Is Cook worth it?

[Thurman#1]

12 hours ago, HamptonBillsfan said:

As a rule it’s ill conceived because it should be case specific. After overpaying for Rousseau,Bosa, and adding a lower tier wideout, the 2nd best weapon for Josh in his MVP year is stiffed. Beane, right now can resign Cook for 40 to 42 for 3 years with 30 guaranteed. He’s the best back in the AFC. If Cook has a better year and we go to the SB, some team will pay him Barkley money thinking he puts them over the top.

 

 

Some team will pay him Barkley money and we'll get a high comp pick. I think they can live with that. And it's a smarter use of resources.

 

And you're assuming he can be signed for that. It's certainly possible, but it's less than Cook wanted. He might not sign for that even if they offered. Which I wouldn't. Not for a guy who is going to get less than 50% of snaps probably, unless he steps up his blocking game quite a bit.

[Thurman#1]

9 hours ago, nosejob said:

I think they'll get a deal done by camp. I don't mind 10 mil x3.

 

 

 

I'd offer that. My guess is they already have, and that he is not going to sign for anything close to that low.

 

 

7 hours ago, ProcessTruster said:

the headache is the holdout. 

 

He just might.   

 

These is a track record of 4th year top RBs holding out. 

 

 

 

 

Recently? Who? And in particular, who who was in the neighborhood of 1009 yards rushing, 1248 yards from scrimmage and 485 snaps (48%)?

 

I personally estimate his chances of holding out this offseason to be about 1% if we're talking about a holdout of more than a symbolic day or so.

 

 

Edited April 17 by Thurman#1

[Doc Brown]

18 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

Some team will pay him Barkley money and we'll get a high comp pick. I think they can live with that. And it's a smarter use of resources.

 

And you're assuming he can be signed for that. It's certainly possible, but it's less than Cook wanted. He might not sign for that even if they offered. Which I wouldn't. Not for a guy who is going to get less than 50% of snaps probably, unless he steps up his blocking game quite a bit.

What team in their right mind would give him Barkley money?  A high comp pick is unlikely though.  If we do get a comp pick for him it will pry be at best a 5th (imo).  Floyd and Davis got us 5th round comp picks and they were pry making what Cook would fetch on the open market. I agree with everything else you said.

[Mister Defense]

21 hours ago, FireChans said:

 But the thing about “I don’t like paying running backs” is as a rule, it only works if it is a rule. 

19 hours ago, HamptonBillsfan said:

As a rule it’s ill conceived because it should be case specific. After overpaying for Rousseau,Bosa, and adding a lower tier wideout, the 2nd best weapon for Josh in his MVP year is stiffed. Beane, right now can resign Cook for 40 to 42 for 3 years with 30 guaranteed. He’s the best back in the AFC. If Cook has a better year and we go to the SB, some team will pay him Barkley money thinking he puts them over the top.

 

 

 

So HB, if you are still trying to figure out why some are so adamant about not paying Cook and are wholly unconcerned about losing the only elite player outside of Allen on the team, the best running back in the AFC, and top five in the league, a vital cog for this team the last few years, and likely even more dynamic and productive in the next few years, look no further than the comment above, now in bold.. It should answer your question, at least in part.

 

In other words, 'My whim, 'philosophy', is so iron clad, though there is no actual support for my statement, that it is dogma to me, the way it is for every running back. It is the case in every single running back situation across the board, no matter how good or vital the player it. No exceptions. That is my belief and no facts or reasoning can ever change it.'

 

Though I usually disagree, I think some do have good takes and reasoning as to why the Bills should not sign Cook for anything close to what he is asking for, but some seem to have a similar take as the one above.  Just as some did with the Lynch trade--same illogical, unsupported argument.

 

"It only works a  rule."  Yikes.

 

Can you imagine anyone running a business or organization of any kind with the mindset--'I do not care about the specifics, any of the details, anything other than my 'rule'. And that is the way it is.'

 

Your problem is you are trying to use facts and logic and reason to figure out these posters' reactions, as that is what you do in your takes in this thread.  But there is none to be found for some, just see above, so you are just spinning your wheels.

 

 

[FireChans]

21 minutes ago, Mister Defense said:

 

 

So HB, if you are still trying to figure out why some are so adamant about not paying Cook and are wholly unconcerned about losing the only elite player outside of Allen on the team, the best running back in the AFC, and top five in the league, a vital cog for this team the last few years, and likely even more dynamic and productive in the next few years, look no further than the comment above, now in bold.. It should answer your question, at least in part.

 

In other words, 'My whim, 'philosophy', is so iron clad, though there is no actual support for my statement, that it is dogma to me, the way it is for every running back. It is the case in every single running back situation across the board, no matter how good or vital the player it. No exceptions. That is my belief and no facts or reasoning can ever change it.'

 

Though I usually disagree, I think some do have good takes and reasoning as to why the Bills should not sign Cook for anything close to what he is asking for, but some seem to have a similar take as the one above.  Just as some did with the Lynch trade--same illogical, unsupported argument.

 

"It only works a  rule."  Yikes.

 

Can you imagine anyone running a business or organization of any kind with the mindset--'I do not care about the specifics, any of the details, anything other than my 'rule'. And that is the way it is.'

 

Your problem is you are trying to use facts and logic and reason to figure out these posters' reactions, as that is what you do in your takes in this thread.  But there is none to be found for some, just see above, so you are just spinning your wheels.

 

 

Oh look, it’s the part where ChatGPT the poster disagrees and writes “facts and logic” nineteen times lol

[Mister Defense]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

Oh look, it’s the part where ChatGPT the poster disagrees and writes “facts and logic” nineteen times lol

 

I apologize!; I need to remind myself you are like a vampire who is exposed to garlic, mirrors, and sunlight when it comes to those two dastardly things. Facts and logic go away--or FC cannot exist.

 

They seem to have been forbidden to you, forever and always.

 

I hope you did not blow up into a cloud of dust.

 

 

 

Edited April 17 by Mister Defense

[Doc Brown]

I think the general consensus is.....

 

$12 to $15m per year.  No way in hell. 

$8 to $11m per year.  Maybe depending on how much of that money is guaranteed.

Under $8m.  Get him a pen asap.

 

I think that's accurate and I know there's a loud minority that thinks he should get the bag.

[FireChans]

4 minutes ago, Mister Defense said:

 

I apologize!; I need to remind myself you are like a vampire who is exposed to garlic, mirrors, and sunlight when it comes to those two dastardly things. Facts and logic go away--or FC cannot exist.

 

They seem to have been forbidden to you, forever and always.

 

I hope you did not blow up into a cloud of dust.

 

 

 

“Just reading over some of these threads, I was wondering if the majority of people on here really believe that it is a good move to hand over the starting job to McGahee, and that Henry should be on his way out?

 

Surely, MOST people on this board cannot be that illogical.  Please, give me some faith in BILLS FANS!

 

Travis Henry has been an extraordainry NFL back the last two years, our best player during that period, and is one of the top five backs in this league.

 

And people think we should replace him with a player who has proven....what??? Absolutely nothing and is coming off a HUGE injury.

 

If it's true, that most people on this board believe this, what illogical people!”

 

- facts and logic man circa 2004

 

Willis ended up with 5300 yards and 32 TDs over the next 4 seasons.

 

Henry had 2800 yards and 11 TDS over the next 4 seasons and then his career ended.

 

Points for being consistent pre Chat GPT.

[Thurman#1]

On 4/17/2025 at 3:22 PM, Doc Brown said:

What team in their right mind would give him Barkley money?  A high comp pick is unlikely though.  If we do get a comp pick for him it will pry be at best a 5th (imo).  Floyd and Davis got us 5th round comp picks and they were pry making what Cook would fetch on the open market. I agree with everything else you said.

 

 

Sorry, you're right, Doc, I purely mis-stated. 

 

Nobody's paying him Barkley money, but I'd guess that if he doesn't sign here someone will pay him what he's asking for. That's what I was (poorly) trying to say.

 

And if I'm right, $15M was the 12th highest APY for FA contracts last year. That could easily make it into the top five percent

Davis got $13M and Floyd $10M. Cook may get more than they did. It'll depend on how much he actually gets but IMO a 4th rounder is likely at that level and a 3rd not totally out of the question.

 

 

[SectionC3]

The more I think about it, the more it's not a completely unreasonable number.  Shakir got $15m, with 2024 stats of 102 "targets" (here, actual targets and two carries), 8.2 yards of production per target, four TDs, a long of 52, and 35 first downs.  

 

Cook, in comparison, had 245 "targets" (same metric as Shakir), 5.2 yards of production per target, 18TDs, a long of 65, and 62 first downs.  

 

He's not as efficient as Shakir, but it's hard to argue that he doesn't produce well.  And, I appreciate that some will say that it's easier to produce from RB than it is from the slot.  Agreed, and Shakir should make more than Cook.  But there's an argument that Cook is worth fairly close to what Shakir is getting, perhaps on a shorter deal.  Even based on efficiency only, he's a $10m player gauged against Shakir's contract.  (He's about 65% as efficient as Shakir.)  I appreciate that he vultures a lot of TDs and FDs, but those numbers, as well as the explosiveness, are what they are, and there's a legitimate argument for paying him more than $10m based on those factors.  I don't think it gets him to $15m, but I don't think it's outlandish to say that $12m would be a fair number.   

Edited April 18 by SectionC3

[97bills]

I would let him run us all the way to the Super Bowl, give him a heavy dose of carries , keep him happy, knowing if he shows out he’s getting paid by someone. A win for the team and a win for him. 

[DJB]

 

[SoTier]

On 4/16/2025 at 1:57 PM, Gigs said:

Here's my take:

Yes and No. 

 

When is the last time we had a guy like Cook, scoring that many TDs?

 

Also, he cannot block, he has a hard time catching JA passes which is what they primarily drafted him for....

 

But he can *****in move better than most. Now how much of that is the OLine? Is it a coincidence that the 3 times the Bills have had memorable OLines, they were blocking for OJ, Thurminator and now Cpt Cook? Did the back make the line? Did the line make the back? Does this make Cook a HoF level player? Is he a HoF talent like Saquon?

 

Now imagine being Beane. 

 

Is it that Cook "cannot block" or that he cannot block as well as Ty Johnson or that he can't catch all that well?    It's entirely possible that one part of Johnson's game -- his ability to block and make clutch short yard catches -- is better than Cook's.  OTOH, there's little doubt that Johnson's over all game isn't as good as Cook's.   It's also likely that Cook's talent would be much harder to replace than Johnson's.  I think that Cook is worth more to the Bills than a specialist like Johnson.  I'm good with paying him $12-13 million.

 

19 hours ago, FireChans said:

“Just reading over some of these threads, I was wondering if the majority of people on here really believe that it is a good move to hand over the starting job to McGahee, and that Henry should be on his way out?

 

Surely, MOST people on this board cannot be that illogical.  Please, give me some faith in BILLS FANS!

 

Travis Henry has been an extraordainry NFL back the last two years, our best player during that period, and is one of the top five backs in this league.

 

And people think we should replace him with a player who has proven....what??? Absolutely nothing and is coming off a HUGE injury.

 

If it's true, that most people on this board believe this, what illogical people!”

 

- facts and logic man circa 2004

 

Willis ended up with 5300 yards and 32 TDs over the next 4 seasons.

 

Henry had 2800 yards and 11 TDS over the next 4 seasons and then his career ended.

 

Points for being consistent pre Chat GPT.

 

On the Bills Drought Era RB carousel, Travis Henry doesn't quite fit the profile.  McGahee, Lynch, and even Spiller were good/great players who were sent packing simply because the Bills didn't want to pay them.   Henry had off field issues that surfaced after the Bills traded him away.  Not sure how much of his drug use that the Bills were aware of.  He was suspended more than once while with Tennessee and Denver, and I believe he was imprisoned for drug trafficking.

[FireChans]

7 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Is it that Cook "cannot block" or that he cannot block as well as Ty Johnson or that he can't catch all that well?    It's entirely possible that one part of Johnson's game -- his ability to block and make clutch short yard catches -- is better than Cook's.  OTOH, there's little doubt that Johnson's over all game isn't as good as Cook's.   It's also likely that Cook's talent would be much harder to replace than Johnson's.  I think that Cook is worth more to the Bills than a specialist like Johnson.  I'm good with paying him $12-13 million.

 

 

On the Bills Drought Era RB carousel, Travis Henry doesn't quite fit the profile.  McGahee, Lynch, and even Spiller were good/great players who were sent packing simply because the Bills didn't want to pay them.   Henry had off field issues that surfaced after the Bills traded him away.  Not sure how much of his drug use that the Bills were aware of.  He was suspended more than once while with Tennessee and Denver, and I believe he was imprisoned for drug trafficking.

FWIW, I wasn't trying to draw any comparison between Cook and TH.

 

It was more to point out that specific poster has a downright annoying 20 year playbook of saying "facts and logic." With a healthy dose of ad hominem if you don't follow his opinion, because it's "illogical."

 

No one "knows" if its a good idea to pay Cook or not. There are good and bad arguments both ways. Folks pretending otherwise can make you look silly, especially when you say nonsense like "More than illogical, irresponsible suggestions really: (I hope none of those calling for such illogical moves runs a business!!!)"

[Mister Defense]

See above..

 

From a poster who never--ever--lets facts or reasoning get in the way of his shoot from the hip, argue and twist the words of all who disagree with him, hater who hates virtually every move the Bills make.  King of the Haters, I crown the! 

 

Just in this thread, yesterday, one of the best lines ever:  "But the thing about “I don’t like paying running backs” is as a rule, it only works if it is a rule."

 

So,  'My rule, and no exceptions no matter what.'

[FireChans]

11 minutes ago, Mister Defense said:

See above..

 

From a poster who never--ever--lets facts or reasoning get in the way of his shoot from the hip, argue and twist the words of all who disagree with him, hater who hates virtually every move the Bills make.  King of the Haters, I crown the! 

 

Just in this thread, yesterday, one of the best lines ever:  "But the thing about “I don’t like paying running backs” is as a rule, it only works if it is a rule."

 

So,  'My rule, and no exceptions no matter what.'

Yeah, I think paying running backs is overall a bad team-building strategy. So I don't think it's a good idea to pay running backs as a rule. lol.  Isn't internal consistency a form of logic? 

 

Is it logical to say "I think paying running backs is a bad strategy, but here are the 20 current running backs I would pay?" Or is that "illogical?" 

 

Maybe we can ask Travis Henry what he thinks.

Edited Friday at 12:47 PM by FireChans