Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
RB Dalvin Cook, Free Agent (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
I'm guessing he means next year. I think they're wisely reading the tea leaves and aren't going to offer a running back a multi-year contract at $14m+.
They're gong to really be up against the cap next year.
BigJim®
Footballguy
JMHO, not amazing. His inability to complete a season doesn't merit a new deal, and he has zero leverage.Real confidence boost.
Amazing he doesn't get a deal.
ericttspikes
Footballguy
I took Dalvin at 1.12 but got sniped on Mattison. The value at 12 was too good to pass up IMO. Got sniped on Mattison in the 9th, but that was too rich IMO. I had both last year and Mattison got hurt too. Just grabbed Boone as my last pick instead.On the train this year - grabbed him at 1.04 and Mattison in the 9th in my 12 team PPR redraft. I agree that the risk seems a bit lower for him since he has such a good back up.
I get people being risk adverse on the injury thing, but don't get being down on him regarding the contract impasse. The only leverage Cook has this year is to play 16 and ball out. Holding out, or milking an injury won't make him any $. IF he plays 16 and plays well he can write his own check, and from what I've read I think he knows that. If anything, this is the year to own Dalvin IMO. His future payday is dependent on him playing and performing well. Seems like huge incentive for him.
As are all elite players working on their rookie contract. It's the way the system is set up.
Man In The Box
Footballguy
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
That's an awful lot of money to give to an injury-prone RB who has only played in 29 of 48 possible NFL games.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Look at why they’re paying Kirk Cousins and enough said. And yes my dumb team tried to pay him more.
Faust
MVP
A few years from now, 10 other backs will make more. If the Vikes didn't pay him, another team would.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
cloppbeast
Footballguy
Nice!
kittenmittens
Footballguy
Wowww. I didn't see this big of an extension coming. I guess they had to. Doesn't seem like a horrible overpay tho.
Is that a good reason to sign him though?
We got a ton of evidence the last several seasons that paying for RB's is a foolish decision. Hell, Kubiak is a part of the staff that began to prove RB's are replaceable. Its like everyone agreed RB's are replaceable, and then a handful of teams said, except for our guy, defeating the entire point.
ericttspikes
Footballguy
Damn. Was hoping for a prove it year.
The Frankman
Footballguy
... and this is wrong somehow? There are some RBs that profile as replacement-level, and some aren't. I see nothing wrong with that statement. If you think you can easily replace Christian McCaffrey or Saquon Barkley's production, go for it. Otherwise you pay them.
Last edited by a moderator:
I mean, yes I think so. Gurley, Johnson, Freeman, and Bell are all very recent examples of extremely productive guys who got paid big money and their teams instantly regretted it. All of those guys (maybe not Freeman) were considered elite RB's at the time. Cook has not proven at all that he is on the level McCaffrey/Barkley are, or where Gurley/Bell were.
I can see the case for paying a truly elite RB, especially one who also catches 80+ passes. I wouldn't, but I can see the case for it. But, Cook is neither of those things.
To end on a positive, I will say Cook was more deserving than Joe Mixon or Melvin Gordon.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
The reality is the studies say that any single player outside of a QB has a remarkably small effect on a team's projected win total and is not worth paying big money to. Obviously that isn't a realistic way to run a team but everyone always cherry picks RBs out of those kind of studies when really the studies apply to any non-QB.
Yes we've had 4 straight big money RB contracts that worked out poorly for the teams that signed them. That is the thing about a sample size of 4. A few years back we had like 6 in a row with CB's getting huge deals and then turning into complete trash but teams still dole out huge money to CBs.
Prior to these recent 4 we had a ton of RBs that played at elite levels into their late 20's. We're coming off the weakest group of late 20's RBs in modern NFL history here (remember all these guys that are in their mid-late 20's now are the guys who were young when 19 of the first 24 picks in dynasty startup drafts were WRs because there were so few good young RBs in the league at the time), so I'm not sure I would necessarily apply their performance at age 25+ going forward too strictly.
Last edited by a moderator:
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
True, but we also don't consistently see rookies(even undrafted ones) just stepping in and being solid starters instantly like we do at RB, and CB's usually aren't on their way out at 27.
I do agree RB get overly picked on as a bad position to overspend on. Really from a $=value point of view DL is the biggest offender in my opinion.Ideally, teams should spend on QB, pass catchers, and DB, and be thrifty everywhere else, with a combo of rookie deal guys, and cheaper vets.
Tau837
Footballguy
It's not just Gurley, Johnson, Freeman, and Bell. Don't forget McKinnon's 4 year, $30M contract with SF.FreeBaGeL said:
Elliott arguably had the worst season of his career last year after signing his 6 year, $90M contract. I would be shocked if he plays up to that contract.
Now we have a slew of guys who just signed extensions or new contracts: McCaffrey, Kamara, Cook, Mixon, Ekeler, Gordon, Hunt. No way to know yet which ones of them will deliver value, but it would be surprising if they all do.
Yes, all positions pale in comparison to QB in terms of impact on the game. But those other positions still can be reasonably ranked relative to each other, in terms of impact and thus priority of investment. I would say RB should be ranked higher than PK, P, LS, and FB, for those teams that care about FB. Beyond that, I'm not sure I would rank RB higher than any other position. Are you saying you disagree with that?FreeBaGeL said:
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
I was referencing some articles written on how the different positions affect projected wins and betting lines.
There was an article referenced in one of these RB discussions that was brought up from an anti-RB perspective that mentioned that there were only 2 RBs in the league whose sudden removal from a lineup due to injury would change the betting lines for a game. The problem with that reference was the lack of context, as what the article said as a whole was that there were only 7 non-QB players in the entire league that could move the betting line with their absense. I believe it was 3 WRs, 2 RBs, 1 TE, and 1 defensive player (don't remember their position).
