HappyDays Posted January 12 Posted January 12 I need to know what his market looks like. I'd usually never even consider it, it would be an unquestionable no you don't pay RBs, but Cook has become vital to this offense's success. His vision is as good as any other RB out there. He can hit home runs. He's become more physical this year to boot. We've wasted so much money on poor FA signings so does it really hurt our team if we give him a reasonable contract? FWIW I'm shocked at myself for even considering this. 2 2 1 Quote
Buffalo Ballin Posted January 12 Posted January 12 James Cook is staying for a while. The tagline "Let. Him. COOK." is a money maker for Two Bills Drive. Think we're gonna let that walk? No way. Also, Josh Allen likes him. 1 Quote
LabattBlue Posted January 12 Posted January 12 1 minute ago, Buffalo Ballin said: James Cook is staying for a while. The tagline "Let. Him. COOK." is a money maker for Two Bills Drive. Think we're gonna let that walk? No way. Also, Josh Allen likes him. Money maker? 😂😂😂 Quote
Buffalo Ballin Posted January 12 Posted January 12 Just now, LabattBlue said: Money maker? 😂😂😂 Yeah. The marketing. The merchandise. Quote
Coach Tuesday Posted January 12 Posted January 12 4 minutes ago, HappyDays said: I need to know what his market looks like. I'd usually never even consider it, it would be an unquestionable no you don't pay RBs, but Cook has become vital to this offense's success. His vision is as good as any other RB out there. He can hit home runs. He's become more physical this year to boot. We've wasted so much money on poor FA signings so does it really hurt our team if we give him a reasonable contract? FWIW I'm shocked at myself for even considering this. I am right there with you. It’s blasphemy but yet… his vision seems to be becoming… elite?? @BADOLBILZ knock some sense into us please… 1 Quote
LabattBlue Posted January 12 Posted January 12 1 minute ago, Buffalo Ballin said: Yeah. The marketing. The merchandise. A billionaire concerned about making a couple of dollars per tshirt. Yeah…that would definitely be a factor in his being re-signed or not. 😂 Quote
Doc Posted January 12 Posted January 12 He'll cost about $10M/year. He's still young and with low mileage. Versus going after an expensive WR who will cost you in the $30M range. Quote
Ethan in Cleveland Posted January 12 Posted January 12 Tough call. He will turn 27 at the start of the 2026 season. A four year extension at the end of next year that allows the Bills to get out of that last year would make sense. Hopefully he would take just a little less money to keep playing with Allen. Miller will be gone. They can get young and cheap on the DL soon. At this time, I keep Groot, Benford, Shakir, and Cook even if that means Bernard is gone. Bernard and Douglas probably would be easiest to replace. Hope they keep Knox maybe on a lower salary. Quote
HappyDays Posted January 12 Posted January 12 1 minute ago, Doc said: He'll cost about $10M/year. He's still young and with low mileage. Versus going after an expensive WR who will cost you in the $30M range. I'm kind of in the camp of doing both. Because I continue to believe that our best path to winning a Super Bowl is having an offense capable of steamrolling every opponent. Make the defense practically a non-factor. So if re-signing Cook means we can't add WR talent then I'm 100% out, but if we can do both then sign me up for an offense that can dominate teams in multiple ways even if it comes at the expense of other areas on the roster. 2 Quote
nedboy7 Posted January 12 Posted January 12 For what it’s worth the eagles and ravens are where they are at partially cause of a stud RB. I think having one really adds a dimension to the offense that’s hard to replicate. Quote
PromoTheRobot Posted January 12 Posted January 12 32 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: Not At Running Back But what if he's a weapon? Quote
GoBills808 Posted January 12 Posted January 12 7 minutes ago, Doc said: He'll cost about $10M/year. He's still young and with low mileage. Versus going after an expensive WR who will cost you in the $30M range. 4/yr is the absolute top I would go 1 Quote
Coach Tuesday Posted January 12 Posted January 12 2 minutes ago, HappyDays said: I'm kind of in the camp of doing both. Because I continue to believe that our best path to winning a Super Bowl is having an offense capable of steamrolling every opponent. Make the defense practically a non-factor. So if re-signing Cook means we can't add WR talent then I'm 100% out, but if we can do both then sign me up for an offense that can dominate teams in multiple ways even if it comes at the expense of other areas on the roster. The odd thing though is that he is not the type of back who should be dominating in this era - he’s the same size or smaller than the defenders. Guys with more power should be doing better against lighter defenses. And he doesn’t even have elite speed to make up for his stature. But yet… Quote
GoBills808 Posted January 12 Posted January 12 2 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said: But what if he's a weapon? RB is the league's most fungible commodity 1 Quote
PromoTheRobot Posted January 12 Posted January 12 (edited) 2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: RB is the league's most fungible commodity You are a slave to labels. You're not looking at Cook as a player and what he brings the team. Classic mistake. Ask the Giants. Edited January 12 by PromoTheRobot Quote
Buffalo_Stampede Posted January 12 Posted January 12 I called him average last year. He’s above average. He’s a good RB. Still let walk. Quote
GoBills808 Posted January 12 Posted January 12 1 minute ago, PromoTheRobot said: You are a slave to labels. You're not looking at Cook as a player. Classic mistake. Ask the Giants. I could be talked into paying a player like Barkley or Henry market rate Your mistake is mistaking Cook for one of them. Quote
PromoTheRobot Posted January 12 Posted January 12 Just now, GoBills808 said: I could be talked into paying a player like Barkley or Henry market rate Your mistake is mistaking Cook for one of them. Your opinion. 1 Quote
Doc Posted January 12 Posted January 12 7 minutes ago, HappyDays said: I'm kind of in the camp of doing both. Because I continue to believe that our best path to winning a Super Bowl is having an offense capable of steamrolling every opponent. Make the defense practically a non-factor. So if re-signing Cook means we can't add WR talent then I'm 100% out, but if we can do both then sign me up for an offense that can dominate teams in multiple ways even if it comes at the expense of other areas on the roster. No thanks. They don't need a $30M/year diva. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.