Interesting take on Cook and RB position today...

All that remains is for the Vikings to formalize (Dalvin) Cook's exit, a denouement that seems likely if not completely certain, per @SeifertESPN. https://t.co/0pZQrF6lpU

— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) June 3, 2023

I think they are trying to trade him, hence the mini-holdup. I get it.

The unbiased take from Sconnie...
========================

Report: Minnesota Vikings Squander Chance At Huge Return For Star Running Back (NFL News)

The Minnesota Vikings are in NFL Hell and appear to have blown one building block to get themselves out of it. Per a report Saturday by ESPN’s Kevin Seifert, the Vikings are expected to cut running back Dalvin Cook shortly.

Early this offseason, rumors came out that Cook wasn’t expected to be back with the Vikings for the 2023 season. The team has to juggle its cap space with quarterback Kirk Cousins and Justin Jefferson needing new contracts soon. The Vikings are expected to decide on Cook’s fate soon, as the team can save some cap space for this season now that the Jun 1 deadline has passed.
The Minnesota Vikings’ best chance for a trade was before the draftDov Kleiman with Bro Bible wrote on Cook’s prospects this offseason. He pointed out, Via ESPN’s Jeremy Fowler’s report, that the Vikings are still hoping to trade Cook. However, multiple teams are waiting for Cook to be released instead of aggressively pursuing the 27-year-old running back in a trade with Minnesota. Kleiman wrote that the Vikings’ best chance to trade Cook was before the 2023 NFL Draft in April:

“The uncertainty surrounding Cook’s future with the Vikings was highlighted when the team’s General Manager, Kwesi Adofo-Mensah, remained noncommittal about Cook’s status just a few weeks before the draft. This lack of commitment fueled speculation that the team might be considering parting ways with their star running back.
Had the Vikings decided to trade Cook, it was widely believed that a deal would have likely materialized prior to the draft. However, as the draft came and went without any movement, it seems increasingly possible that the Vikings may ultimately opt to cut him from the roster.”

Getting nothing in return for Dalvin Cook hurts the VikingsThe Vikings’ front office will come under question if they have to cut Cook. They would have ultimately chosen to save about $3.1 million in dead cap space this season rather than agree to receive draft capital to help replace a major talent on their roster.
One would have to think Cook’s pre-draft trade value, estimated to be around a fourth-round pick, would have been better than letting him walk to save $3.1 in dead space. The Vikings NFC North rival, the Chicago Bears, were able to take running back Roschon Johnson in the fourth round. He’s expected to be a starter for the Bears by the end of the season.
The Vikings didn’t necessarily need to draft a running back with Alexander Mattison on the roster. But the Vikings missed an opportunity to find a contributor at another position of need this spring if, indeed, they let Cook walk in June.
https://wisportsheroics.com/nfl-news-minnesota-vikings-dalvin-cook-release/

Wisportsheroics?? lol.....seems like site that we'd get a link from savannah or waterboy from. 

I read that article about modeling the Rams and the whole time I'm thinking, hey, we sure that's the right team to model? 

I do like how Kwesi is shifting payroll from lower impact positions into higher impact positions. 

@"StickyBun" said: I think they are trying to trade him, hence the mini-holdup. I get it.

He'd be released by now if there weren't ongoing trade negotiations.

Sounds like the Bills, Dolphins, Broncos and now the Eagles appear to be interested. I'm not expecting more than a 5th, given his contract, but with those teams competing, maybe the Vikings can squeeze a 4th out of this. 

Right now the Vikings don't have a 3rd, but they have two 4ths and two 5ths. I think it's pretty likely the Vikings go after their QBOTF in the '24 draft, so these extra picks will come in handy. Might even be worth eating some of Cook's salary to get the higher pick. 

They squandered a chance but it wasn't going to be a "huge" return in any scenario.  We don't even know if there was any team out there willing to trade for him.  But why they didn't just designate him for a post June 1 cut back in the spring is a mystery.  What are they trying to accomplish?  

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"StickyBun" said: I think they are trying to trade him, hence the mini-holdup. I get it.

Right now the Vikings don't have a 3rd, but they have two 4ths and two 5ths. I think it's pretty likely the Vikings go after their QBOTF in the '24 draft, so these extra picks will come in handy. Might even be worth eating some of Cook's salary to get the higher pick. 

@"MaroonBells" said: I read that article about modeling the Rams and the whole time I'm thinking, hey, we sure that's the right team to model? 

As distasteful as it was, if the same approach put a Lombardi in Eagan?

