Dalvin Cook wants his

[Cincyfan78]

I think the pay structure for RBs needs to be redone. Most of these guys give the best years of their careers for peanuts while other positions cash in big. For an integral part of most offenses that’s not fair in my opinion.

So, the NFL should be paying more for a position that is continually impacting the game less? I'm not 100% disagreeing with you, but the pay structure should also consider the impact of the position around the league. The position of RB just isn't what it was 10-15+ years ago. The money is better spent on QB's pass catchers, and OL that can continually take advantage of the rules set for that favor the offense.

Eventually, you run out of money - and RB is quickly becoming the last man on the totem pole of players to get paid due to their lack of impact on today's game. Only a very select few are showing a true impact (McCaffery for example). While Cook has improved his receptions to be a bigger impact, he's yet to play a full season. In 3 years, he's played in just 29 of a possible 48 regular season games, and has rushed for over 1,000 yards just 1 time, barely eclipsing that mark last year.

I get he wants to get paid, but his production just doesn't scream renegotiation at this point. Open to being corrected if I am wrong, since I am just looking at the stats and taking them directly at face value.

 

[night]

So, the NFL should be paying more for a position that is continually impacting the game less? I'm not 100% disagreeing with you, but the pay structure should also consider the impact of the position around the league. The position of RB just isn't what it was 10-15+ years ago. The money is better spent on QB's pass catchers, and OL that can continually take advantage of the rules set for that favor the offense.

Eventually, you run out of money - and RB is quickly becoming the last man on the totem pole of players to get paid due to their lack of impact on today's game. Only a very select few are showing a true impact (McCaffery for example). While Cook has improved his receptions to be a bigger impact, he's yet to play a full season. In 3 years, he's played in just 29 of a possible 48 regular season games, and has rushed for over 1,000 yards just 1 time, barely eclipsing that mark last year.

I get he wants to get paid, but his production just doesn't scream renegotiation at this point. Open to being corrected if I am wrong, since I am just looking at the stats and taking them directly at face value.

I’m thinking of this in a broad sense for the position in general. These guys enter the league at around 21 or 22 years of age and have cheap 3 year rookie contracts (usually the best years of their careers). If they are lucky to be good enough to make a name for themselves teams are saying “do I really want to spend a bunch of money on a guy who will be lucky to make it to 29 years old?”. In my opinion it’s a position that takes some of the worst punishment, brings a ton of value to the offense, and gets paid peanuts for it.

I guess I’m against the one size fits all rules for young players and their contracts. Maybe young guys should be given more based on performance and not unreachable performance goals like a lot of performance-based contracts.

I see a lot of guys give their able body to this sport for nothing and it doesn’t seem right.

 

[fastforward]

When it comes to a player's contract it's all about what you think a player will do going forward. Gosder Cherilus was a poor player for his 1st 3 years but he had a very good 4th year. On the back of that 1 year he got a good FA contract. If a player is very good for 3 years but has a really bad 4th year he's not likely to get a good FA contract. It's about hitting the market when you're on top.

 

[PDay8810]

Parcells nailed it when he said RB's have a bulls eye on their jersey.

if a matter of if for most but when

 

[ducky]

Just a follow up on this:

Lost in all the new CBA stuff was the fact that the NFL put a new clause in that any holdout, no matter whether it is one day or 3 months, automatically loses the player an accrued season.

....meaning holdouts from player still playing under their rookie deal are now a thing of the past for the most part.

If they take an accrued season away from the player, it means a rookie goes from being an UFA to a RFA. A player cant take the chance of that happening unless they are willing to go complete Leveon Bell on it (and willing to do it BEFORE they get a big payday unlike Bell).

 

[Iggloo]

Cook is a talented but injury prone running back. I would definitely not sign him to a big deal if I were Minnesota. Trade him now if possible and roll with Mattison.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Cook is a talented but injury prone running back. I would definitely not sign him to a big deal if I were Minnesota. Trade him now if possible and roll with Mattison.

What’s your take on injury prone QBs? Trade them and roll with the back up?

 

[Iggloo]

What’s your take on injury prone QBs? Trade them and roll with the back up?

You can win rings doing that!

Serious answer: RBs don't matter, QBs do.

 

[VikingFan2k2]

You can win rings doing that!

Serious answer: RBs don't matter, QBs do.

RBs definitely matter in a Kubiak-style of offense.

I can tell you with confidence that Mattison isn't anywhere near as good as Cook is. Plus, he got hurt almost immediately after Cook did last year and we were forced to start Mike Boone against Green Bay and proceded to get our asses kicked.

I'm not saying break the bank for Cook, but if you don't lock him up, you had better have a backup plan, because I don't think Mattison is it.