Thurman#1

The receiver last year with the 32nd highest productivity (Pickens) got 900 yards in receiving while burning only 103 targets, leaving all the rest of the team's offensive snaps available for other players to be productive in. The RB last year with the 32nd highest productivity (Tyler Allgeier) put up 644 yards, but required 137 attempts to do so, leaving fewer snaps available for others while producing less. I'm not bothering to include pass stats for RBs there, or run yards for WRs. With unlimited time, I'd have done so, but I don't believe that would change the picture all that much. Some, but not all that much. WRs also more directly make life easier for the QB in getting the ball out of his hands on plays when he's back there facing a rush pointed at him. And in the modern NFL, making life easier for your $50M QB is the name of the game. RBs also make life easier for QBs, of course. So does everyone on the team, certainly including the defense. But WRs do it more directly. RBs change the defense's moves formations and reactions and priorities, and that's valuable, but not as valuable. How do we know that? Look at what the league pays each position. You're right that receivers have become more expensive. In the NFL's opinion, there's good reason for that.

Which is why snaps/dollars is a part of the argument, not all of it. Touches/production is also part of it. RBs produce far less per touch. So is average length of productive career life, particularly when you're talking about longer contracts for players with shorter expected productivity. So is width of skillset. Cook's inability to pass block hurts him, but not Saquon, who's a bully when protecting his QB. There are more factors involved. You know all this very well. Another good reason why you can't reasonably compare contracts between RBs and WRs, or any other positions, really.

Right. That's why you can't compare RB and WR salaries and doing so will only confuse any issue you're looking at. RBs are considered to be worth less. That's why they're paid less. Gabe was not paid more than Saquon. But yes, more than most RBs. Doesn't mean it was a good contract, obviously that Jax gave to Gabe. Might've looked a lot more reasonable if he hadn't been injured, but we'll never know. But the league finds RBs more fungible than WRs. With a few Saquon-like exceptions. Overall this seems pretty reasonable to most. Paying a guy at a more fungible position more than the league thinks he's worth does not seem like a way to get a competitive advantage. Not all zigging where they zag is good decision-making.

Hah!!! I like that proviso a lot!! Smart.

So, we don't want to follow the pack? Instead, we want to pay more than we have to? Yeah, when it comes to contracts, going out of your way to not follow the pack by overpaying? Count me out. I get you're playing around some here. The last sentence shows that. Not clear exactly what you're trying to say about receivers there. But you seem to be somewhat serious about overpaying being a good strategy because it's zigging when they're zagging. Me? No, thanks. This. He's right that the values are changing. It's likely that's due to the effect of analytics and smarter decision-making. As Matt_in_NH pointed out, analytics tends to show that RBs have shorter shelf lives. And fewer snaps than WRs. And a lot more production in terms of yards and TDs per touch. If we pay Cook around $11M or so, we'd be making him the 7th highest paid in AAV. 7th? That's about right, I think. Second contracts often rank a guy higher than his actual value. But not contracts given a year early, generally. The player has to give up a bit for the early payday. And early paydays are even more valuable to RBs than most positions. I think you're right that this is market efficiency we're seeing.

He has been a great draft pick. I don't think too many would argue. Worth $15M? Pay him what he wants? Yeah, no thanks. Not unless he plays a whole lot better this year anyway. Well, yeah, 4.9 is very good for a career average. James hasn't been through a career yet. In career stats, things generally go down very significantly indeed by the end. 6th in yards from scrimmage in 2023? Yup. About 27th in yards from scrimmage in 2024? Yup. Not even in the top 100 in 2002? Yeah. And yeah people mention the OL when they talk about Cook. We've got a damn good OL. They mention the OL when they talk about Allen too. For good reason in both cases. Cook will be here this year, as has been very obvious all along. Next year? Yeah, assuming he's gone, which I do, they'll bring in someone else, in the draft or as an FA, or both. And likely Davis will improve after his very good rookie year. Again, I like him. If he'd sign for around $10 to $11M a year, I'd be very much in favor of bringing him back. Doesn't appear he will, though. Give him, say $11M AAV and he'd be 7th highest in the league, behind Barkley, McCaffrey, Henry, Taylor, Kamara and Jacobs. IMO he does belong behind those guys, with the possible exception of post-injuries McCaffrey. That's about where he belongs, I say. Klos, I don't think many are dismissing it. We're contextualizing it. That's different. And reasonable. Again, two rushing TDs his first year, two his second year and sixteen his third and many are saying he's a 16 a year guy. He's not. He's a 16 in 2024 guy.