I'd do it in a heartbeat. 

Job 1 for this teams front office is to get a QBOTF in 24...And make it a good one. 

@"MaroonBells" said: I read that article about modeling the Rams and the whole time I'm thinking, hey, we sure that's the right team to model? 

I do like how Kwesi is shifting payroll from lower impact positions into higher impact positions. 

So are you saying Cook doesn't impact the game?  Is spending that money on a blocking TE, more of an impact position?  

@"JR44" said:

@"MaroonBells" said: I read that article about modeling the Rams and the whole time I'm thinking, hey, we sure that's the right team to model? 

I do like how Kwesi is shifting payroll from lower impact positions into higher impact positions. 

So are you saying Cook doesn't impact the game?  Is spending that money on a blocking TE, more of an impact position?  

@"MaroonBells" said:

Of course Cook impacts the game. But it's about value over replacement (VOR). In today's game, RB (along with guard, ILB, Safety, etc) isn't considered a premium position (QB, WR, OT, OLB, CB).

IOW, replacing Cook with Mattison doesn't negatively impact fortunes as much as, say, Cousins with Mullens (an extreme example), Jefferson with KJO or Hunter with Wonnum. 

I think the devaluing of the RB is a narrative that is changing and that it is truly a premium position, this past draft we had two RBs taken in the top 12.  I really like Mattison, he is a solid RB, but I do see a significant drop in the sense that he doesn't change the game like Cook, who is a home run hitter who can take it to the house at any time.  I can think of several games last year starting with Buffalo that we do not win without Cook suddenly shifting the game.  Cook also impacts the game without the ball, defenses have to account for him on every play and have to game plan around him, which I think has greatly benefitted Jefferson.  If we are talking Mattison and Chandler, yes, but I think Cook is being really undervalued in what he brings to the game, also consider he is only 27 and played in every game last year.  I just think in terms of your point regarding where we are getting the most impact for the money, my feeling is I would have rather used the money that we gave to a blocking TE to help keep Cook.

Couple of quick things:

• Think about how they are not modeling on the Rams.  The Vikings have now invested heavily in the TE position -- they are clearly going to use a lot of two TE sets.  Also, against most fans' expectations, they extended their fullback, Ham.
• As for a trade, I don't think they can trade Cook until he passes a physical regarding his shoulder.  Moreover, any trade partner will want to see his medicals.  No team was going to trade for Cook pre-draft without a clean bill of health.

@"JR44" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

Of course Cook impacts the game. But it's about value over replacement (VOR). In today's game, RB (along with guard, ILB, Safety, etc) isn't considered a premium position (QB, WR, OT, OLB, CB).

IOW, replacing Cook with Mattison doesn't negatively impact fortunes as much as, say, Cousins with Mullens (an extreme example), Jefferson with KJO or Hunter with Wonnum. 

I think the devaluing of the RB is a narrative that is changing and that it is truly a premium position, this past draft we had two RBs taken in the top 12.  I really like Mattison, he is a solid RB, but I do see a significant drop in the sense that he doesn't change the game like Cook, who is a home run hitter who can take it to the house at any time.  I can think of several games last year starting with Buffalo that we do not win without Cook suddenly shifting the game.  Cook also impacts the game without the ball, defenses have to account for him on every play and have to game plan around him, which I think has greatly benefitted Jefferson.  If we are talking Mattison and Chandler, yes, but I think Cook is being really undervalued in what he brings to the game, also consider he is only 27 and played in every game last year.  I just think in terms of your point regarding where we are getting the most impact for the money, my feeling is I would have rather used the money that we gave to a blocking TE to help keep Cook.

@"supafreak84" said:

@"JR44" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

Of course Cook impacts the game. But it's about value over replacement (VOR). In today's game, RB (along with guard, ILB, Safety, etc) isn't considered a premium position (QB, WR, OT, OLB, CB).

IOW, replacing Cook with Mattison doesn't negatively impact fortunes as much as, say, Cousins with Mullens (an extreme example), Jefferson with KJO or Hunter with Wonnum. 

I think the devaluing of the RB is a narrative that is changing and that it is truly a premium position, this past draft we had two RBs taken in the top 12.  I really like Mattison, he is a solid RB, but I do see a significant drop in the sense that he doesn't change the game like Cook, who is a home run hitter who can take it to the house at any time.  I can think of several games last year starting with Buffalo that we do not win without Cook suddenly shifting the game.  Cook also impacts the game without the ball, defenses have to account for him on every play and have to game plan around him, which I think has greatly benefitted Jefferson.  If we are talking Mattison and Chandler, yes, but I think Cook is being really undervalued in what he brings to the game, also consider he is only 27 and played in every game last year.  I just think in terms of your point regarding where we are getting the most impact for the money, my feeling is I would have rather used the money that we gave to a blocking TE to help keep Cook.

