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)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Well they had Cook graded as a 1st round pick. Spielman said that. It is true.
The Vikings obviously didn't have a 1st round pick to use on him. There are likely many other teams that had him graded similarly, but had other priorities or did consider some of these incidents in the past enough of a concern to pass on him until a later round. Or maybe it was because of other reasons. No way to really know all of that. In any case however high the Vikings graded him, they didn't have a 1st round pick to prove it and were not going to spend what it would take to move up and draft him in the first round.
Rick Spielman talks about putting a player in a box on their draft board if there are character issues that are considered risk. A player may be graded as a 1st round talent by them, but put in a box where they will not pick the player at their grade. And they determine at what point of the draft that they feel the risk will be worth the reward. An example of this would be Everson Griffen who was considered a 1st round talent by the Vikings and a lot of people in the pre draft process, but he fell to the 4th round where the Vikings were willing to take a chance on him. This ended up working out exceptionally well, but the Vikings and other teams do this for every draft, whatever they cal it. Some players go in a box on their draft board and they won't invest as high a pick on the player as they have them graded.
The best argument is that 30 teams passed on him in the 1st round. A couple of those teams drafted a RB ahead of Cook. So many teams had concerns or they liked Fournette and and McCaffrey more at least in the case of Jacksonville and Carolina.
The Vikings did trade up to select him.So if you consider this additional cost, it makes Cook a slightly higher second round pick than he was n terms of draft capital invested to get him. He was the 3rd RB selected in a very strong and deep RB class. Because of the depth of the class, some teams may have been more willing to pass on a RB in the early rounds, as they knew they would be able to get good players at that position in later rounds.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Yeah, I don't think the Jags is a plus for Fournette except it's close to the right offensive scheme. We can debate why Dalton has been a much more successful QB than Bradford, but clearly Dalton has had a much better career Bradford. If you think that's mostly because of AJG and Eiffert, well fine. The Bengals still have those guys and the Vikings don't. I don't think the Vikings are hell on earth. I just saw Cook as a guy with several concerns (injury, fumbles, character and combine). For me to get excited, I needed a juicy landing spot. Minnesota isn't juicy and is just another reason to suspect Cook could flop.
bostonfred
Footballguy
Lol busted. The point is still that they let him slide to pick 41. It's hard to argue he was a first round talent and that he had no character red flags. Either he was a first round talent who slid on character concerns or he was a second round talent who checked out. I am fine saying either, I just think some people are trying to say neither or both and it's not really a fair evaluation.
Bojang0301
Omar4Heisman
Feel like this is going to come full circle and all of the "NFL red flags" are not really fantasy red flags leading to Cook climbing back up the later rookie drafts run. I don't think it takes much watching of him strictly as a runner to know what kind of talent he has.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
The Vikings medical staff has proven to be very competitent in extreme situation such as Teddy Bridgewaters injury last season. Adrian Petersons recovery being some examples.
I don't like the way you are characterizing their professionalism. But whatever.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
It was reported prior to the NFL draft that if Cook fell it would be because of character concerns due to incidents in his past. Not because of his talent.
Do with that information what you will.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
BF had really gone of the rails this offseason. You guys are doing yeoman's work in here but I'm not sure why you're bothering.
bostonfred
Footballguy
That's what I thought too. But you just said these two things
"Vikings medical staff had no concerns about Cooks medical history.
The Vikings spent a lot of time evaluating Dalvin Cooks charecter and determined that he will not be a problem."
Which is the point - if he's a first round talent with medical and character concerns, then they slid him down their board due to character concerns. If the Vikings determined these things won't be a problem, then they think he's a second round talent. Neither one makes him undraftable in fantasy.
I agree with your more recent statement - he fell due to character concerns and probably medical concerns. And the team that was most willing to accept those risks was the Vikings. That doesn't mean that there were no risks. This is the time of year when people who haven't been paying attention stop in and read and it would be nice to present the good bad and ugly of each player honestly.
