray vs Cook is going to be interesting.  Cook has youth on his side while Murray has proven to be solid but is injured.  McCaffery is going to get lots of touches. 

 
Biabreakable said:
While that likely is the play design, Hughes is unblocked. You have to adjust fire and deal with that.

In my opinion. Perhaps Zimmer thinks differently. If so then I disagree with him.
Click to expand...
No, you don't.  Coaches will generally rail you for missing your assignment like this.  If Bradford turns to look for Cook in the flat but he's eating facemask instead and Bradford subsequently gets smoked (because that was the play design) that's on Cook.  Coaches hold each guy accountable for their assignment and tend to hate freelancing.  If this is how it went down, the coaches are going to be blistering the tackle for not being able to at least slow Hughes down enough to let the play develop.

I'm not claiming to know this is the design, I'm just saying we don't know enough to blame Cook for it.

 
Hankmoody said:
No, you don't.  Coaches will generally rail you for missing your assignment like this.  If Bradford turns to look for Cook in the flat but he's eating facemask instead and Bradford subsequently gets smoked (because that was the play design) that's on Cook.  Coaches hold each guy accountable for their assignment and tend to hate freelancing.  If this is how it went down, the coaches are going to be blistering the tackle for not being able to at least slow Hughes down enough to let the play develop.

I'm not claiming to know this is the design, I'm just saying we don't know enough to blame Cook for it.
Click to expand...
Of course Rashod Hill needs to make a better block than that. But as you can see, he is not very good. He gets beaten pretty badly on at least one of these other plays as well. I haven't watched which other linemen are missing their assignments, but Hill definitely missed two, perhaps more.

I still think the RB needs to recognize what is happening and try to do something about it so that Bradford has a chance to make something of this play.

They need to play better, including Cook. Hopefully Reiff can do a better job than Hill when he is ready to play.

Both Reiff and Murray returned to individual drills before the game, they just haven't practiced in team drills yet, so they didn't play.

 
Borden said:
I hesitate to say opinions as there's a ton of factors that are in play here but I will anyways cause it's fun for me. 

The first play he misses a lane to the right. Again it's his very first play so I wouldn't get too worked up about this but I bring it up because his elite trait is setting up (and finding) holes. It will take an adjustment period to get used to playing against NFL competition. 

Speaking of that, I think Cook is finding out that he is too late when making his jump cuts. He brought down a few times when he can't get out of the way enough. 

On a positive note, while I don't think that Cook is a burner, there's a couple times when guys are trying to catch him from behind and don't. He doesn't look like he's moving that fast but since his feet are always moving they can't get a lock on him. 

***Thanks for posting this video. 
Click to expand...
The first play is an inside zone so I don't see how a lane to the right would be missed here. It is designed to be run inside.

Zimmer said he liked how Cook ran behind his pads. Thats fine I guess but it reminds me of his comments about McKinnon as well. Kind of square peg in a round hole asking these guys to run with power when they have other traits that are stronger than this that should be the focus of play design.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable said:
Of course Rashod Hill needs to make a better block than that. But as you can see, he is not very good. He gets beaten pretty badly on at least one of these other plays as well. I haven't watched which other linemen are missing their assignments, but Hill definitely missed two, perhaps more.

I still think the RB needs to recognize what is happening and try to do something about it so that Bradford has a chance to make something of this play.

They need to play better, including Cook. Hopefully Reiff can do a better job than Hill when he is ready to play.

Both Reiff and Murray returned to individual drills before the game, they just haven't practiced in team drills yet, so they didn't play.
Click to expand...
That might be what you think, but it's not how coaches think.  If Cook is a designated receiver on that play and he's not where he's supposed to be there's hell to pay in the film room.  They train these guys and rep over and over to do a certain thing.  If they start freelancing coaches lose trust. 

Look at the last play of the first possession.  Cook run the exact same route, he's wide open in the flat.  Had Bradford had an iota of time he'd have been able to hit him for an easy 10 yards.  Instead someone else failed (both tackles, the right side was worse) and Bradford had a DE breaking clear before he even planted his back foot.  If the other guy does his job properly that's an easy first down.

Again, it could well be he's supposed to make that read first and he got jumpy getting out into the flat when he should have blocked.  We'll never know unfortunately because coaches aren't going to share the design with us.  We'd know if it were a real game because he'd be on the bench after that (especially if it was twice) but I think even if it was his missed assignment, they would still keep him in as a learning experience.

 
Biabreakable said:
The first play is an inside zone so I don't see how a lane to the right would be missed here. It is designed to be run inside.

Zimmer said he liked how Cook ran behind his pads. Thats fine I guess but it reminds me of his comments about McKinnon as well. Kind of square peg in a round hole asking these guys to run with power when they have other traits that are stronger than this that should be the focus of play design.
Click to expand...
I understand that it was designed to be inside and that it's his very first carry so he likely just wants to show he can do as he is told so even if he did see the lane he might have chosen not to take it. I'm not knocking him for this exact play but in regular season I would. 