Um, I think many have effectively said this. When you say that we have to get Cook back because he's really good, you're saying that price shouldn't be a factor. My argument here points out what should be obvious but is being ignored by an awful lot of people and posts here that walk around with their fingers in their ears saying "Not listening," when you try to mention price. Many many many posts on here are trying to pretend that this is a yes/no argument, that yes we need to keep him no matter what, period. This proves that there absolutely is a point at which he would not be worth it. Many want to ignore this because it's convenient to their narrative. There is absolutely a point at which we'd be paying too much. And frankly $15M is past that line for most on here, which is why money doesn't get mentioned in many of these posts that say, "Just get him."

I'm not reducing James Cook to just the touchdowns. Answering every single argument made in one post isn't practical. So I'm responding to one that is constently made, that we can't live without him because he had 16 TDs, which shows he's one of the absolute best in the league, and that we can't just throw away those 16 TDs next year. 4.9 YPC is darn good, 7th best among RBs with 100 carries or more, and 8.1 YPR is 17th among RBs. Both good. Neither worth $15M or particularly close. You're putting words into my mouth. I didn't say any fast RB could do what he did. Speed is a lot of his value, but certainly not all. But in those 16 TDs, other than the three or four long ones where his speed was mostly what resulted in those TDs, and the short one that I mentioned where he just beautifully bounced off a head-on hit, I do in fact think most of the rest were TDs even if the RB were a JAG. None of them required brilliant work. They required work at the level that most NFL starters are at. Disagree if you like, but that's what that video showed, in my opinion. Really well-executed NFL plays. Three or so where nobody was there on defense and the rest requiring workmanlike performance by the back.

Yeah, me too. Rasul over all three of these guys. But maybe not by a whole ton.

Even in this case, if I'm a player and everyone else in the league doesn't have to deal with that clause, but I'm expected to, I'm not signing. It doesn't happen often, but people are convicted unfairly. I wouldn't, as a player, ask for more surety than most get, but I also wouldn't accept less. Yup, this. And agreements need both sides to come together.

Since 1995? If you look at nearly any team over that long a period, their record will regress towards 50%. Anyway, for a year or two there I thought Dak was a guy who could become elite. Either I was wrong or he's regressed. Couldn't happen to a nicer team.

Sure doesn't read that way to me. Looks like Dungy actually voted for Josh, but that his vote wasn't at first counted. That the correction is to correctly count Dungy's actual vote for Josh. And Dungy is generally great. I have extreme respect for him.

Yes, he had 16 TDs. That's one year. Over the last three years, he's managed 2, then 2, and then 16. What's next year most likely to look like? Seven? Eight, maybe? Nine? That's my guess. Maybe it'll be 16 again, but he still has a lot to prove before that seems very likely. Right now it looks like some kind of statistical anomaly. Not that that means Cook isn't good. He is. But for RBs, a high TD count has an awful lot to do with how many chances he gets and how good the OL is, of course. His long breakaways (and he has a few) are a different situation. His speed made a lot of difference on several of those plays, but overall you just see well-blocked, well-executed plays which did not require a sensational effort by the back. Doubt it? Here's a video of all his TDs last season. Do you look at this and say, "Wow, what a back!! Almost none of those get scored by another runner?" I don't. I see speed killing on three or so of those plays. And that beautiful five or six yard run up the gut where a guy hits him head on and his contact balance allows him to get right off it and score. Other than that, though, I see a lot of effective plays by a fine football team.

You're right. $40, maybe $50M a year ... money is no object!!!

Over 20? Boy, I think you're kidding yourself there. But could he get his $15M in that case? Yeah, maybe.

It really isn't. The problem has essentially been KC in the playoffs. That's the problem. And when we get there the main reason they haven't done that well is that they haven't been able to pressure Mahomes. Haven't had the guys, with the one exception of the season when we looked like we did till Von Miller's injury. This year they finally spent a bunch of resources on pass rushers. Hopefully they'll finally be able to put some heat on signal callers.