I have no dog in this fight - I'm not rooting for or against him, I don't care about the Vikings one way or the other, i.don't own him (or not own him) yet in any league. I think he's a risky pick and clearly a step down from the top 2-3 players. I feel the same way about Mixon.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
In the short-term things like fumbling issues, poor pass protection, and competition for carries have massive fantasy implications. The former two have kept better players than Cook off the field before and that's not even accounting for the 3rd falling right in line with that.
I do agree that long-term they may be less concerning (although a horrific SPARQ athleticism score still is, not to mention the injury history) but a lot of these are things that wipe guys off the map before they ever have a chance to even get to "long-term".
I'm not sure one way or the other, but the character issues have been out there for years and Cook was still being projected as an early 1st round player. Those concerns aren't new. The athleticism concerns are and from a timeline standpoint line up much more accurately with the value drop.
Of course, I'm not sure whether one or the other is particularly better than the other.
It's a weird talking point anyway. "The Vikings decided they were OK with the character issue" isn't really a point. You could literally say that about any player on a team with character issues in history. In every one of those cases that team decided they were willing to take a chance on it. But that doesn't mean they're not aware that it is a chance they're taking, nor does it mean that it's not still a red flag. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. But it's still a risk and in Cook's case it's another risk in a long line of risks any one of which could quash him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Fred I don't understand why you think there is a contradiction in my statements?
The Vikings did not have a 1st round pick.
You can go team by team and speculate why they did not draft Cook when they had the opportunity to. I think a lot of the time, teams likely had Cook rated as a 1st round talent, but they had other players who were also graded as 1st round talents, who were a greater need to them than a RB was. That doesn't mean Cook wasn't the highest RB on their draft board.
If it comes down to a tie breaker obviously the character concern (if a team had them) would break that tie and they pass on Cook for the safer and also highly graded option.
Most of this has already been posted in the thread already if anyone wants to verify anything. I think most of this has been discussed enough to be common knowledge. The MMQB article posted earlier in the thread does a good job of describing each issue in detail and how serious they might be.
As far as Cook being a 1st round talent on the football field, that is a pretty commonly shared opinion of many. More instances of this being said than you can shake a stick at. I happen to agree and think it is pretty obvious.
Here is an article talking about players who may fall in the draft due to off the field issues.
NFL Draft Rumor: Buccaneers passed on Dalvin Cook because Doug Martin is doing well
The Vikings did not have a 1st round pick.
You can go team by team and speculate why they did not draft Cook when they had the opportunity to. I think a lot of the time, teams likely had Cook rated as a 1st round talent, but they had other players who were also graded as 1st round talents, who were a greater need to them than a RB was. That doesn't mean Cook wasn't the highest RB on their draft board.
If it comes down to a tie breaker obviously the character concern (if a team had them) would break that tie and they pass on Cook for the safer and also highly graded option.
Most of this has already been posted in the thread already if anyone wants to verify anything. I think most of this has been discussed enough to be common knowledge. The MMQB article posted earlier in the thread does a good job of describing each issue in detail and how serious they might be.
As far as Cook being a 1st round talent on the football field, that is a pretty commonly shared opinion of many. More instances of this being said than you can shake a stick at. I happen to agree and think it is pretty obvious.
Here is an article talking about players who may fall in the draft due to off the field issues.
Why each team passed on him in the first round is something you would need to consider on a case by case basis. Obviously a few teams are set at the RB position and were not considering drafting a RB in the first round at all because of that.
NFL Draft Rumor: Buccaneers passed on Dalvin Cook because Doug Martin is doing well
bostonfred
Footballguy
I didn't say they were unprofessional. I just don't think the Vikings are risk averse when it comes to injuries. Saying that the medical team signed off on him doesn't mean he's not risky. The Vikings were willing to sign off on a first round pick for Bradford. That doesn't make it a bad trade and it doesn't mean the Vikings medical staff is incompetent or unprofessional. It also doesn't mean Bradford has zero medical concerns. It means that between the medical staff and team management, they were willing to pay a first round pick even after discounting for the risk. Then taking cook in the second doesn't mean they don't think he has character or medical concerns, it means they think he's worth the risk at that pick. With another team I might think that means they have him graded as an uber stud, but the Vikings were not risk averse with Bradford and I don't think they were with cook either.
