If the Chiefs offered their 2nd round pick for James Cook would you make the trade?

[HamptonBillsfan]

If your intention is to keep the Chiefs elevated and playing in SBs indefinitely that’s what you do. What the hell is a 2nd rd pick when you have a top 5 RB on the roster already. Isn’t enough that we gifted them their best receiver. Just a silly idea but that’s what boards are all about. The Giants did that with Saquon and the Eagles immediately won the SB.

[BarleyNY]

6 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

They keep saying it because he has outperformed the pick and is liklely to keep doing so for at least the next two years, so why would you take lesser value and all the associated risk? It's opportunity cost.

If you bought a lottery ticket for $5 and you won $10, would you sell me the winning ticket for the original $5 just so you could maybe get a higher return? If James Cook re-entered the draft right now and everyone knew exactly what he is, he'd probably go in the top 10 picks.

As I already said, not the part about it being worth trading him for 63. The part where you said we used a higher pick on him. That part that isn’t true. 

[Mister Defense]

10 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

One reason we had a 17 year playoff drought is we were the only team that drafted three first round running backs over that period.  The legion of boom is the reason the Seahawks won a Super Bowl.  Not Marshawn Lynch.

 

 

Hmmm

 

Yes, the Seahawks had a great defense, but many teams have had great defenses and did not have the kind of success the Seahawks had...

 

 

In the 2013 season they went to their first Super Bowl under Carrol, and Marshawn Lynch had 1257 yards rushing and 12 rushing TDs.    He also had 44 receptions for 316 yard and 3 more TDs.

 

In the following season, leading to their second Super Bowl, (the not very important to you) Lynch had  1306 yards and 13 TDs. He also had 37 receptions for 367 yards and 4TDs.

 

What you say above, for anyone watching NFL football those years, would be as backwards and as illogical as saying:  Their defense is the reason the Eagles won the Super Bowl this year.  Not Saquon Barkley.

 

How dumb of a statement would that be, having watched NFL football this year? I assume you would agree with me, supremely dumb.

 

Just as bizarre, illogical, and, frankly, unbelievable, that someone would think that Marshawn Lynch's production was not a seminal reason they played in those two Super Bowls.

 

So, I am assuming you are not a big believer in complimentary football!? Or that a high level running attack is important to a team's success in today's NFL.

 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 01:36 PM by Mister Defense

[DCofNC]

11 hours ago, folz said:

 

 

Regular Season   Total Yds   TDs   Targets    Recs    Yards/Rec    Yards/Targ   Yards/Game    Long    Most yards/game   1st downs  1st down %

Xavier Worthy          638          6        98           59          10.8                 6.5               37.5              54               79                         36             61.0  

Keon Coleman         556          4        57           29           19.2                9.8               42.8              64             100                         22             75.9

 

Worthy and Coleman were 7th and 8th in rookie receiving yards. And remember, Keon played 3 games fewer than Xavier (and then was working himself back from the injury) and he also had 31 fewer targets.

 

As far as stretching the field, both Worthy and Keon had 3 receptions over 30 yards on the year. Worthy: 31, 35, and 54 yards. Coleman: 49, 57, and 64 yards. Keon had 12 receptions of 20+ yards. Xavier had 4 receptions of 20+ yards. [Again, with Keon playing three fewer games too.] Looking at those numbers and his yards/rec and yards/target, I'm not sure how well Worthy was actually stretching the field vertically (unless maybe as a decoy). Keon's yards/rec and yards/target ranked 4th and 23rd in the league respectively (of all receivers). Worthy's yards/rec and yards/target ranked 109th and 174th in the league this year.

 

Yes, Worthy had the three big receptions at the end of the Super Bowl (after Philly was already up 34-0), but he really didn't do that much in the playoffs up to that point. 

 

Look, we all wished we saw more from Keon and hoped that he'd develop down the stretch better than he did. And I think it is fair enough to say that he didn't have a big impact. But I'm not sure how people can say in the same breath that Worthy did have a BIG rookie season/did have a big impact? imo, the numbers just do not agree with the perception that there is some vast gulf between how their rookie years went (with Worthy some rising star and Keon a cross your fingers he's not a bust guy). I don't think anything definitive can be said about either guy or how they compare as of yet. It will take another season or two.

 

btw, I voted hell no on trading Cook to K.C. too.

 

Stats don’t tell the whole story.  Josh Allen is MVP and Lamar out performed him in damn near every possible category.  Years past Lamar was MvP and JA outperformed him in most statistical categories.  The difference a player makes on the team is not measured purely in stats.  Teams HAVE to respect the fact Worthy can take the top off and Mahomes has the arm to hit him.  Coleman strikes exactly zero fear in a D, he’s just a big plodder, not drawing extra coverage anywhere.  The reason the middle of the field opened up for Buffalo was teams shifting their eyes to Coop a little bit, imagine the threat of Worthy taking the top off and having a HoF TE running free in the middle of the field for 100+ catches.. oh wait, you can just watch the replays..  KCs OL is hot garbage and there was nobody besides Kelce to take any attention from Worthy for the majority of the year, he still made an impact.  Coleman on the other hand had one game where he actually made an impact.