This isn't the most leverage he'll ever have. He'll have more next year when they'll have to tag him or let him go. It might be the time that Cook himself has the most on the line, as an injury really could ruin his career. Which is the reason he should maybe have accepted less but gotten a contract with some injury guarantees. I've got nothing against him doing all this. I question - as many have - whether this is the best move he could make to further his own interests. A lot of the reason those players in that same draft class you mentioned got those early deals is that they gave the team good value to do so. Cook did not. If he'd accepted a deal at around $10 to $11M, Cook would also likely already have a deal. Can't say for sure, but that's the way it seems. Generally if you want a deal early, you have to give something up to get it.

Hmm. How do I count a PASS behind the line of scrimmage? Tough question. Run? Or pass? Hmm. Remind me. Did you say they have dink and dunk elements? Or did you say they were a run first team, and is that what I responded to? I believe it was the latter. Again, they were not a run first team. They were also 9th in the league in YPA. Allen threw downfield a lot. Had a bad year, his worst since he broke through at percentage of catchable balls that were in the air for 20 yards or more. That's not all on him, but some of it is. They were a very successful passing offense, in any case. 8th in TDs and 14th in yards. Not run-first, though. If anything, fairly balanced, which is probably what they want to look like to - among other things - make it easier on Josh. C.Biscuit, I'm totally with you in terms of not being the least bit angry at Cook. He's got to try to maximize his earnings. The question is whether these tactics do maximize his earnings. And what the Bills should do in response. IMO, the Bills response should be hoping he comes down eventually and not re-signing him unless he does.

Run first? No, not so far. Below 50% runs, and that's counting Josh Allen's scrambles as runs. Does he want us to be able to do both on any given play? Yup. But it's not run first. It's you don't know which will be first, 'cause we can and will do both.

It really is NOT ... that simple. Because one guy gets paid, another guy should get paid ... regardless of value? Sorry, man, that makes sense in no sense whatsoever. All of those other signings - without exception - were great values. And being a great value is kinda what you would expect if the team signs you after your third year. You do them a favor by giving them money early, and they give you a bit of a discount. Which is the opposite of how Cook is going about this. As for Jamyr Gibbs vs. James Cook? Man, I like Cook a lot, but not that much. Cook does have terrific contact balance. But that's not the same thing as power. That great run against the Lions showed a ton of contact balance but not particularly much power. Which is Cook. Most explosive weapon outside of Josh? Yeah, fair enough, probably. But that doesn't necessarily equate to $15M. Get him back ... if the price is reasonable for him.

Makes plenty of sense. It's just not what you want to hear. The more fungible a position, the less guys there will be paid.

That's not it. That's maybe a part of it, but only a part. And he has been working harder again in the last year or two, from the evidence anyway. And that he "quit" against the Bengals is pure personal opinion, and in my own personal opinion, a dumb one. Not playing very well isn't quitting. He failed. They failed.

Agreed that in the first few seasons he worked like a dog. Sure looked like after he'd made it he took his foot off the gas a bit. That interview on Bussin' with the Boys podcast did not look like or sound like a man working hard in the offseason. Not even close to Tom Brady or Peyton Manning hard, anyway. Having said that, it sure looks to me like he noticed it and consciously got the fire lit under his butt again. Pure guesswork but it looked to me like Hailee has been a really good influence on him, and that his earlier breakup with his high school girlfriend might maybe have thrown him for a loop, but as I say, that's all pure speculation.

Can't say it better than that, Shaw. I agree with every word. So frigging close, but it didn't happen. He certainly hasn't been "the" issue. But even though he has overall played terrific, he's been part of the problem. Not "the" problem, but part of it. Look at the first two or three drives last year in that Chiefs game. Josh was awful. Yeah, he played really well after that, but if he'd played at the same level the whole game we're in the Super Bowl.

He signed. Meaning that if he doesn't live up to the particular terms of the contract he will be liable for fines within the CBA. He'll pay the fines if they're assessed. He'll understand if he (likelihood close to zero) misses the first game and loses a game's worth of his paycheck. Got zero to do with honor. "It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business."