It wasn't from this year but I think it was only 2 years ago or so.
Your point about kickers and punters is actually kind of a funny one because one of the most oft used arguments against RBs I see around here is that teams have been getting to the Super Bowl recently without good RBs. But the three non-QB positions that have had the best players at their position playing in Super Bowls recently are kickers, punters, and tight ends. That's not to say those are the most important positions, but just to illustrate how silly of a variable that is (I realize it's not one you were claiming here).
In general sure I agree we can likely say that some positions are more important than others even once we remove QB from the equation. What I disagree with is that RBs are so obviously at the bottom of that list that no one should ever pay them. It's a lot of recency bias with, like I mentioned before, the weakest RB class of our generation being the guys who recently signed their big second contracts.
No one was complaining about RBs big 2nd contracts when guys like LaDainian Tomlinson, LeSean McCoy, Edgerrin James, Adrian Peterson, etc were signing them.
And that's before we even consider that in the current NFL even those "big" RB contracts are often cheap relative to other positions already. Jerrick McKinnon's "big" contract at $7.5 million/yr was less than or similar to what guys like Cole Beasely, Kenny Stills, Marquise Goodwin, Willie Snead, etc got.
Zeke's $15 million is still less than Adam Thielen, Jarvis Landry, Brandin Cooks.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Frankman
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
The Frankman
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Aznflyer14
Footballguy
Cook simply wasn't fed enough. Today's game vs. Colts was horrendous play-calling by OC Kubiak. So did Cousins' on QB decision who kept targeting Thielen all day long. How could Cousins not see him being double-covered.
Tanner9919
Footballguy
Don't look now but the upcoming schedule is against many of the same high flying offenses as GB and Indy:
Seattle, Atlanta, Houston, Tenn, GB, Dallas, Bucs, Saints, etc.
Vikes might be taken out of game script early and often ,especially in the next 5 games.
Seattle, Atlanta, Houston, Tenn, GB, Dallas, Bucs, Saints, etc.
Vikes might be taken out of game script early and often ,especially in the next 5 games.
MAC_32
Footballguy
They're bad, but I think they'll adjust and get him more involved in the pass game if the blowout losses continue.
DocHolliday
Footballguy
Hope you are correct because there is very little chance that the Vikings can roll with a balanced O including a run game. The Vikes are not going to have leads in many games this season.
MAC_32
Footballguy
The offense has two legit weapons - Cook and Thielen. They have two (Irv and Jefferson) that could develop into one, but they aren't there yet. The rest are role players, at best. They're going to feed their best play makers, regardless of the count. This serves as a good reality check week for the coaches, that this team is not good and how they approached the first two games isn't going to work with this particular group. Cook owners are probably not going to get their ROI, but he will continue to be startable even if this offense continues to suck out loud.
Scooby1974
Footballguy
What @Tanner9919 pointed out about their schedule along with this makes me worried because their D has looked brutal! I don't understand why he is not more involved - any insights from Vikings fans?
Last edited by a moderator:
MAC_32
Footballguy
If something were to happen to Cook then Mattison gets that workload, but til then I think what we've seen is what we're gonna get outta him.
DocHolliday
Footballguy
Scooby1974
Footballguy
MAC_32
Footballguy
They should, but for what are likely silly reasons many NFL staffs don't use 2 backs in that manner even when they have complimentary...**ahem**...'talent' like the Vikings. Logic and NFL decision making often don't go hand-in-hand.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Because of giving up safeties in both games as well as interceptions and just plain sucking and going 3 and out the Vikings have barely had the ball on offense.
Its their fault.
52 plays in the first game then 54 plays in the 2nd game. In an average game a team runs 60-70 plays.
Dalvin Cook has been on the field. He has scored 3 TD he doesn't have many receptions yet, and I have no idea why not. That is on Kubiak. The offense that should have continuity from last season, most of the players they started are still with the team on that side of the ball and Kubiak had a lot of influence on the offensive design last season, does not look anything like last year.
They are not executing.
They are being out coached by Green Bay. Their offense especially the play action part of it does not work against Green Bay. Cousins passer rating is worse on every play action attempt against Green Bay than it is under any other circumstance.
The Vikings are not running many screens. No idea why. Cook is awesome on screens.
The Vikings have been poorly prepared for these games and that is the fault of the coaches.
Cook is still a great player and should be the focal point of this offense. They will need to get him the ball more as a receiver and I believe they will. Just nothing has been working for them so far.
eta - the main thing the Vikings are missing is Stefon Diggs. Diggs is having a huge impact on Buffalos offensive efficiency right now and the Vikings have struggled at times when teams can double their WR (when Thielen or Diggs were out with injury). Then this has a negative effect on the running game as teams are less worried about being beaten deep by Diggs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
DocHolliday
Footballguy
Get some playmakers on the field. I would try something if I was the Vikings. That doesn’t help the horrible D but they are only going to win games by scoring a lot of points. The D isn’t winning games for Minnesota.
The only problem with this is that their line and run blocking is horrible. Playing a 2nd RB most likely exacerbated the problem. The Vikings are a mess, but Dalvin will be fine. The rest of the offensive fantasy relevant players (Thielen, Jefferson, Smith) I’m not so sure about.
DocHolliday
Footballguy
I’m a Cook owner and don’t follow the Vikings but they need to score points since the D isn’t winning games. I would use Cook or Mattison as a WR of some sort. The Vikes can continue what they are doing and keep losing as well. I don’t care as long as a Cook gets FF points.
Similar threads