This...×1000 

I think turning us into the Midwest Rams is a mistake. I've heard a lot of very smart people on NFL Radio over the last few weeks who universally consider it a mistake getting rid of Dalvin Cook and don't really understand the move if we are trying to compete next season. I feel the same 

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"supafreak84" said:

@"JR44" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

Of course Cook impacts the game. But it's about value over replacement (VOR). In today's game, RB (along with guard, ILB, Safety, etc) isn't considered a premium position (QB, WR, OT, OLB, CB).

IOW, replacing Cook with Mattison doesn't negatively impact fortunes as much as, say, Cousins with Mullens (an extreme example), Jefferson with KJO or Hunter with Wonnum. 

I think the devaluing of the RB is a narrative that is changing and that it is truly a premium position, this past draft we had two RBs taken in the top 12.  I really like Mattison, he is a solid RB, but I do see a significant drop in the sense that he doesn't change the game like Cook, who is a home run hitter who can take it to the house at any time.  I can think of several games last year starting with Buffalo that we do not win without Cook suddenly shifting the game.  Cook also impacts the game without the ball, defenses have to account for him on every play and have to game plan around him, which I think has greatly benefitted Jefferson.  If we are talking Mattison and Chandler, yes, but I think Cook is being really undervalued in what he brings to the game, also consider he is only 27 and played in every game last year.  I just think in terms of your point regarding where we are getting the most impact for the money, my feeling is I would have rather used the money that we gave to a blocking TE to help keep Cook.

This...×1000 

I think turning us into the Midwest Rams is a mistake. I've heard a lot of very smart people on NFL Radio over the last few weeks who universally consider it a mistake getting rid of Dalvin Cook and don't really understand the move if we are trying to compete next season. I feel the same 

I'm not convinced the local, ink stained wretch got the Ram parallel right

@"purplefaithful" said:

@"supafreak84" said:

@"JR44" said:

@"MaroonBells" said:

Of course Cook impacts the game. But it's about value over replacement (VOR). In today's game, RB (along with guard, ILB, Safety, etc) isn't considered a premium position (QB, WR, OT, OLB, CB).

IOW, replacing Cook with Mattison doesn't negatively impact fortunes as much as, say, Cousins with Mullens (an extreme example), Jefferson with KJO or Hunter with Wonnum. 

I think the devaluing of the RB is a narrative that is changing and that it is truly a premium position, this past draft we had two RBs taken in the top 12.  I really like Mattison, he is a solid RB, but I do see a significant drop in the sense that he doesn't change the game like Cook, who is a home run hitter who can take it to the house at any time.  I can think of several games last year starting with Buffalo that we do not win without Cook suddenly shifting the game.  Cook also impacts the game without the ball, defenses have to account for him on every play and have to game plan around him, which I think has greatly benefitted Jefferson.  If we are talking Mattison and Chandler, yes, but I think Cook is being really undervalued in what he brings to the game, also consider he is only 27 and played in every game last year.  I just think in terms of your point regarding where we are getting the most impact for the money, my feeling is I would have rather used the money that we gave to a blocking TE to help keep Cook.

This...×1000 

I think turning us into the Midwest Rams is a mistake. I've heard a lot of very smart people on NFL Radio over the last few weeks who universally consider it a mistake getting rid of Dalvin Cook and don't really understand the move if we are trying to compete next season. I feel the same 

I'm not convinced the local, ink stained wretch got the Ram parallel right. V.Oracle may have hit the bullseye with a power running game by committee. I think KOC will use those TE's in unique ways. There is a lot of weapons on offense now and they have to start shifting $$ over to D if this team is going to get over the playoff hump to a SB. 

Thats not going to be easy even with the cap going up. JJ will be the highest paid WR, Darrisaw is due his $, DH is going to get paid and TJH is as well

I don’t know how much of it is modeling the rams, and how
much of it is just the way the league as a whole is trending.  The RB position as a whole is just dramatically
devalued and there’s big names still unsigned.

@"medaille" said: I don’t know how much of it is modeling the rams, and how much of it is just the way the league as a whole is trending.  The RB position as a whole is just dramatically devalued and there’s big names still unsigned.

Agreed.