James Cook absent from OTA's

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

13 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Seems like half the threads on this board are dedicated to finding Josh more weapons, supporting Josh by giving him more weapons, etc. 

 

But then everyone wants to let our best Offensive weapon (after Josh) walk over a few million dollars a year.

 

He's our 2nd best weapon after only Josh.

 

RB to me always comes down to one-game contributions imo, and big play ability.  Cook showed both of those last year.  With the season on the line in a single game I think most of us would rather have Cook taking the majority of carries.  

 

Over a full season with the same blocking and carries i don't think you'd see a major difference in production between Cook and Davis/Johnson/whomever.  Maybe a few of the bigger pops aren't as big, or they don't have the same ability to bounce to the edge, but if we're talking about .4 yards per carry (4.9 to 4.5 say) though that's like 80 yards on the year with his carry load.  You can make that yardage up with a better punter.  

 

As for the "few million dollars" - if he's replaced with a draft pick or cheaper free agent it could be closer to like 12M - which this season was something like Joey Bosa.  Again though, this creates that issue of who u would rather give the ball to in a big game.  

Edited 5 hours ago by Bleeding Bills Blue

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

Just now, balln said:

This isn’t Shaun Alexander from sea who had a bazillion td short yardage.

 

cook is explosive. Super explosive 

 

both in pass and as a runner 

 

SF td in the snow!? 
 

lions td where they pulled his hair 

 

id pay him bw 12-15. Knox makes too much $ for what he provides. And beane mismanaged building young depth at DL and WR the last two drafts (not this year). Instead of having to pay 10+ million on part time players on DL could save and sign our young home grown playmaker

 

My only issue with paying him that much is that he's a part-time player.  His blocking isn't good enough to play on third downs, so he loses a bit of that value when you have to use a combination of other players to make up for that gap.  Johnson for blocking, and they used samuel from time to time for sub package stuff where he has flexibility to line up in the backfield or outside.  

 

He's a good receiver for the most part (he had some drop issues his first 2 years), and he cleaned up the fumbling from 2024, so he still appears to be an ascending player who hasn't hit his ceiling yet.  

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, SoonerBillsFan said:

 

He isn't worth 15 million per year, period.

 

He is, period.

 

Plus, while we speak in averages, it wont be $15M every year. If anything, it will help our cap situation over the next couple of years.

 

Even Barkley's big $20M/yr deal has him with only a $6M hit in 2025. Funny enough, Henry who everyone references at "$8M/yr" will hit closer to $13M this year and have the Ravens at the biggest spenders on RB in 2025.

 

Here are the top spenders on RBs, all the teams I could grab in one screenshot. Buffalo is currently at 18th. If we want to continue to have a top Offense, we will have to come up from that and keep the top talent we have.

 

With the rest of the guys on the roster, we could pay Cook and still stay in that top 3-6 range. Not having to take the top spot and biggest spend.

 

 

[klos63]

3 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

He is, period.

 

Plus, while we speak in averages, it wont be $15M every year. If anything, it will help our cap situation over the next couple of years.

 

Even Barkley's big $20M/yr deal has him with only a $6M hit in 2025. Funny enough, Henry who everyone references at "$8M/yr" will hit closer to $13M this year and have the Ravens at the biggest spenders on RB in 2025.

 

Here are the top spenders on RBs, all the teams I could grab in one screenshot. Buffalo is currently at 18th. If we want to continue to have a top Offense, we will have to come up from that and keep the top talent we have.

 

With the rest of the guys on the roster, we could pay Cook and still stay in that top 3-6 range. Not having to take the top spot and biggest spend.

 

 

It seems like some are purposely ignoring this obvious fact. 

[Doc Brown]

Easy solution is to just add some incentives (up to $4m) to his contract this year.  He'll work and play as hard as he did last year with a future contract on his mind.  For the cap specialists on here, is that allowed on a rookie contract?

[DrDawkinstein]

10 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

 

RB to me always comes down to one-game contributions imo, and big play ability.  Cook showed both of those last year.  With the season on the line in a single game I think most of us would rather have Cook taking the majority of carries.  

