The Dalvin Cook Discussion Thread

[OhCruelestRanter]

You guys are arguing about what constitutes a top WR season to make a point about... whether or not it's important to have a good RB on your roster? What is anybody even talking about at this point? This whole discussion is inane.

[Jigga94]

You guys are arguing about what constitutes a top WR season to make a point about... whether or not it's important to have a good RB on your roster? What is anybody even talking about at this point? This whole discussion is inane.

Between this, Chuba and jetskis... I'm done for a while lol

[Sriracha]

You guys are arguing about what constitutes a top WR season to make a point about... whether or not it's important to have a good RB on your roster? What is anybody even talking about at this point? This whole discussion is inane.

I believe they're trying to analyze the notion that WRs are inherently safer long term assets than RBs, which is a discussion that has merit imo

[Vcize]

I think your criteria for top wr is a little skewed. 2019 (hill) 2018,2016,2014 (edelman) 2015 (Thomas) 2013 (Baldwin) 2011 (cruz, nicks) 2010 (Jennings) 2008 (Ward)

I could go on but its pretty clear that superbowl teams have history of having really good WR

Hill and DT are the only 2 out of that list who were in the conversation for top 5 WR in the league when they won the SB, and that might be a stretch for DT.

Obviously SB teams have a lot of good players, at multiple positions, but really the teams to win the SB with the #1 WR in the league were the 49ers with Rice, and they had HOF QBs as well.

Hakeem surely has been in the range of being top5 in 2011.

And LaGarrette Blount was like the #3 RB one of the years the Pats won the Super Bowl.

It's pretty clear to me we're talking about actual elite players at their position here. Not guys like Nicks or Baldwin or Blount or CJ Anderson who have occasionally put up some good years.

[Vcize]

You guys are arguing about what constitutes a top WR season to make a point about... whether or not it's important to have a good RB on your roster? What is anybody even talking about at this point? This whole discussion is inane.

Someone said only 2 elite RBs have won Super Bowls since 2013 as if that's proof about the position's importance relative to Super Bowl wins.

I countered saying you can say that same thing about most positions other than QB, so by that same logic you could say never pay a WR or never pay an OT or never pay a LB, etc.

Again, as I pointed out by FAR positions where elite players have won the most Super Bowls since 2013 are tight end, quarterback, and kicker. So unless someone wants to make the argument that teams should be paying $10 million per year for their kicker than the argument about elite positional players in the Super Bowl in recent history is a non-starter.

I'm not making any comment on whether RBs are important or not. I'm just saying bringing up the RB of the last 7 or 8 Super Bowl winning teams is a completely baseless argument.

[trc]

It's pretty clear to me we're talking about actual elite players at their position here. Not guys like Nicks or Baldwin or Blount or CJ Anderson who have occasionally put up some good years.

I was thinking of fantasy assets when replying with Nicks. He eclipsed 1000 yards in both his 2nd and 3rd year in the league. 10 years ago that was something (as far as I remember).

[Vcize]

It's pretty clear to me we're talking about actual elite players at their position here. Not guys like Nicks or Baldwin or Blount or CJ Anderson who have occasionally put up some good years.

I was thinking of fantasy assets when replying with Nicks. He eclipsed 1000 yards in both his 2nd and 3rd year in the league. 10 years ago that was something (as far as I remember).

Sure but then we'd have to count guys like Blount and Ridley and CJA and James White as well which would just defeat the entire point being made in a different way.

[ThunderTung]

You guys are arguing about what constitutes a top WR season to make a point about... whether or not it's important to have a good RB on your roster? What is anybody even talking about at this point? This whole discussion is inane.

Someone said only 2 elite RBs have won Super Bowls since 2013 as if that's proof about the position's importance relative to Super Bowl wins.

I countered saying you can say that same thing about most positions other than QB, so by that same logic you could say never pay a WR or never pay an OT or never pay a LB, etc.

Again, as I pointed out by FAR positions where elite players have won the most Super Bowls since 2013 are tight end, quarterback, and kicker. So unless someone wants to make the argument that teams should be paying $10 million per year for their kicker than the argument about elite positional players in the Super Bowl in recent history is a non-starter.