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
Maybe but Mixons better imo so its a quandry.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I think the risks of his shoulder injuries have been greatly exaggerated. He had surgery in the offseason prior to 2016 and it was successful. He missed one game in the 2015 season against Syracuse because of an ankle injury. He played very well against Clemson the following week 21 carries 192 yards.
If he dropped because of the combine measurements, I think that is silly but sure maybe it matters more for some teams than others.
Gopher State
Footballguy
Ilov80s
Footballguy
I've read 3 shoulder operations. High school torn rotator and 2 torn labrums
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fanragsports.com/nfl/injury-off-field-subpar-athletic-testing-tarnish-dalvin-cooks-stock/amp/
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Yeah RB tend to get injured a lot. I think most of us have noticed this by now.
Do I think the injuries are alarming? As described by the author of the above article linked? No. I consider that artistic licence on the authors part to create a sense of meaning and urgency. He goes back to this well often and could use a thesaurus.
Do I think the injuries are alarming? As described by the author of the above article linked? No. I consider that artistic licence on the authors part to create a sense of meaning and urgency. He goes back to this well often and could use a thesaurus.
Tau837
Footballguy
Especially when you read his draft profile:
Doesn't sound like a guy whose combine measurements are going to matter much. Off field issues? pass protection? fumbles? Sure, all possible negatives, but the combine stuff is overblown IMO.
shadrap
Footballguy
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
BigTex
Don't mess with Texas
Great post Bia and a must watch. It's interesting that he mentioned the game he saw live was the game against Ole Miss. I just got around to watching that game this past Wednesday as there's some games i don't get to watch until much later after the season. Clearly Ole Miss was Hell bent on stopping Cook and the did............at least the 1st half then all Hell broke lose after Engram missed an easy catch that went for an INT. Cook took over out of the back field with 100 yds receiving and nearly 100 yds rushing in one of the greatest 2nd half come backs I've ever seen. It was unbelievable.
Engram was also featured in that game but he did miss some easy passes.
Great game!
Tex
nirad3
Footballguy
I'm not directing this at you but it seemed the best post to reply to for what I wanted to say about all this. At some point you (not you particularly, but "you") just need to stop reading scouting reports and just watch the player play. I saw numerous instances in numerous games where Cook was obviously one of the best football players on the field.
This isn't meant at being scathing towards anyone but do you all watch college football? I may actually like college football more than NFL football. The fact that I'm in multiple dynasty leagues has actually intensified how much I love college football because I am always in a "scouting" mode. I love watching SEC football, Big 12 football, Pac 12 football... and then in bowl season, absolutely everything.
I trust what scouts have to say most of the time because they are paid by NFL teams to provide them with intelligence on the best players in the country. But at some point I start to realize that there are some things that are subjective and others that are objective and I always trust my own eyes over everything else.
When it comes to Cook, you can see he has "it". Are there "red flags"? Sure. But you can say there are red flags to just about every player coming out of college... especially now since there is an absolute insane amount of scrutiny, social media, underwear olympics, metrics, moneyball, measuring of hands and ankle thickness and Wonderlic scores and should I keep going?
Cook's a football player. Thank you Mike Mayock.
BigTex
Don't mess with Texas
Great post,
You mean Fournette's chronic ankle? Or McCaffrey's Hip (speculation) it was undisclosed? Or maybe Kamara's knee? How about Mixon's concussion and knee injury?
You're right they all have concerns or "red flags" but most people tend to focus on what they agree with.
We've also come to the point that many people actually don't watch the games. They might watch the highlights but some don't even do that. Some will trust only reports.
Cook played at a high level against some of the best competition and broke records in the process yet he's ranked #4 or possibly #5 by some. It's crazy but that's why we play this game.