 

Over a full season with the same blocking and carries i don't think you'd see a major difference in production between Cook and Davis/Johnson/whomever.  Maybe a few of the bigger pops aren't as big, or they don't have the same ability to bounce to the edge, but if we're talking about .4 yards per carry (4.9 to 4.5 say) though that's like 80 yards on the year with his carry load.  You can make that yardage up with a better punter.  

 

As for the "few million dollars" - if he's replaced with a draft pick or cheaper free agent it could be closer to like 12M - which this season was something like Joey Bosa.  Again though, this creates that issue of who u would rather give the ball to in a big game.  

 

2 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

 

My only issue with paying him that much is that he's a part-time player.  His blocking isn't good enough to play on third downs, so he loses a bit of that value when you have to use a combination of other players to make up for that gap.  Johnson for blocking, and they used samuel from time to time for sub package stuff where he has flexibility to line up in the backfield or outside.  

 

He's a good receiver for the most part (he had some drop issues his first 2 years), and he cleaned up the fumbling from 2024, so he still appears to be an ascending player who hasn't hit his ceiling yet.  

 

Lot of good stuff in these posts, but too much for me to go line by line to discuss so excuse the brevity...

 

I think we would absolutely see a drop off with another back even behind the same OL. Even if the average is similar, we NEED those explosive runs. They are really our only explosive plays outside of Josh pulling magic out of his butt. They instantly change games and put us in control.

 

I would take Cook over Bosa every day. I'll guarantee Cook ends up far more productive than what we get out of Bosa this year.

 

As far as being a "part time player", that is more on our coaches than Cook. If our OL is so good they are responsible for Cook's success, then why are we worried about keeping an RB in to block on 3rd down? More often than not, Johnson left the backfield and became a receiver anyways. Cook can do that.

 

Pay him and put it on McD/Brady to get the value out of him since he CAN do it.

[Doc Brown]

1 minute ago, klos63 said:

It seems like some are purposely ignoring this obvious fact. 

If he did a four year $60m extension you'd still be paying him $13.2m per year which is still bad business for a RB that doesn't even play half the snaps.  

[thenorthremembers]

Cook is a good back.  He isnt worth this level acrimony or stress from fans.  He is a good back who needs other good backs behind him because he has trouble playing all 3 downs.   Its more than likely he plays out the year and moves on to another team.    Some guys you extend a year early because you dont want to bid against other teams.   Some guys you let hit free agency because there is a chance they are worth less than they think they are.  James Cook is in the second category.   

 

The 2026 RB Free agent class has some names in it.   Cook may end up being the belle of the ball.    But guys like Breece Hall, Kenneth Walker, Pacheco, Derrick Henry, Tyler Allgier, and Kyren Williams will all be potentially available. 

Edited 4 hours ago by thenorthremembers

[DrDawkinstein]

5 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

If he did a four year $60m extension you'd still be paying him $13.2m per year which is still bad business for a RB that doesn't even play half the snaps.  

 

Tack on even 1 void year (Philly has 4 on Barkley's new deal) and we're already down to $65M spread over 6 years, with cap hits around $5M-6M this year and next.

 

3 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:

Cook is a good back.  He isnt worth this level acrimony or stress from fans.  He is a good back who needs other good backs behind him because he has trouble playing all 3 downs.   Its more than likely he plays out the year and moves on to another team.    Some guys you extend a year early because you dont want to bid against other teams.   Some guys you let hit free agency because there is a chance they are worth less than they think they are.  James Cook is in the second category.   

 

Cook is not an Edmunds/Gabe Davis/Shaq Lawson. He is a very good/great player who happens to play a position thats market is in flux so folks have biases against the justifiable spend.

[klos63]

11 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

If he did a four year $60m extension you'd still be paying him $13.2m per year which is still bad business for a RB that doesn't even play half the snaps.  

If he produces like last season,  i don't care how many snaps he gets,  16 tds is 16 tds.

I'm sure he could play more,  but we have a solid backfield, everyone is fresh and everyone helps...Cook is just much better than the other backs. That's why Beane used a 2nd round pick on him,  he's that good. 

[BearNorth]

In 2024 Cook was ranked 9 out of 59 qualifying running backs. He ranked 25th in the league in carries. - He had about half the carries of Saquon, who won a Super Bowl.