From a conceptual point of view I will disagree with you. If the coaches don't want Cook to setup/find lanes then this is going to be a Latavius Murray backfield. Murray is bigger, stronger, faster and if all that matters is he hits the designed hole, he will take this job.

I don't think that this is the case however and it's not like lane was outside the tackle. It's just a quick side step then burst through the lane. The risk in minimal too. Two yards instead of 3 if a defender can get there. If he's able to get through it's likely a 6+ yard play. 

 
@Hankmoody I haven't seen the play but from what has been described I tend to agree with you. However, I think @Biabreakable also has a tough position since he's been all about Cook. If he sees Cook side step a pass rusher that goes on to crush his QB, it would seem very bias to just write it off as "Oh it wasn't his assignment." since we don't actually know. It's even more difficult because he doesn't need to fully engage Hughes either. He might have just been able to chip then sprint to his spot. In Biabreakables case (and maybe the threads) it might be better to assume the negative in an attempt not get his mind in an place where he's looking for excuses. It's like a coach being harder on his best players.

 
Borden said:
@Hankmoody I haven't seen the play but from what has been described I tend to agree with you. However, I think @Biabreakable also has a tough position since he's been all about Cook. If he sees Cook side step a pass rusher that goes on to crush his QB, it would seem very bias to just write it off as "Oh it wasn't his assignment." since we don't actually know. It's even more difficult because he doesn't need to fully engage Hughes either. He might have just been able to chip then sprint to his spot. In Biabreakables case (and maybe the threads) it might be better to assume the negative in an attempt not get his mind in an place where he's looking for excuses. It's like a coach being harder on his best players.
Click to expand...
That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying we don't know one way or another.  It's equally biased to say "oh, it was his blown assignment" or "he should have done X" when we have no idea what the coaches want from him on the play.  Bia could well be right, I have stipulated that.  But he might be way off base, and it's important not to make the mistake of thinking that we know more than we actually do.

 
Hankmoody said:
That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying we don't know one way or another.  It's equally biased to say "oh, it was his blown assignment" or "he should have done X" when we have no idea what the coaches want from him on the play.  Bia could well be right, I have stipulated that.  But he might be way off base, and it's important not to make the mistake of thinking that we know more than we actually do.
Click to expand...
I know what you were saying and wasn't trying to imply that you were taking a position. My overall point was that it makes sense to be overly critical when/if you're in a position like breakable where their love for player is so high. Being overly critical is important the best option because you don't want to miss potential weaknesses. 

***Side Rant*** Yes it's speculation but everything is speculation. If we don't speculate then there is no discussion, there is no finding the causes for outcomes, etc. Projections would be weaker. 

 
Hankmoody said:
That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying we don't know one way or another.  It's equally biased to say "oh, it was his blown assignment" or "he should have done X" when we have no idea what the coaches want from him on the play.  Bia could well be right, I have stipulated that.  But he might be way off base, and it's important not to make the mistake of thinking that we know more than we actually do.
Click to expand...
I could certainly be wrong and what happened is exactly what the coaches want him to do.

That is why I said in my opinion, he should at least try to slow the free rusher down, get in the way, do something, if Zimmer doesn't want him to do that, I disagree.

I am not the coach though and I don't know what Zimmer thinks about that play.

 
Biabreakable said:
I could certainly be wrong and what happened is exactly what the coaches want him to do.

That is why I said in my opinion, he should at least try to slow the free rusher down, get in the way, do something, if Zimmer doesn't want him to do that, I disagree.

I am not the coach though and I don't know what Zimmer thinks about that play.
Click to expand...
You disagree with the coach wanting the RB to execute his assignment?  What if that play is designed for the RG to swing across and pick up Hughes?  And now Cook freelances, puts himself in harm's when when totally unnecessary, the RG is standing there with no one to block, and Bradford tosses the ball out to the flat right in the waiting hands of ... nobody?  It's no different than a screen pass - if he picks up the runaway train DE coming in that screen is going to fail.  The DL are accounted for in that play, and it's not by the RB.

Do you think the RB knows every blocking assignment on every play and can immediately diagnose something like that?  Because that's the opposite of how it works.  The RB knows when he does have blocking/help/chip/blitz pickup assignment, and that's when he's looking to possibly hit someone or make a decision of if this then that else other.  But on plays he doesn't, he's not about to go out and screw up his own assignment for something he's not even sure is necessary.

 
Borden said:
I know what you were saying and wasn't trying to imply that you were taking a position. My overall point was that it makes sense to be overly critical when/if you're in a position like breakable where their love for player is so high. Being overly critical is important the best option because you don't want to miss potential weaknesses. 

