James Cook absent from OTA's

[Augie]

39 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I'd be more open to it if the data of RB's declining after age 26 wasn't so damning.  Beane has the rare advantage of seeing how how an older brother (siblings share anywhere from 37 percent to 65 percent of their parents genetic variants) declined once he hit age 27.  I'd even consider a franchise tag next year depending on how he performs this upcoming season.

 

He will be 26 in September. The last year of his contract and a franchise year gets him to the age of 28 as an NFL RB. I’m not sure how many more years I want to commit to for now, but I do love the threat he brings on every play. This may be a good compromise. 

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, Einstein's Dog said:

I think you will see that this is also the opinion of Beane. 

 

But at least the odds are we get Cook this year - and if Cook hasn't peaked- maybe franchise tag him the year after.

 

 

We'll see. Beane knows what Cook is after and has already mentioned a few times that they can still get a deal done during the season/before next offseason.

 

I have some previous posts where I stated being against using the Tag because it usually makes the relationship even worse.

 

However, in the meantime, someone somewhere made a good point that changed my perspective a bit and especially in this case.

 

That point being, for a talent like Cook who ended up being a 2nd rounder, the tag can be used to essentially recreate the "5th year option" we would have got by picking him in the 1st.

 

If it can be leveraged that way, and as long as it doesnt completely burn the bridge, then I'm on board tagging him in a worst case scenario.

 

Of course, the funniest part there is the RB tag number will be around $14M+, so we might as well just get him on a real deal.

[Doc Brown]

6 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

He will be 26 in September. The last year of his contract and a franchise year gets him to the age of 28 as an NFL RB. I’m not sure how many more years I want to commit to for now, but I do love the threat he brings on every play. This may be a good compromise. 

The non exclusive franchise tag should be on the table if he has the same impact this season that he had last season.  No way I'd extend him though.

[DrDawkinstein]

10 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

After age 27 is where you usually see a pretty quick dropoff at RB regardless of wear and tear.  Peak seasons of a RB are usually between the ages of 24 and 26.  For historical context, even Thurman Thomas had a drop off at age 27 going from 4.8 ypc to 3.7 ypc.  Cook's brother's best years were when he was 25 and 26 before being cut when he was 27 despite coming off a pro bowl season.  The Vikings who are very analytics driven could see first hand the decline in speed.  The Jets in all their brilliance couldn't.  Maybe James Cook can defy the odds after next season but I'd be fine with another team taking that gamble.  

 

52 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I'd be more open to it if the data of RB's declining after age 26 wasn't so damning.  Beane has the rare advantage of seeing how how an older brother (siblings share anywhere from 37 percent to 65 percent of their parents genetic variants) declined once he hit age 27.  I'd even consider a franchise tag next year depending on how he performs this upcoming season.

 

Might have the same genetics, but dont have the same careers.

 

Through Dalvin's best (younger) years he had:

250 carries

312 carries

249 carries

264 carries

As he approached his drop off.

 

For what it's worth, Thurman also had seasons of 288, 315, and 355 carries as he hit his drop off.

 

So far, James peaked last year at 237 carries and only 207 carries last season. He also is able to run away from contact more than his brother.

 

Lot less wear and tear so far.

 

It's why being a "2-down back" is a good thing. 😎

 

Just sayin.

[Einstein's Dog]

8 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

 

We'll see. Beane knows what Cook is after and has already mentioned a few times that they can still get a deal done during the season/before next offseason.

 

I have some previous posts where I stated being against using the Tag because it usually makes the relationship even worse.

 

However, in the meantime, someone somewhere made a good point that changed my perspective a bit and especially in this case.

 

That point being, for a talent like Cook who ended up being a 2nd rounder, the tag can be used to essentially recreate the "5th year option" we would have got by picking him in the 1st.

 

If it can be leveraged that way, and as long as it doesnt completely burn the bridge, then I'm on board tagging him in a worst case scenario.

 

Of course, the funniest part there is the RB tag number will be around $14M+, so we might as well just get him on a real deal.

I do want to backstep a bit and reiterate that I think Cook is an exciting RB.  He has really come on and IMO is close to top 5.  While everyone seems to dread the Lamar/D Henry combo I thought there was a little disrespect to the Josh/Cook dynamic - it's that much of a factor.

 

I would prefer an extension, and for more years than several on this thread (just not at $15M/yr).  I think the 200ish carries will preserve Cook and he has several good years left.

 

Unfortunately I guess I don't like seeing the negotiations playing out in front of me.  It makes me fear things have gone South. 

 

[HappyDays]

7 hours ago, DCofNC said:

We’ll see if Cook is what he thinks he is this year, if he comes to camp late or plays games, don’t be surprised when McD names one of the other guys the starter and won’t let Cook get touches for 6 weeks.