 

 

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, klos63 said:

If he produces like last season,  i don't care how many snaps he gets,  16 tds is 16 tds.

I'm sure he could play more,  but we have a solid backfield, everyone is fresh and everyone helps...Cook is just much better than the other backs. That's why Beane used a 2nd round pick on him,  he's that good. 

 

Folks harp on snap count, yet he has had significantly more attempts/carries than ANY other RB in the McD era.

 

He has helped transition our Offense away from forcing Josh to be the primary driver of our run game. Which will only protect Josh and extend his career.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

Just now, DrDawkinstein said:

 

 

Lot of good stuff in these posts, but too much for me to go line by line to discuss so excuse the brevity...

 

I think we would absolutely see a drop off with another back even behind the same OL. Even if the average is similar, we NEED those explosive runs. They are really our only explosive plays outside of Josh pulling magic out of his butt. They instantly change games and put us in control.

 

I would take Cook over Bosa every day. I'll guarantee Cook ends up far more productive than what we get out of Bosa this year.

 

As far as being a "part time player", that is more on our coaches than Cook. If our OL is so good they are responsible for Cook's success, then why are we worried about keeping an RB in to block on 3rd down? More often than not, Johnson left the backfield and became a receiver anyways. Cook can do that.

 

Pay him and put it on McD/Brady to get the value out of him since he CAN do it.

 

I don't disagree with anything you're saying - I looked at trading for CMC the same way.   Him playing more is what gets him all the love and fantasy accolades, but in a single game in the playoffs, how much better is he than the sum of other pieces?  Like can I remake him with a cheap slot WR, a receiving back, and another back.  More usage during the season and on 3rd downs for Cook can get him more stats to justify the investment, but it increases the injury risk.  

 

Would we have beaten the bengals if they make that same CMC trade the 49ers did?  I felt like our inability to execute in that game had more to do with the offensive lines inability to handle Hill and Reader, moreso than the backs (and the defenses inability to apply any type of pressure to the bengals).  

[Mister Defense]

19 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

If he did a four year $60m extension you'd still be paying him $13.2m per year which is still bad business for a RB that doesn't even play half the snaps.  

 

Bad business would be letting your elite back, a cornerstone of the offense and Josh's success, one of the fastest backs in the NFl, with elite vision, great receiving ability... leave your team and force them to roll the dice with another back instead, risking the Bills regressing on offense for the first time since before dorsey was thrown out.

 

It is a sport, a business yes, but a sport, where it is very important to look at it as such, and not be so concerned that  some say running backs are not worth big contracts.  No evidence, reasoning, whatsover that  I have seen to support that.

 

But it is  a fundamental point in almost all of those discounting Cook's worth to the team--but never supported, never shown to be any truer than saying a wide receiver is not either, or a guard, or a D tackle, or a D end.... Just some nonsense some in the media threw out there a few years ago, and then taken as gospel by some.

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Mister Defense

[thenorthremembers]

15 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Tack on even 1 void year (Philly has 4 on Barkley's new deal) and we're already down to $65M spread over 6 years, with cap hits around $5M-6M this year and next.

 

 

Cook is not an Edmunds/Gabe Davis/Shaq Lawson. He is a very good/great player who happens to play a position thats market is in flux so folks have biases against the justifiable spend.

 

I completely disagree.   For playing behind one of the best offensive lines in football he has good numbers, not great numbers.    I think he is a top ten player at his position but he isnt elite.   Unless he suddenly learns to be a better blocker this year I dont know how you justify paying him upwards of $15 to $20 million dollars a year.    I dont think he is near the player as Henry, Barkley, Bijan, or Gibbs. Not to mention the fact that he is going to be 27 at the start of the 2026 season.  He's a talented back but no way do I pay him that much money without letting him test free agency in a class that stacked.   

Edited 4 hours ago by thenorthremembers

[DrDawkinstein]

4 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

 

I don't disagree with anything you're saying - I looked at trading for CMC the same way.   Him playing more is what gets him all the love and fantasy accolades, but in a single game in the playoffs, how much better is he than the sum of other pieces?  Like can I remake him with a cheap slot WR, a receiving back, and another back.  More usage during the season and on 3rd downs for Cook can get him more stats to justify the investment, but it increases the injury risk.  