Tex
nirad3
Footballguy
Failed to mention that, thank you. He shook all sorts of top-level talent. Just saw a clip of him against Clemson and it was just "wow". The more I watch stuff like that in conjunction with what I read and see of Murray the more I like Cook.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
That report was written by Lance Zierlien. Still a good point.
I think Fred makes a good point that some people may not have been keeping up with this over the past few months, so a vetting process for them may still be necessary. That is why we have long thread though so people can read back and catch up.
For myself and many of you, the pre draft process was long and these tires have been kicked over and over again. For me none of this stuff is new. So at least for me, rehashing all of that after over two months of doing that not something I want to do anymore.
14 games
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavis
Footballguy
To me, people who think like this is not an opinion I value.
I mean though, this Vikings OLine whining is a little tired. Overthinking Cook way to much. Whats even worse is the people who dont like Murray and say they need a RB are stilling whining because they drafted a RB. The internet, smh.
Last edited by a moderator:
mr roboto
Footballguy
Bunch of snowflakes in here who can't handle people having different opinions.
Truth is Vikes are a slightly below average landing spot. But situations change so quickly it's nearly irreverent for dynasty (esp at RB). The O-line is a concern as is the lack of deep passing game. In the short term Murray will get a real chance to be the starter/lead guy but I think Cook is far more talented. This makes McKinnon expendable imo.
Truth is Vikes are a slightly below average landing spot. But situations change so quickly it's nearly irreverent for dynasty (esp at RB). The O-line is a concern as is the lack of deep passing game. In the short term Murray will get a real chance to be the starter/lead guy but I think Cook is far more talented. This makes McKinnon expendable imo.
Mavis
Footballguy
I agree, but people are treating Cook like he is JAG going to a bad team, he isnt... He is a really good player with elite attributes going to a bad team. That plays normally under achieving defenses in the division.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Remember that Murray probably won't play until camp due to ankle surgery. And is on a 1 year contract. He's not exactly standing firmly in Cook's way.
So we've gone from Minnesota having a terrible offensive line to them now being a bad team? But by all means everyone should draft a running back 1st overall on the Jaguars.
bostonfred
Footballguy
What he is is a highly touted second round pick with great film and college production against tough competition who showed ok speed and bad agility at the combine, but good field vision and elusiveness on tape.
He has some medical red flags, and serious character red flags that are generally agreed to have knocked him out if the first round.
He's going to a team that just spent fairly big on one of the top free agent running backs, who could be used as the thunder to cook's lightning, in a bad offense with a bad but revamped offensive line, bad quarterback and mediocre receivers.
He was originally considered the consensus 1a or 1b with Fournette, but was overtaken in some circles by Mccaffery, Mixon and Davis.
Of these, Fournette should be a clear feature back, and was picked the earliest of the group at fourth overall, but he's a big guy and he plays for the jaguars, both of which turn different people off. Mccaffrey is an outstanding prospect who looks like an excellent runner and even better receiver, but seems like a bad fit for the Panthers unless they revamp things (and they drafted a hybrid rb/wr in the same draft, so that may be the plan). Mixon might be the most talented, but he was filmed punching a girl 3 years ago and just settled out of court with her, plus there are some other potential character red flags. He was also drafted to a potential rbbc in Cincinnati with Benard and hill. Davis went to the sexiest situation, paired with Mariotta as the clear number one receiver for an emerging young qb. But while he looks good on tape, he didn't run at the combine or his pro day due to injury and he played against inferior college competition. Dynasty owners have been hearing wr, wr, WR for so long that a lot of people will take him first overall, but there's another large continent that has been so rb starved for years that they will dip into the rb pool to get one of the rare stud rbs.