 

No chance. McDermott would lose the locker room if he did that. Every player can see in practice that Cook moves at a different level from the RBs behind him. If McDermott put him in the doghouse because of a very common negotiation tactic, he loses his grip on the team.

[BillsFanForever19]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Says you building your team.

 

Also says them who has taken the contract dispute incredibly personally for some reason and is angry to a point where it seems like James Cook attacked them in their DM's. He wants him gone so he dismisses the many positives and focuses only on the reasons he shouldn't be paid fair market value.

 

1 hour ago, Einstein's Dog said:

I think you will see that this is also the opinion of Beane. 

 

But at least the odds are we get Cook this year - and if Cook hasn't peaked- maybe franchise tag him the year after.

 

That may or may not be true. We'll see what Beane's final offer is or isn't when he's resigned or is signed elsewhere. 

 

But you and others argue he's only worth X amount bc "he's only a 2 down back". But just because that's how he's used by McDermott doesn't mean that all 31 other teams in the league view him that way and would utilize him that way. 

 

Anyone with eyes, ears, and a voice criticized the Bills for taking him off the field and not using him more against KC. And that wasn't the only time throughout the year that people asked "why aren't they using Cook more"? There will definitely be teams that will use him more than we do and will be teams that will take less in protection to put one more weapon out on the field. 

 

Again, it's one thing for someone to say that they wouldn't pay more than 10-12 for a RB or for what he is on this team. It's another to say that his "market value" and view league wide is that bc that's how Buffalo uses him. And teams that view him as more in their offense will look at our usage as a net positive, as he has less wear and tear than your standard 26 year old RB.

 

If you look at the players who have signed in that range, James Cook is a better, younger, healthier RB than those in that number. And that's not even taking into account the yearly rise in salary cap causing a rise in contract prices. When it's all said and done, 13m is the low end number I envision and it wouldn't shock me in the least if he got even more than the 15m he was asking for from someone.

 

2 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

Spotrac market value is like Zillow market value for homes, and they clearly state they have a +/- of 30% (which is a huge swing!).

 

Often times their numbers aren't even that close. 

 

Take Josh Palmer this year with us for example. Their "market value" was 3 yrs, 12.8m. When it was all said and done, the number we had to pay to outbid everyone was 3 yrs, 28m.

 

And to bring this back to Cook, this is an example of what I was just talking about. The "market value" was placed on him based on how LA used him. While we (and others as well) obviously viewed him as a player who would be used more on our team and paid him as such.

Edited 5 hours ago by BillsFanForever19

[DCofNC]

9 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

No chance. McDermott would lose the locker room if he did that. Every player can see in practice that Cook moves at a different level from the RBs behind him. If McDermott put him in the doghouse because of a very common negotiation tactic, he loses his grip on the team.

Doubt that, but we will see how it plays out.

[BillsFanForever19]

10 minutes ago, DCofNC said:

Doubt that, but we will see how it plays out.

 

You can doubt it all you want. What you're suggesting 1000% isn't going to happen. On top of the things Happy mentioned, it's simply biting off our own nose to spite our face. There's no scenario where what you suggest makes any sense. It's all negative, no positive. Beyond some sort of weird personal punishment fantasy you may have.

 

At no point has there ever been a situation where there's been a contract dispute and the player is in house and a team said "I'll show them!" and sat a player that could help them win. This is simply not how NFL teams operate.

 

All that would do is guarantee he's out of here after this year and make it so we didn't get the use of him we should have in the last year we have him. If that was what he was going to do, we would have just moved on this offseason.

Edited 5 hours ago by BillsFanForever19

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

 

Might have the same genetics, but dont have the same careers.

 

Through Dalvin's best (younger) years he had:

250 carries

312 carries

249 carries

264 carries

As he approached his drop off.

 

For what it's worth, Thurman also had seasons of 288, 315, and 355 carries as he hit his drop off.

 

So far, James peaked last year at 237 carries and only 207 carries last season. He also is able to run away from contact more than his brother.

 

Lot less wear and tear so far.

 

It's why being a "2-down back" is a good thing. 😎

 

Just sayin.

Not adding a RB in the draft makes me worried that Beane will give him an extension using this exact logic.  Running back skill is the position most dependent on speed and strength.  The human body will naturally deteriorate starting at age 27 regardless of the wear and tear on the body.  RB's fall off the click the quickest and Cook is even more likely to hit a wall within the next year or two because relies mostly on speed.  There's outliers to the age 27 natural drop off but I don't want Beane to pay for an outlier.  Especially since we're paying a QB elite money and will always be skirting with just getting under the salary cap every year.  Let him play out the year and if he puts up similar numbers I'd rather franchise tag him for one more year than extend him for top of the market value right now.

Edited 5 hours ago by Doc Brown

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, Doc Brown said:

Not adding a RB in the draft makes me worried that Beane will give him an extension using this exact logic.  Running back skill is the position most dependent on speed and strength.  The human body will naturally deteriorate starting at age 27 regardless of the wear and tear on the body.  RB's fall off the click the quickest and Cook is even more likely to hit a wall within the next year or two because relies mostly on speed.  There's outliers to the age 27 natural drop off but I don't want Beane to pay for an outlier.  Especially since we're paying a QB elite money and will always be skirting with just getting under the salary cap every year.  Let him play out the year and if he puts up similar numbers I'd rather franchise tag him for one more year than pay him top money.

 

I trust Beane over any of us and our message board logic. Even my own.

 

And there are plenty of fast guys over 27 in the league.

 

Is anyone worried that Lamar will not be able to run well this year? He's 28 going on 29. 

Has Tyreek Hill not been a threat the last few years? Even with all his dings and injuries.

Derrick Henry is 31, takes a lot of contact, and can still take it to the house and outrun the defense.

Speed doesnt always disappear. And a lot of athletes will tell you 27 is just entering their physical prime.

[Ga boy]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

 

No chance. McDermott would lose the locker room if he did that. Every player can see in practice that Cook moves at a different level from the RBs behind him. If McDermott put him in the doghouse because of a very common negotiation tactic, he loses his grip on the team.

They see it on the practice field and game field.  We see it.  The best thing for this season is to give him a contract tacked on.  It will happen.  Probably not 15, but will include incentives.  He’s earned it.  He got stronger this year, and he will be scary strong coming soon.

[Doc Brown]

5 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I trust Beane over any of us and our message board logic. Even my own.

 

And there are plenty of fast guys over 27 in the league.

 

Is anyone worried that Lamar will not be able to run well this year? He's 28 going on 29. 

Has Tyreek Hill not been a threat the last few years? Even with all his dings and injuries.

Derrick Henry is 31, takes a lot of contact, and can still take it to the house and outrun the defense.

Speed doesnt always disappear. And a lot of athletes will tell you 27 is just entering their physical prime.

Even if you think he can defy the odds what's the hurry in extending him when you have a year left on his rookie deal and have the option of using the franchise tag next year?  I guess I just don't get why there's such an urgency amongst fans to extend him now?

[DrDawkinstein]

15 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Even if you think he can defy the odds what's the hurry in extending him when you have a year left on his rookie deal and have the option of using the franchise tag next year?  I guess I just don't get why there's such an urgency amongst fans to extend him now?

 

I dont fully disagree, I'm not against using the tag on Cook if it gets to that point. But I think the logic is there is a good chance the price continues to go up on what would be an integral part of our Offense. I think Beane agrees it's better to get deals done sooner rather than later. It's why they were even in talks in the first place. I dont think there is a ton of stressful urgency from the pro-Cook camp, rather a "just get it done so it goes away" thing, which I think most of us already feel in ways on either side. 👍

[transplantbillsfan]

9 hours ago, RoscoeParrish said:

Giving them signing bonus money is not equivalent to their cap hit. 
 

Bernard signed a deal reported for 4 for $42M.

 

His cap hit for 2026, 2027, 2028 and 2029 equals….. $41.6M. With a void year worth $1.3M in 2030.

 

So his cap hit over his 4 year extension, not including 2025, is exactly what his deal was signed for.

 

There’s a reason why your mirage doesn’t work and no one says that. It isn’t a 5 year deal. He’s under contract in 2025 regardless.

 

No one says DK Metcalf really signed a lesser deal because he was technically under contract for 1 year left.

 

He signed a 4 year extension for $42M with 1 year left on his deal.  He didn’t sign a 5 year deal for $42M. 

 

You're right, but an by its very definition an extension just creates a new contract including what's left with the old one, correct? So DK Metcalf now has 5 years remaining on his contract. The extension is literally just taking what's left of the old contract and extending it.

 

Your DK example in your last sentence would have been accurate if you adjusted the numbers for this year.

 

Or is it the signing part some of you are up in arms about?

 

James Cook might sign a $15mAAV extension for 3 years at $45m, but his actual contract would be 4 years at $50m for $12.5m AAV.

 

The 1st number is more optics. The 2nd number is probably what really matters 

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

No chance. McDermott would lose the locker room if he did that. Every player can see in practice that Cook moves at a different level from the RBs behind him. If McDermott put him in the doghouse because of a very common negotiation tactic, he loses his grip on the team.

 

Yep. If he turns up the final week of camp he probably doesn't start week 1 or even week 2. But that isn't about being in the doghouse it is about being in proper game shape. They'd ramp him up and week 3 or 4 he'd be back to the starting job. But as long as he is here most or all of camp James Cook will be the starter. No question. He is just a different talent level altogether than the other guys.

[DCofNC]

2 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

You can doubt it all you want. What you're suggesting 1000% isn't going to happen. On top of the things Happy mentioned, it's simply biting off our own nose to spite our face. There's no scenario where what you suggest makes any sense. It's all negative, no positive. Beyond some sort of weird personal punishment fantasy you may have.

 

At no point has there ever been a situation where there's been a contract dispute and the player is in house and a team said "I'll show them!" and sat a player that could help them win. This is simply not how NFL teams operate.

 

All that would do is guarantee he's out of here after this year and make it so we didn't get the use of him we should have in the last year we have him. If that was what he was going to do, we would have just moved on this offseason.

Most guys that hold out have a legitimate claim for their ask, he doesn’t have any reasonable claim to be a top 2-3 paid back in the league.  If he wants to hang the team out to dry, while the guy they drafted to replace him takes his reps, that’s his option, just don’t be surprised when it blows up in his face and he hits the market with 600 yards and 6 TDs.   Davis can easily replace him at the goal line, his td total can be halved in a hurry.

Edited 2 hours ago by DCofNC

[GunnerBill]

11 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

James Cook might sign a $15mAAV extension for 3 years at $45m, but his actual contract would be 4 years at $50m for $12.5m AAV.

 

The 1st number is more optics. The 2nd number is probably what really matters 

 

Yep. I think that is the ball park. And with the 3rd year of the extension being a pretty comfortable out for the Bills. Maybe around $5-6m dead cap ideally... but definitely no more than $8m. So it might be $15m AAV as the shiny number for the agent. $12.5m AAV as the number for cap purposes and then about $11.75m AAV if the final year of that extension is one he isn't really likely to play on because it has a big cap # but most of that is non-guaranteed base salary (you'd either extend and lower the hit if he is still good or cut bait if he isn't..).

 

 

3 minutes ago, DCofNC said:

Davis can easily replace him at the goal line, his td total can be halved in a hurry.

 

Davis can't easily replace James Cook anywhere.

Also worth saying for all the Davis lovers.... he is less than two months younger than James Cook. So anyone thinking it's a young guy with more development..... not sure that's the case. He is an OLD 2nd year player. 

 

Basically it is just a choice to accept getting worse in order to get cheaper. Normally at running back I'm fine with that. But when the running back is clearly the most dynamic skill position player on the offense I am less gung ho. 

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I dont fully disagree, I'm not against using the tag on Cook if it gets to that point. But I think the logic is there is a good chance the price continues to go up on what would be an integral part of our Offense. I think Beane agrees it's better to get deals done sooner rather than later. It's why they were even in talks in the first place. I dont think there is a ton of stressful urgency from the pro-Cook camp, rather a "just get it done so it goes away" thing, which I think most of us already feel in ways on either side. 👍

Reading the tea leaves his agent and Cook pry had a different price in mind after they started negotiating in early February when Cook started with his instagram stuff.  I'm guessing Beane offered a team friendly but fair deal like Rousseau, Bernard, Shakir, and Benford signed.  Take it or leave it. That seems to be Beane's MO when it comes to extensions.  

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

Davis can't easily replace James Cook anywhere.

Also worth saying for all the Davis lovers.... he is less than two months younger than James Cook. So anyone thinking it's a young guy with more development..... not sure that's the case. He is an OLD 2nd year player. 

 

Basically it is just a choice to accept getting worse in order to get cheaper. Normally at running back I'm fine with that. But when the running back is clearly the most dynamic skill position player on the offense I am less gung ho. 

Yeah.  Davis is definitely not at Cook's level and pry never will be.  He'll be a lot easier to let walk after his rookie deal.

[Mister Defense]

25 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Reading the tea leaves his agent and Cook pry had a different price in mind after they started negotiating in early February when Cook started with his instagram stuff.  I'm guessing Beane offered a team friendly but fair deal like Rousseau, Bernard, Shakir, and Benford signed.  Take it or leave it. That seems to be Beane's MO when it comes to extensions.  

Yeah.  Davis is definitely not at Cook's level and pry never will be.  He'll be a lot easier to let walk after his rookie deal.

 

I will never ever understand that sentiment, from a percentage of posters, to talk about letting the young, dynamic talent on the team walk, see above, over and over again.

 

Good players are not easily replaceable, dynamic, great players are of course even more so.

 

Same silly mentality of the drought years, but the difference then was the front office had that bizarre, team killing, let's just spin our wheels flippant mentality, as  if they were were playing a  fantasy game rather than the real thing.  All fans should cross their fingers that no one there now who may have that mentality has sway.

 

It made the Bills one of the worst teams of the first 15 years of this century, a laughingstock.

 

And this craziness still going on when it comes to running backs, even after the previous year, when almost all of the playoff teams stood out because of superior running games.  Makes zero sense, and just saying it a zillion times does not make it so, in fact shows the lunacy of it all.