I'm not making any comment on whether RBs are important or not. I'm just saying bringing up the RB of the last 7 or 8 Super Bowl winning teams is a completely baseless argument.

I guess i assumed you were using it as an argument that WR are just as important as RB.
The only reason i still dont think your actual argument works is that sure, you can argue that not alot of top 5 wr in the league lead their team to a championship, but i think its pretty rare for a team to win it all with sub par wr's. Whereas RB you can pretty much find serviceable guys anywhere.

If you dont want to say guys like Baldwin, and nicks were elite, thats fine. But i dont think its fair to them to say that their contributions and relative talent were on par with the RB's that have won SB in the last decade or so

[CJRousseau]

So some people seem to be misinterpreting this new CBA a bit. If Cook holds out he will not be on his same deal next year as he is this year and technically he will be a free agent next summer, but he will be a restricted FA. The Vikings could then retain him on a first round restricted tender worth $4-$5 million which would be a huge discount. So if Cook wants to hold out until he is able to leave, it could take 2 years if the Vikings retain him next off season. The only way he could "effectively" hold out is if during the year this year he convinces the Vikings that he is willing to do it a second year in a row and that he would be a waste of a first round tender so that the Vikings just let him walk next off season, but that is very unlikely. The Vikings would probably jump at the opportunity to keep him on such a cheap price tag in an effort to call his bluff in year 2. Hope this makes sense and helps a bit!

[ericanadian]

So some people seem to be misinterpreting this new CBA a bit. If Cook holds out he will not be on his same deal next year as he is this year and technically he will be a free agent next summer, but he will be a restricted FA. The Vikings could then retain him on a first round restricted tender worth $4-$5 million which would be a huge discount. So if Cook wants to hold out until he is able to leave, it could take 2 years if the Vikings retain him next off season. The only way he could "effectively" hold out is if during the year this year he convinces the Vikings that he is willing to do it a second year in a row and that he would be a waste of a first round tender so that the Vikings just let him walk next off season, but that is very unlikely. The Vikings would probably jump at the opportunity to keep him on such a cheap price tag in an effort to call his bluff in year 2. Hope this makes sense and helps a bit!

He would need to toll his contract in order for that to happen though, which means he would need to play 8 games (not 100% on the number of games). If he does not play 8 games, he comes back next year on the final year of his rookie contract again. I have no idea what the strategy would be to toll the contract by playing the 8 games, but not advance towards UFA status.

[OhCruelestRanter]

So some people seem to be misinterpreting this new CBA a bit. If Cook holds out he will not be on his same deal next year as he is this year and technically he will be a free agent next summer, but he will be a restricted FA. The Vikings could then retain him on a first round restricted tender worth $4-$5 million which would be a huge discount. So if Cook wants to hold out until he is able to leave, it could take 2 years if the Vikings retain him next off season. The only way he could "effectively" hold out is if during the year this year he convinces the Vikings that he is willing to do it a second year in a row and that he would be a waste of a first round tender so that the Vikings just let him walk next off season, but that is very unlikely. The Vikings would probably jump at the opportunity to keep him on such a cheap price tag in an effort to call his bluff in year 2. Hope this makes sense and helps a bit!

He would need to toll his contract in order for that to happen though, which means he would need to play 8 games (not 100% on the number of games). If he does not play 8 games, he comes back next year on the final year of his rookie contract again. I have no idea what the strategy would be to toll the contract by playing the 8 games, but not advance towards UFA status.

I’m not seeing this anywhere. My understanding is that if Cook reports to camp and holds out for only 8 games, he’ll become an UFA after the year.

I think it’s incredibly unlikely that he doesn’t report to camp, but I don’t see how this affects his ability to report and then sit out.

In any case, you’ll have Dalvin Cook for the fantasy playoffs, provided he doesn’t get hurt again.