Everyone's good, everyone's got warts. Pick your poison, and don't get your panties bunched if someone else's top five is completely upside down from yours or even considers your guy a tier down from theirs. There won't be many drafts where these guys don't go top 5 or maybe 7 if someone loves Williams and Howard.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Minnesota Vikings trade up to land Dalvin Cook
The teams who picked from 33 to 40
2(33) Packers (From Browns) King, Kevin CB 6'3" 200 Washington 5.8
2(34) Jaguars (From Seahawks through 49ers) Robinson, Cam OT 6'6" 322 Alabama 6.0
3(35) Seahawks (From Jaguars) McDowell, Malik DT 6'6" 295 Michigan St. 6.2
4(36) Cardinals (From Bears) Baker, Budda S 5'10" 195 Washington 5.9
5(37) Bills (From Rams) Jones, Zay WR 6'2" 201 East Carolina 5.7
6(38) Chargers Lamp, Forrest OG 6'4" 309 Western Kentucky 6.2
7(39) Jets Maye, Marcus S 6'0" 210 Florida 5.8
8(40) Panthers Samuel, Curtis WR 5'11" 196 Ohio St.
The Packers could have used a RB but they had bigger needs to improve their secondary.
Jaguars had already drafted Fournette
Seahawks drafted the best defensive player I have seen from the 2017 draft. I am not sure if the Vikings would have drafted him over Cook if he had been available.
Cardinals already have David Johnson
Bills have McCoy and bigger needs than RB
Chargers have Melvin Gordon and they drafted the best offensive lineman in the draft imo.
I cannot really explain what the Jets are doing. They took two safeties with their top 2 picks. The Saints did this too.
Panthers had already drafted McCaffrey.
So I am not really seeing it as teams passed on Cook so much as they had other priorities. I would say the Bengals passed on him when they traded down as they did draft Mixon at pick 48 (who might have been their 1st choice at pick 41 had they not traded down).
Using Chases trade value chart pick 48 and pick 128 = 464 points which is similar value to pick 44 on the chart. Pick 41 is worth 490 points, so the Vikings gained some value according to the chart.
The teams who picked from 33 to 40
2(33) Packers (From Browns) King, Kevin CB 6'3" 200 Washington 5.8
2(34) Jaguars (From Seahawks through 49ers) Robinson, Cam OT 6'6" 322 Alabama 6.0
3(35) Seahawks (From Jaguars) McDowell, Malik DT 6'6" 295 Michigan St. 6.2
4(36) Cardinals (From Bears) Baker, Budda S 5'10" 195 Washington 5.9
5(37) Bills (From Rams) Jones, Zay WR 6'2" 201 East Carolina 5.7
6(38) Chargers Lamp, Forrest OG 6'4" 309 Western Kentucky 6.2
7(39) Jets Maye, Marcus S 6'0" 210 Florida 5.8
8(40) Panthers Samuel, Curtis WR 5'11" 196 Ohio St.
The Packers could have used a RB but they had bigger needs to improve their secondary.
Jaguars had already drafted Fournette
Seahawks drafted the best defensive player I have seen from the 2017 draft. I am not sure if the Vikings would have drafted him over Cook if he had been available.
Cardinals already have David Johnson
Bills have McCoy and bigger needs than RB
Chargers have Melvin Gordon and they drafted the best offensive lineman in the draft imo.
I cannot really explain what the Jets are doing. They took two safeties with their top 2 picks. The Saints did this too.
Panthers had already drafted McCaffrey.
So I am not really seeing it as teams passed on Cook so much as they had other priorities. I would say the Bengals passed on him when they traded down as they did draft Mixon at pick 48 (who might have been their 1st choice at pick 41 had they not traded down).
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
His off the field red flags don't sound all that red to me.
Medical ones are more dark pink.
Medical ones are more dark pink.
Same dilema. I assume you're debating Cook vs either Davis or Mixon? What's your current thought process at that spot in non ppr?
Casting Couch
Footballguy
I love the fact that Minnesota traded up to grab Dalvin Cook, rather than using their original pick. Lat Murray is not the answer in Minnesota.