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

If he’s stuck on that 15 mil a year number no way KC makes that trade. 

[Doc Brown]

5 hours ago, Mister Defense said:

 

 

Hmmm

 

Yes, the Seahawks had a great defense, but many teams have had great defenses and did not have the kind of success the Seahawks had...

 

 

In the 2013 season they went to their first Super Bowl under Carrol, and Marshawn Lynch had 1257 yards rushing and 12 rushing TDs.    He also had 44 receptions for 316 yard and 3 more TDs.

 

In the following season, leading to their second Super Bowl, (the not very important to you) Lynch had  1306 yards and 13 TDs. He also had 37 receptions for 367 yards and 4TDs.

 

What you say above, for anyone watching NFL football those years, would be as backwards and as illogical as saying:  Their defense is the reason the Eagles won the Super Bowl this year.  Not Saquon Barkley.

 

How dumb of a statement would that be, having watched NFL football this year? I assume you would agree with me, supremely dumb.

 

Just as bizarre, illogical, and, frankly, unbelievable, that someone would think that Marshawn Lynch's production was not a seminal reason they played in those two Super Bowls.

 

So, I am assuming you are not a big believer in complimentary football!? Or that a high level running attack is important to a team's success in today's NFL.

 

 

 

A lot of good defenses?  That 2013 defense was historic.  First in yards allowed.  First in points allowed.  First in turnovers created.  No defense had done all three since the '85 Bears.  They held the best scoring offense of all time (the Mannng led Broncos) to 8 points in the Super Bowl.  Lynch also wasn't even close to what Saquon Barkley did last year.  He put up 1257 yards at 4.3 ypc.  Barkley put up over 2000 yards at 5.8 ypc..  I think the Seahawks cruise to a Super Bowl with just an average back because of how historically good that defense was.  Barkley was way more valuable to the Eagles than Lynch was to the Seahawks.  Lynch a better case of being a seminal reason the next season where they lost the Super Bowl.

[Don Otreply]

No -one in their right mind makes a trade like that, talk about willful ignorance.,., 

[dorquemada]

Seriously though is anyone going to pay cook $15m a year? Is there a team that's just a RB away from the SB and would pay this?

[Bob Chandler's Hands]

On 2/26/2025 at 11:44 AM, wppete said:

Never trade with KC again. 

This is a loser mentality. It's saying "you're smarter than me and I know it". Screw that. If the deal is good for the Bills, take it. It doesn't matter who the deal is with. 

[wppete]

55 minutes ago, Bob Chandler's Hands said:

This is a loser mentality. It's saying "you're smarter than me and I know it". Screw that. If the deal is good for the Bills, take it. It doesn't matter who the deal is with. 

KC fleeced us with the Mahomes trade and the Worthy trade. I wouldn’t trade with them again. 

[Alphadawg7]

I voted No because I wouldnt be able to handle the never ending threads and posts of people melting down for the rest of Cooks career every time he made a reasonable or better play 

[North Buffalo]

On 2/26/2025 at 1:36 PM, Doc Brown said:

Thought I'd get a good gauge on the Cook opinions and trading with the Chiefs opinions.  They could use an upgrade at RB.

Id trade him for worthy

[Doc Brown]

11 hours ago, HamptonBillsfan said:

If your intention is to keep the Chiefs elevated and playing in SBs indefinitely that’s what you do. What the hell is a 2nd rd pick when you have a top 5 RB on the roster already. Isn’t enough that we gifted them their best receiver. Just a silly idea but that’s what boards are all about. The Giants did that with Saquon and the Eagles immediately won the SB.

Giants didn't receive anything for Barkley because he was a free agent.  Plus, Cook isn't Barkley.  Trading Cook for a 2nd would be defendable if you know you're not going to re-sign him next year.  If the Chiefs gave a RB $15m a year it would stop them from spending as much money on more premium positions so it would likely hurt them long term.

Edited Thursday at 11:05 PM by Doc Brown

[HamptonBillsfan]

39 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Giants didn't receive anything for Barkley because he was a free agent.  Plus, Cook isn't Barkley.  Trading Cook for a 2nd would be defendable if you know you're not going to re-sign him next year.  If the Chiefs gave a RB $15m a year it would stop them from spending as much money on more premium positions so it would likely hurt them long term.