[ericanadian]

So some people seem to be misinterpreting this new CBA a bit. If Cook holds out he will not be on his same deal next year as he is this year and technically he will be a free agent next summer, but he will be a restricted FA. The Vikings could then retain him on a first round restricted tender worth $4-$5 million which would be a huge discount. So if Cook wants to hold out until he is able to leave, it could take 2 years if the Vikings retain him next off season. The only way he could "effectively" hold out is if during the year this year he convinces the Vikings that he is willing to do it a second year in a row and that he would be a waste of a first round tender so that the Vikings just let him walk next off season, but that is very unlikely. The Vikings would probably jump at the opportunity to keep him on such a cheap price tag in an effort to call his bluff in year 2. Hope this makes sense and helps a bit!

He would need to toll his contract in order for that to happen though, which means he would need to play 8 games (not 100% on the number of games). If he does not play 8 games, he comes back next year on the final year of his rookie contract again. I have no idea what the strategy would be to toll the contract by playing the 8 games, but not advance towards UFA status.

I’m not seeing this anywhere. My understanding is that if Cook reports to camp and holds out for only 8 games, he’ll become an UFA after the year.

I think it’s incredibly unlikely that he doesn’t report to camp, but I don’t see how this affects his ability to report and then sit out.

In any case, you’ll have Dalvin Cook for the fantasy playoffs, provided he doesn’t get hurt again.

Third, the player will lose an accrued season toward free agency by failing to show up for camp on town or by leaving camp for more than five days. This would supersede the rule that removes an accrued year only if the player fails to report within 30 days before the first game of the regular season.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... -hold-out/

This would be in addition to the standard rules for having your contract toll, where you need to play 8 games. Could you show up for training camp and then hold out for 8 games? I have no idea... Seems like it, but none of this is very clear.

[OhCruelestRanter]

He would need to toll his contract in order for that to happen though, which means he would need to play 8 games (not 100% on the number of games). If he does not play 8 games, he comes back next year on the final year of his rookie contract again. I have no idea what the strategy would be to toll the contract by playing the 8 games, but not advance towards UFA status.

I’m not seeing this anywhere. My understanding is that if Cook reports to camp and holds out for only 8 games, he’ll become an UFA after the year.

I think it’s incredibly unlikely that he doesn’t report to camp, but I don’t see how this affects his ability to report and then sit out.

In any case, you’ll have Dalvin Cook for the fantasy playoffs, provided he doesn’t get hurt again.

Third, the player will lose an accrued season toward free agency by failing to show up for camp on town or by leaving camp for more than five days. This would supersede the rule that removes an accrued year only if the player fails to report within 30 days before the first game of the regular season.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... -hold-out/

This would be in addition to the standard rules for having your contract toll, where you need to play 8 games. Could you show up for training camp and then hold out for 8 games? I have no idea... Seems like it, but none of this is very clear.

Yeah, it’s definitely not clear. This rule seems to make sure that players show up to camp, but that’s about it. I think that a rule that made anybody who misses games become a RFA would be a nightmare for the NFLPA, and I don’t think that would have been ratified without a lockout.

I guess the owners’ hope is that if these guys report to camp, they’ll be around their teammates and therefore less likely to skip games? I’m not sure that will work, but that’s the only motivation for this policy that I can see.

If anybody has any documentation that suggests skipping 8 games = RFA, please share it. Right now I’m going with the assumption that Cook only needs to show up to camp.

[bigblue]

[/quote]

Yeah, it’s definitely not clear. This rule seems to make sure that players show up to camp, but that’s about it. I think that a rule that made anybody who misses games become a RFA would be a nightmare for the NFLPA, and I don’t think that would have been ratified without a lockout.

[/quote]


I am not sure about whether or not he becomes a RFA if he missess games, but in response to them never ratifying something like this without a lockout, my understanding was that this CBA was not the best deal for the superstars (AKA the ones that would actually hold out), but was a really good deal for the average player that makes league minimum or close to it (which make up well over half the league). This is why it got ratified, despite hearing multiple superstars talking out against it.

[Ice]

With the new CBA and mandatory fine structure players would be foolish to holdout. Especially RB's who are already devalued.

Holdouts are more empty threats at this point. He will probably get resigned but it won't be due to a threat of holding out.

Plenty of RB's that can't be happy. Cook, Henry, Mixon, & Kamara at the high end probably all voted no on the CBA.