Warhogs
Footballguy
I'm actually trying to work out between Cook, McCaffrey, Mixon or Davis. Davis feels like a safe pick but the RB spot is valued higher in this league. McCaffrey still holds consideration for me because he was an earlier pick, no baggage, can contribute in the return game because we get some points for punt and kick return yardage. Cook carries the highest risk but just looks the part on film and just looks like the more prototypical RB to me. I'm not ruling out Mixon either but he seems maybe even more risky and is in a messy backfield. I think the drafting of him means Hill is out of the picture next year but Gio might always be there in some sort of receiving role.
FunkyPlutos
Footballguy
The positive for Cook with Bradford is that Bradford did a lot of throwing underneath routes because of the poor offensive line which would lead to a positive outlook in the passing game for Cook.
Cook is a significantly better athletic talent than Murray & Vikings can void Murray's deal after this year.
Cook starts on day 1.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Agreed.
McKinnon has improved as a receiver, but he still isn't above average. I think Cook is.
The pass protection could still limit Cooks opportunities as a receiver year one however. That is where Murray comes in. McKinnon might be better than Peterson in pass protection (not hard), but he hasn't been good in that area of his skill set.
Borden
Footballguy
This is probably the worst possible fit for Cook. Sparano is runs/wants a man blocking scheme. Here's a long article if you won't want to believe me. What makes Cook special is his ability to setup blocks but man (or gap if you prefer) is about OL getting to guy. Sure the RB can help set things up with small moves but it's not as deliberate. Mixon would've been a WAY better fit in Min.
This feels like a pick they made because it was the best "draft value" rather than best player for their team. They wanted/needed an RB and there was a highly touted guy on the board where they could go get him. I would like to think that they have intentions to go to a zone based scheme when they drafted him but then why would you bring in Murray?
The way I see this turning out is Cook looks bad (or not as good as he should) because they are using him wrong. Then everyone is going to stay how much he sucks. After that I want to say he will go a smart team that knows how to use him but who knows.
This feels like a pick they made because it was the best "draft value" rather than best player for their team. They wanted/needed an RB and there was a highly touted guy on the board where they could go get him. I would like to think that they have intentions to go to a zone based scheme when they drafted him but then why would you bring in Murray?
The way I see this turning out is Cook looks bad (or not as good as he should) because they are using him wrong. Then everyone is going to stay how much he sucks. After that I want to say he will go a smart team that knows how to use him but who knows.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I agree with what you are saying Borden in regards to the Vikings showing a preference for man blocking schemes, that do not take full advantage of what Cooks main strengths are, his vision and timing in the ZBS.
Dalvin Cook has said his favorite running play is the stretch play, or otherwise called outside zone. The most famous example I can think of is Edgerrin James with Peyton Manning as they would run the stretch play over and over again. Tons of play action off the same look.
I am not sure I have seen the Vikings run a stretch play at all in recent years. If so they didn't do it often.
I am not sure if the Vikings offensive linemen are well suited to blocking the stretch play as I haven't see them do it.
That said I don't really see why Cook cannot be successful with man blocking. If anyone could shine some light on that? I would love to hear why.
To me man blocking requires less creativity and reads from the RB than zone blocking does. The RB does not need to pick the right hole in man blocking. It is always where it is supposed to be and that is where the RB runs with the ball, if the hole is open or not. So while this would not be ideal, I am not sure why the system would turn Cook into a bad football player.
Dalvin Cook has said his favorite running play is the stretch play, or otherwise called outside zone. The most famous example I can think of is Edgerrin James with Peyton Manning as they would run the stretch play over and over again. Tons of play action off the same look.
I am not sure I have seen the Vikings run a stretch play at all in recent years. If so they didn't do it often.
I am not sure if the Vikings offensive linemen are well suited to blocking the stretch play as I haven't see them do it.
That said I don't really see why Cook cannot be successful with man blocking. If anyone could shine some light on that? I would love to hear why.
To me man blocking requires less creativity and reads from the RB than zone blocking does. The RB does not need to pick the right hole in man blocking. It is always where it is supposed to be and that is where the RB runs with the ball, if the hole is open or not. So while this would not be ideal, I am not sure why the system would turn Cook into a bad football player.
Last edited by a moderator:
