Quote: @StickyBun said:
@ comet52 said:
Arif Hasan mailbag question:
What do you think is the highest the Vikings should go for Dalvin Cook? — Kevin O.
I’ve made my thoughts fairly clear on running back value, but in a world where my only option was to find a way to offer Dalvin Cook fair value for a deal, I wouldn’t go higher than $6 million a year, where I think elite running back value tops out.
I’m not particularly keen on valuing Cook like an elite running back because of his health concerns and the additional value other backs like Elliot (as a pass protector) and Christian McCaffrey (as a pass catcher) provide outside of their running capability.
But if I’m a little too conservative and I think the “true value” of an elite running back is actually higher, perhaps near $8 million a year, then $6 million for Cook would be appropriate.
I know that generally seems wildly out of line with what happens to running back value in the open market, but consider every running back who signed a deal with an average value worth more than four percent of that year’s cap (about $7.9 million in 2020) going back to 2016:
There has been one first-team All-Pro and three Pro Bowl appearances from the 17 years of running back play generated by those contracts, where they’ve averaged 55.8 rushing yards per game and 76.3 yards from scrimmage per game, earning 3.88 yards per carry.
That’s not even the most dire part of it, however — many of these running backs missed time due to underperformance or injury. Using the amount of functionally guaranteed years these backs had in their contracts, we can see how many games teams expected these players to play, which adds up to 352 to date (with some players, like Elliott, having more still left to play). They played 222 of those games, or 10 games of a 16-game season.
That means teams paid for three Pro Bowl appearances out of 23 contract years and 35.2 rushing yards and 48.1 yards from scrimmage per contract game. In fact, only four of those years saw running backs generate more than 4.34 yards per carry — the league average. The other 19 years were either below-average or absent.
Two of the teams that earned Pro Bowl performances still ended up regretting the contract, with both Miller and Gurley cut prematurely with uneven seasons otherwise.
It’s probably not a coincidence that the only team that likely is happy with the contract they’ve signed with a running back is also the team that has only had one year of play from their back. Otherwise, even if we go back to Jamaal Charles’ extension in 2014 (skipping over DeMarco Murray’s disastrous signing with Philadelphia for 2015 in the process), we don’t see good returns.
While the 2014 season was fine — 5.0 yards per carry but only on 206 carries for 68.9 rush yards a game — the 2015 season was guaranteed and they earned 364 yards out of them.
So a known injury risk like Cook? I’d offer less than half of what elite backs are making.
theathletic.com/1901939/2020/06/30/vikings-mailbag-cam-vs-kirk-dalvins-contract-breakout-candidates-and-more/
Sorry, but this is just dumb by Arif. Offer less than half??? Ridiculous.
Yeah, Arif isn't as smart as he used to be.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
at 13 million a year or more, how much more does Cook help the O vs what we could get from Mattison? We arent going to argue that he doesnt make the O better, but how much better and is it worth the extra cap money, especially on a guy with health concerns.
Mattison is a good looking back, but he's not on Cook's level. I know everyone knows that, but I think people underestimate just how much of a drop off there would be.
And Cook doesn't have "health concerns." He has an injury history. There's a difference. You would hope this might keep his cost down, but it rarely does. I think it's because FO's know that all backs suffer injuries and nobody can predict when, or to whom, they will happen. And they even out over time. It's just as likely that CMac misses games due to injury as it is Cook. In fact, the law of averages would probably favor Cook.
oh for shit sake... how about availability issues? is that acceptable, injuries or health both mean he isnt playing as much as somebody without those same historical concerns.
as far as the drop off, last year was DCs best year to date and AMs only year so that is really all we have to compare, but DC was only .1 yard per attempt better rushing and about 1.6 yards per catch better on average than AM. sure there are other factors like how defenses play the O when either of them is on the field, or what kind of pass protectors they are, etc... but statistically they arent that far apart, and it was AMs first year in the league vs DCs third so some of that is to be expected. DC is arguably the more explosive back since his season long runs and catches are better, but that could also be a product of opportunity where DC got 2.5 times the number of opportunities that AM got.
again though, is DCs superiority enough to justify about an 10 million a year extra cap hit? basically is DC worth a quality starting OG, or Anthony Harris, better than AM to this offense? As much as I have enjoyed watching DC play (and he seems like a really good kid over all ) I dont know that he makes that much of a difference, especially in a Kubiak offense that can go to the local 7-11 and find a pro bowl caliber RB.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ comet52 said:
Arif Hasan mailbag question:
What do you think is the highest the Vikings should go for Dalvin Cook? — Kevin O.