 

Would we have beaten the bengals if they make that same CMC trade the 49ers did?  I felt like our inability to execute in that game had more to do with the offensive lines inability to handle Hill and Reader, moreso than the backs (and the defenses inability to apply any type of pressure to the bengals).  

 

The Bengals playoff game is an anomaly from a crazy season.

 

The better, or more accurate question, would be: Do we beat the Chiefs in the AFC Championship last year if we continue to feed Cook who was having a great game instead of getting too cute and relying too much on Josh to make magic happen? There was no reason to get away from Cook other than "coach's decided to". So while nothing is guaranteed in our hindsight, the trend and evidence is there to make a good argument.

[klos63]

2 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:

 

I completely disagree.   For playing behind one of the best offensive lines in football he has good numbers, not great numbers.    I think he is a top ten player at his position but he isnt elite.   Unless he suddenly learns to be a better blocker this year I dont know how you justify paying him upwards of $15 to $20 million dollars a year.    I dont think he is near the player as Henry, Barkley, Bijan, or Gibbs.  He's a talented back but no way do I pay him that much money without letting his test free agency in a class that stacked. 

The Ravens, Lions, Eagles... all have great offensive lines.  Does that also take away value from Henry, Barkley, Gibbs...?

[DrDawkinstein]

10 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:

 

I completely disagree.   For playing behind one of the best offensive lines in football he has good numbers, not great numbers.    I think he is a top ten player at his position but he isnt elite.   Unless he suddenly learns to be a better blocker this year I dont know how you justify paying him upwards of $15 to $20 million dollars a year.    I dont think he is near the player as Henry, Barkley, Bijan, or Gibbs. Not to mention the fact that he is going to be 27 at the start of next season.  He's a talented back but no way do I pay him that much money without letting him test free agency in a class that stacked.   

 

Literally no one is trying to justify that. My post you quoted in this shows how we get his average down to under $11M/yr.

 

A 4/$60M extension means we have him at 5/$65, so at worst $13M/yr. 

 

Add on even 1 void year, and it goes down to 6/$65M, or $10.8M/yr. Right where everyone wants to pay him.

 

edit: also, you re off on his age. He will be 25 at the start of next season, and turn 26 around week 3.

 

Pay him now and we have him locked in until he is 29, so through what should be his prime. Then we let him walk.

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by DrDawkinstein

[DCofNC]

34 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

 

Lot of good stuff in these posts, but too much for me to go line by line to discuss so excuse the brevity...

 

I think we would absolutely see a drop off with another back even behind the same OL. Even if the average is similar, we NEED those explosive runs. They are really our only explosive plays outside of Josh pulling magic out of his butt. They instantly change games and put us in control.

 

I would take Cook over Bosa every day. I'll guarantee Cook ends up far more productive than what we get out of Bosa this year.

 

As far as being a "part time player", that is more on our coaches than Cook. If our OL is so good they are responsible for Cook's success, then why are we worried about keeping an RB in to block on 3rd down? More often than not, Johnson left the backfield and became a receiver anyways. Cook can do that.

 

Pay him and put it on McD/Brady to get the value out of him since he CAN do it.

I “CAN” play in the NFL too, doesn’t mean it’s the best option.  If the coaches feel the better player for the situation is on the field, it means Cook isn’t good enough at it.  The fact you even question why he needs to block shows me all I need to know about your football IQ, so in retrospect, that was 30 seconds of my life I should have used better, but hey, I can try to get you to understand, just like Jimbo “can” be a 3 down back.

[thenorthremembers]

Just now, klos63 said:

The Ravens, Lions, Eagles... all have great offensive lines.  Does that also take away value from Henry, Barkley, Gibbs...?

 

Notice you took out Robinson to help prove a point.    Outside of the offensive line, Barkley and Gibbs are elite receiving threats.  Can we all admit that Cook while ok in that respect can also be frustrating to watch catch the ball?  Do we really want to compare Cook and Henry as runners or blockers?   Listen I really like the guy too.  I'd love to see him on the Bills for a few more years.  But lets be realistic about who is beyond our emotional attachment to him.