Doesn’t have anything to do with what was received, you don’t allow a prime SB  rival to acquire the top RB in the conference. The Giants could have franchised Saquon and traded him out of the division or conference. The Giants are a ship without a rudder.We don’t have any reason not to resign Cook. First, he has a year left on his rookie deal and Cook is much younger than Barkley and has never been injured.  The Bills want to be a run first offense to set up Josh in the pass game  type team. Cook gives them an established top 5 back. His ceiling is unlimited given his mismatch potential in the pass game coming out of the backfield. Just admit a 2nd round draft choice from KC  for Cook is foolish. You’re going to use the argument getting a great back for 15million would stop a good organization from  improving their roster? Teams redo bloated contracts to create cap space all the time. 

[Bob Chandler's Hands]

2 hours ago, wppete said:

KC fleeced us with the Mahomes trade and the Worthy trade. I wouldn’t trade with them again. 

The Mahomes trade was fine. It was for a draft pick, not Mahomes. The teams who got fleeced were the 9 teams who picked before the Chiefs who didn't take Mahomes. 

The Worthy trade hasn't played out yet. 

[BUFFALOBART]

On 2/26/2025 at 1:36 PM, Doc Brown said:

Thought I'd get a good gauge on the Cook opinions and trading with the Chiefs opinions.  They could use an upgrade at RB.

What would that be? -Pick 62? Fo'gettaboudit!

[FireChans]

12 hours ago, Mister Defense said:

Yes, the Seahawks had a great defense, but many teams have had great defenses and did not have the kind of success the Seahawks had...

Uh.

 

that Seahawks defense was historically great. 
 

Their 2013 team was the first team since the 85 Bears to have the lowest points allowed, lowest yards allowed and highest takeaways. 
 

They weren’t one of many great defenses.

6 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

A lot of good defenses?  That 2013 defense was historic.  First in yards allowed.  First in points allowed.  First in turnovers created.  No defense had done all three since the '85 Bears.  They held the best scoring offense of all time (the Mannng led Broncos) to 8 points in the Super Bowl.  Lynch also wasn't even close to what Saquon Barkley did last year.  He put up 1257 yards at 4.3 ypc.  Barkley put up over 2000 yards at 5.8 ypc..  I think the Seahawks cruise to a Super Bowl with just an average back because of how historically good that defense was.  Barkley was way more valuable to the Eagles than Lynch was to the Seahawks.  Lynch a better case of being a seminal reason the next season where they lost the Super Bowl.

***** just saw this.

[Mister Defense]

44 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Uh.

 

that Seahawks defense was historically great. 
 

Their 2013 team was the first team since the 85 Bears to have the lowest points allowed, lowest yards allowed and highest takeaways. 
 

They weren’t one of many great defenses.

***** just saw this.

 

 

uhh, I think you are missing the main point...

 

Possibly need to go back and actually read the exchanges.

 

It would mean  that you and the other person in this exchange may be two of the only people in the world who believe that Marshawn Lynch was not a vital player, an essential part of those excellent Seahawk teams and in each of their two roads to the Super Bowl. 

 

You cannot possibly believe that if you watched Seahawk games those years.

 

But if you do, then that is incredibly illogical.

 

 

 

[Mikie2times]

13 hours ago, Mister Defense said:

 

 

Hmmm

 

Yes, the Seahawks had a great defense, but many teams have had great defenses and did not have the kind of success the Seahawks had...

 

 

In the 2013 season they went to their first Super Bowl under Carrol, and Marshawn Lynch had 1257 yards rushing and 12 rushing TDs.    He also had 44 receptions for 316 yard and 3 more TDs.

 

In the following season, leading to their second Super Bowl, (the not very important to you) Lynch had  1306 yards and 13 TDs. He also had 37 receptions for 367 yards and 4TDs.

 

What you say above, for anyone watching NFL football those years, would be as backwards and as illogical as saying:  Their defense is the reason the Eagles won the Super Bowl this year.  Not Saquon Barkley.

 

How dumb of a statement would that be, having watched NFL football this year? I assume you would agree with me, supremely dumb.

 

Just as bizarre, illogical, and, frankly, unbelievable, that someone would think that Marshawn Lynch's production was not a seminal reason they played in those two Super Bowls.

 

So, I am assuming you are not a big believer in complimentary football!? Or that a high level running attack is important to a team's success in today's NFL.

 

 

 

Here you go again, bizarre, illogical, dare I say preposterous! You’re out of order sir!  These posts are like a cartoon character. 
 

You do realize that was probably the best defensive team of that decade? Not even probably, undeniably, most certainly, undoubtedly, bla bla bla. 
 

I don’t even know why I try sometimes. 

[DapperCam]

No, but not because it's KC. It's because their 2nd rounder is basically a 3rd rounder. That's bad value IMO and I'd rather just let him hold out.