I’ve made my thoughts fairly clear on running back value, but in a world where my only option was to find a way to offer Dalvin Cook fair value for a deal, I wouldn’t go higher than $6 million a year, where I think elite running back value tops out.
I’m not particularly keen on valuing Cook like an elite running back because of his health concerns and the additional value other backs like Elliot (as a pass protector) and Christian McCaffrey (as a pass catcher) provide outside of their running capability.
But if I’m a little too conservative and I think the “true value” of an elite running back is actually higher, perhaps near $8 million a year, then $6 million for Cook would be appropriate.
I know that generally seems wildly out of line with what happens to running back value in the open market, but consider every running back who signed a deal with an average value worth more than four percent of that year’s cap (about $7.9 million in 2020) going back to 2016:
There has been one first-team All-Pro and three Pro Bowl appearances from the 17 years of running back play generated by those contracts, where they’ve averaged 55.8 rushing yards per game and 76.3 yards from scrimmage per game, earning 3.88 yards per carry.
That’s not even the most dire part of it, however — many of these running backs missed time due to underperformance or injury. Using the amount of functionally guaranteed years these backs had in their contracts, we can see how many games teams expected these players to play, which adds up to 352 to date (with some players, like Elliott, having more still left to play). They played 222 of those games, or 10 games of a 16-game season.
That means teams paid for three Pro Bowl appearances out of 23 contract years and 35.2 rushing yards and 48.1 yards from scrimmage per contract game. In fact, only four of those years saw running backs generate more than 4.34 yards per carry — the league average. The other 19 years were either below-average or absent.
Two of the teams that earned Pro Bowl performances still ended up regretting the contract, with both Miller and Gurley cut prematurely with uneven seasons otherwise.
It’s probably not a coincidence that the only team that likely is happy with the contract they’ve signed with a running back is also the team that has only had one year of play from their back. Otherwise, even if we go back to Jamaal Charles’ extension in 2014 (skipping over DeMarco Murray’s disastrous signing with Philadelphia for 2015 in the process), we don’t see good returns.
While the 2014 season was fine — 5.0 yards per carry but only on 206 carries for 68.9 rush yards a game — the 2015 season was guaranteed and they earned 364 yards out of them.
So a known injury risk like Cook? I’d offer less than half of what elite backs are making.
theathletic.com/1901939/2020/06/30/vikings-mailbag-cam-vs-kirk-dalvins-contract-breakout-candidates-and-more/
Sorry, but this is just dumb by Arif. Offer less than half??? Ridiculous.
Yeah, Arif isn't as smart as he used to be.
Weird cuz it's one time I agree with Arif, most times I don't.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
at 13 million a year or more, how much more does Cook help the O vs what we could get from Mattison? We arent going to argue that he doesnt make the O better, but how much better and is it worth the extra cap money, especially on a guy with health concerns.
Mattison is a good looking back, but he's not on Cook's level. I know everyone knows that, but I think people underestimate just how much of a drop off there would be.
And Cook doesn't have "health concerns." He has an injury history. There's a difference. You would hope this might keep his cost down, but it rarely does. I think it's because FO's know that all backs suffer injuries and nobody can predict when, or to whom, they will happen. And they even out over time. It's just as likely that CMac misses games due to injury as it is Cook. In fact, the law of averages would probably favor Cook.
oh for shit sake... how about availability issues? is that acceptable
That's a little better. Health concerns sounds like he has recurring issues, something chronic, or something about his body or running style that makes him vulnerable to injury. None of which is true.
I know he most likely wouldnt take it, but structure a deal like Richard Sherman's but with a higher base. We as fans have the same concerns as the front office and that is he has been prone to injury. Give him a decent base and then give him a shit ton in performance incentives. From my perspective that is extremely fair because you're still getting a damn good base, say $10MM, and then you can earn above or around $16MM if you stay healthy and produce at the level all parties believe.
Quote: @Hawkvike25 said:
I know he most likely wouldnt take it, but structure a deal like Richard Sherman's but with a higher base. We as fans have the same concerns as the front office and that is he has been prone to injury. Give him a decent base and then give him a shit ton in performance incentives. From my perspective that is extremely fair because you're still getting a damn good base, say $10MM, and then you can earn above or around $16MM if you stay healthy and produce at the level all parties believe.
10 is still to high IMO, an 8 million dollar base with a guarantee against injury, with an additional 5 or 6 in incentives would be where I would head with it, if he balks then I let him play out his final year and see where the market is set for him. He has value, but how much exactly and for how long. I also wouldnt go more than 3 years with him no matter what the final price may be.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Hawkvike25 said:
I know he most likely wouldnt take it, but structure a deal like Richard Sherman's but with a higher base. We as fans have the same concerns as the front office and that is he has been prone to injury. Give him a decent base and then give him a shit ton in performance incentives. From my perspective that is extremely fair because you're still getting a damn good base, say $10MM, and then you can earn above or around $16MM if you stay healthy and produce at the level all parties believe.
10 is still to high IMO, an 8 million dollar base with a guarantee against injury, with an additional 5 or 6 in incentives would be where I would head with it, if he balks then I let him play out his final year and see where the market is set for him. He has value, but how much exactly and for how long. I also wouldnt go more than 3 years with him no matter what the final price may be.
Yeah 10 million was just a guesstimate, it'd be great if we could agree at $8MM with a ton of incentives. Length of the contract is a good question. Christian got 4 years so I would imagine he wants 4 years but I would be good with 3 years as well
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
at 13 million a year or more, how much more does Cook help the O vs what we could get from Mattison? We arent going to argue that he doesnt make the O better, but how much better and is it worth the extra cap money, especially on a guy with health concerns.
Mattison is a good looking back, but he's not on Cook's level. I know everyone knows that, but I think people underestimate just how much of a drop off there would be.
And Cook doesn't have "health concerns." He has an injury history. There's a difference. You would hope this might keep his cost down, but it rarely does. I think it's because FO's know that all backs suffer injuries and nobody can predict when, or to whom, they will happen. And they even out over time. It's just as likely that CMac misses games due to injury as it is Cook. In fact, the law of averages would probably favor Cook.
I’m definitely with Maroon on this one, and I am probably harsher than anyone I know about Mattison. I feel like RB conversation with fans is a perpetual circle. The fads are elite RBs are awesome to have OR any RB will be good and teams should draft low round backs every year. Obviously we are at the later stage right now.
I think Mattison looked fine during game situations with low pressure. When he was counted on as the guy, I thought he looked average (I know I am in the minority here)I think we let Cook leave and our running game takes a big step back, which is important while we still have a suspect o-line and the threat of a game breaking RB helps the passing game.
Quote: @SkolVikings44 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
at 13 million a year or more, how much more does Cook help the O vs what we could get from Mattison? We arent going to argue that he doesnt make the O better, but how much better and is it worth the extra cap money, especially on a guy with health concerns.
Mattison is a good looking back, but he's not on Cook's level. I know everyone knows that, but I think people underestimate just how much of a drop off there would be.
And Cook doesn't have "health concerns." He has an injury history. There's a difference. You would hope this might keep his cost down, but it rarely does. I think it's because FO's know that all backs suffer injuries and nobody can predict when, or to whom, they will happen. And they even out over time. It's just as likely that CMac misses games due to injury as it is Cook. In fact, the law of averages would probably favor Cook.
I’m definitely with Maroon on this one, and I am probably harsher than anyone I know about Mattison. I feel like RB conversation with fans is a perpetual circle. The fads are elite RBs are awesome to have OR any RB will be good and teams should draft low round backs every year. Obviously we are at the later stage right now.
I think Mattison looked fine during game situations with low pressure. When he was counted on as the guy, I thought he looked average (I know I am in the minority here)I think we let Cook leave and our running game takes a big step back, which is important while we still have a suspect o-line and the threat of a game breaking RB helps the passing game.
For years Viking fans have overvalued the backup running back, whether it's Moe Williams, Leroy Hoard or Chester Taylor. When the starting back goes out--especially if it's someone like Robert Smith, Adrian Peterson or Dalvin Cook--the defense adjusts, and you get a distorted view of what that backup is capable of doing.
That said, I do think that Mattison has a good chance to be better than all of the above (backups).
https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/...16609?s=20
We've all been talking about Dalvin in a vacuum but when you look at the # of guys who will be available next year, PLUS the rookie class which is pretty loaded, it makes even less sense to pay Dalvin big money. He's a great player-- and maybe even the best RB on this list-- but there won't be money for everyone. Some of these RBs are going to be available for dirt cheap.
|