***Side Rant*** Yes it's speculation but everything is speculation. If we don't speculate then there is no discussion, there is no finding the causes for outcomes, etc. Projections would be weaker. 
Click to expand...
Unless of course it's not a weakness at all, he was actually going the right thing, and it's a positive that the coaches can trust him to be in the right spot.  It's a bad thing if being "overly critical" (this is more like speculatively critical) nets the wrong analysis.

I'm as high on Cook as Bia is.  I have had him 1.01 since last year.  I took him 1.02 in the one league I had that pick in and I traded the farm to get 1.05 in another to get him.  I prayed all draft season the Raiders would find a way to get him.  I don't understand your point "it makes sense to be overly critical when/if you're in a position like breakable where their love for player is so high" unless you are saying it makes sense to not let your love for the guy cloud your judgement.  I agree totally.  If the ball hits the guy in the hands and I know it's his fault for dropping it I'll crush him for that.  If he tries to pick up a blitzer but whiffs the block sure, that's obviously his bad.  But this is like when the WR runs a stop route and the QB throws it 30 yards downfield - we don't really know who made the mistake.  You hear (good) analysts make that distinction all the time on TV.

This is my last post on the topic so as not to continue clogging the thread, I've made my thoughts pretty clear and there's a lot of Cook loving we can be doing instead.

 
Zimmer on O-Line Play vs. Bills, Cook's Debut

At the 5:30 mark of this he talks more specifically about Cook.

He says Cook didn't have a lot of open space, he had good runs, he had effective runs. The passes he caught on the sideline and the screen showed his ability a bit more, to hit a crease and go. You didn't really see that the other night, it just wasn't there.

He says the first two plays of the game the offensive line knocked the (defense) off the ball 4 to 5 yards. Cook got what was there. The thing I liked about him was when he got into tight quarters, he lowered his shoulders and fight for a couple extra yards.

Zimmer is asked if sack two was a missed chip by Dalvin. He says Davlin was supposed to help yes. Yes he was supposed to help. Poor technique by Rashod (Hill) and he was expecting help to the outside.

eta- I don't have a way to view that play again, but Zimmers comments suggest that a TE was perhaps supposed to help Hill with that block yet didn't.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He goes third round every mock I do now.  So cmc and cook are both 3rd rounders now....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gandalf said:
Me too. I just don't know if he thinks Hyde is his guy. Hyde is pretty talented so he probably will be the guy unless there is some behind the scenes attitude stuff 
Click to expand...
Does Hyde have a history of "attitude stuff"?

He may not be Shanny's "guy" long term but it seems very likely he will be this year. He's clearly the most talented RB on the roster.

 
Gandalf said:
Me too. I just don't know if he thinks Hyde is his guy. Hyde is pretty talented so he probably will be the guy unless there is some behind the scenes attitude stuff 
Click to expand...
Almost seems there is less questions with Cook though.  Seems like job is his and I'm sure the Vikings would love to have a RB produce for them

 
Man did he look good last night.  And more importantly, his o line was opening up holes for him.  But he was reading the hand showing excellent vision 

he had a few runs where he slipped and fell.  Could have been a way bigger night.  He's making me re-think my #1 rookie draft pick.  I was kind of settling in on mixon.  But I think cook is in a better situation for this year and maybe beyond and is incredibly talented.   

He definitely passed fournette in my mind.  I think based on situation he passed mccaffery as I don't think Carolina and cam will use mccaffery to extract maximum value.  

Its bw cook and mixon for me at 1.1 now.  If hill wasn't in Cincy I think it would be mixon BC he looks every bit as good and explosive as cook but has more of a 3 down back frame 

 
rickyg said:
Man did he look good last night.  And more importantly, his o line was opening up holes for him.  But he was reading the hand showing excellent vision 

he had a few runs where he slipped and fell.  Could have been a way bigger night.  He's making me re-think my #1 rookie draft pick.  I was kind of settling in on mixon.  But I think cook is in a better situation for this year and maybe beyond and is incredibly talented.   

He definitely passed fournette in my mind.  I think based on situation he passed mccaffery as I don't think Carolina and cam will use mccaffery to extract maximum value.  

Its bw cook and mixon for me at 1.1 now.  If hill wasn't in Cincy I think it would be mixon BC he looks every bit as good and explosive as cook but has more of a 3 down back frame 
Click to expand...
Founette would be the best option in non PPR.  Of Cooks and Mccaffery, Cooks has the higher floor (more carries) and Mccaffery the higher ceiling (more TDs).  For now, just monitoring Mixon....I think you have to be concerned with timeshare scenario although "conventional wisdom" is the Mixon is "the guy".

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

skol asylum
RB-RB-RB strategery
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
ponchsox
ponchsox
Yogibear
Best Free Agents Still Available for 2024
Replies
10
Views
2K
Yogibear
Yogibear
RaidersAreOne
Players to avoid drafting
2
Replies
68
Views
7K
TheDirtyWord
TheDirtyWord

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top