Evincar

Dalvin Cook 2018 Outlook

Recommended Posts

Are you guys still starting him tomorrow after the snap count news.

Last week scares me. He did not play most of the game.

 

D Cook has been a huge disappointment, I picked him in 2nd round in two leagues.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports Dalvin Cook (hamstring) is expected to play Week 6 against the Cardinals, but he will be on a snap count.

 

Advice: Schefter reports Cook will play "only about half the offensive snaps, if that." It could be a similar situation to Week 4, when Cook saw 10 carries on 18 snaps in the first half and then did not see the field again. Cook has a great matchup against the Cardinals, but playing-time uncertainty makes him no more than a risky FLEX option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term is SNAP count, people... PITCH count is for baseball!  Pet peeve over.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LongBalls said:

ESPN's Adam Schefter reports Dalvin Cook (hamstring) is expected to play Week 6 against the Cardinals, but he will be on a snap count.

 

Advice: Schefter reports Cook will play "only about half the offensive snaps, if that." It could be a similar situation to Week 4, when Cook saw 10 carries on 18 snaps in the first half and then did not see the field again. Cook has a great matchup against the Cardinals, but playing-time uncertainty makes him no more than a risky FLEX option.

Again, this is just dumb analysis/advise by whoever wrote this.

 

Cook was not on a snap count, he re-injured his hamstring and that was why he did not see the field again. I swear some "reporters" put out a narrative and then just stick to that narrative to the very end despite facts completely contradicting their position. He saw 10 carries over the teams first 31 offensive plays which means he was an absolute workhorse despite only playing on roughly 58% of the snaps.

 

If Cook plays he's going to get a lot of work. I'm not concerned about usage I'm only concerned about re-aggravation of his injury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, munde53 said:

Again, this is just dumb analysis/advise by whoever wrote this.

 

Cook was not on a snap count, he re-injured his hamstring and that was why he did not see the field again. I swear some "reporters" put out a narrative and then just stick to that narrative to the very end despite facts completely contradicting their position. He saw 10 carries over the teams first 31 offensive plays which means he was an absolute workhorse despite only playing on roughly 58% of the snaps.

 

If Cook plays he's going to get a lot of work. I'm not concerned about usage I'm only concerned about re-aggravation of his injury.

I’d be concerned about usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, seanismorris said:

I’d be concerned about usage.

What's your reasoning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, munde53 said:

What's your reasoning?

This is the 2nd time coming back from the hammy injury.  I expect baby steps.  The guy reporting Cook being on a “snap count” is no surprise.

 

The Vikings are in a competitive division, they need Cook healthy to make a playoff push.  The Viking D doesn’t look like it’s going to carry them this year.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, seanismorris said:

This is the 2nd time coming back from the hammy injury.  I expect baby steps.  The guy reporting Cook being on a “snap count” is no surprise.

 

The Vikings are in a competitive division, they need Cook healthy to make a playoff push.  The Viking D doesn’t look like it’s going to carry them this year.

I'm not going to pretend that if Cook is active and you put him in your fantasy lineup that there is no risk. There obviously is and I wouldn't blame anyone for taking a wait and see approach. Obviously the Vikings are a better team with Cook on the field and their offense should be even more lethal with his versatility.

 

On the flip side, Cook said himself that he's not going to play unless he's 100%. So if he's active on Sunday there is a good chance he's as close to 100% as any player can be during the NFL season. Cook was reportedly going to be on a snap count in week 4 but saw literally all of the RB carries, 10 in less than 2 quarters of play, until he re-aggravated his hamstring injury. Cook later admitted that he was far from 100% during that game and essentially rushed back because the Vikings needed him.

 

We hear it every week about "snap counts" and things along those lines for players coming back from injures. Then Sunday rolls around and the player who reported on the "snap count" must have forgotten to inform the team because that player saw their normal workload. That's not to say there haven't been other times where reporters have said a player will be on a snap count and then that player actually did see a limited role.

 

What I'm trying to say is that the beat reporters often get it wrong and they really don't know what will happen on Sunday. I question where this particular beat reporter got his information.

 

Cook very well could be limited to 20-25 snaps this week but I would take the over on 25 snaps come Sunday every time. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the player isn’t the one reporting on a snap count.  And we can agree on one thing: Dalvin hasn’t claimed he’s back to 100%.  Ben Goessling is a respected reporter.  I’d say start at your own peril.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, munde53 said:

I'm not going to pretend that if Cook is active and you put him in your fantasy lineup that there is no risk. There obviously is and I wouldn't blame anyone for taking a wait and see approach. Obviously the Vikings are a better team with Cook on the field and their offense should be even more lethal with his versatility.

 

On the flip side, Cook said himself that he's not going to play unless he's 100%. So if he's active on Sunday there is a good chance he's as close to 100% as any player can be during the NFL season. Cook was reportedly going to be on a snap count in week 4 but saw literally all of the RB carries, 10 in less than 2 quarters of play, until he re-aggravated his hamstring injury. Cook later admitted that he was far from 100% during that game and essentially rushed back because the Vikings needed him.

 

We hear it every week about "snap counts" and things along those lines for players coming back from injures. Then Sunday rolls around and the player who reported on the "snap count" must have forgotten to inform the team because that player saw their normal workload. That's not to say there haven't been other times where reporters have said a player will be on a snap count and then that player actually did see a limited role.

 

What I'm trying to say is that the beat reporters often get it wrong and they really don't know what will happen on Sunday. I question where this particular beat reporter got his information.

 

Cook very well could be limited to 20-25 snaps this week but I would take the over on 25 snaps come Sunday every time. 

 

 

I get what you’re saying, but the situation doesn’t make sense...

 

I’d break this down into 2 parts.  

 

First: Does the Viking need Cook out there to win this game.  No, they’re playing Arizona, it should be an easy win.  If they lose to Arizona they have bigger problems.

 

Second: What is Cooks injury status?  If he’s not believed to be 100% he shouldn’t play. Playing with a less than 100% hammy (after injuring it enough not to play) seems like a good chance of resetting recovery back to zero. 

 

If this was a critical divisional game, or a playoff game, maybe play Cook regardless of the risks.

 

The team knows the situation, so I’m going to ignore what the team and Cook has said.  I’m going to assume they think Cook is 100% or close enough that they think the chance of Cook making it worse is close to zero. 

 

With that in mind, I think they get Cook out there and see how his hammy feels playing at NFL speed.  Probably on a snap count.  If Cook is fine the next game give him a full workload.

 

The Vikings already “rush him back” once and it was a mistake.  Doing the same again seems colossally stupid.  What we don’t know is the health of the other running backs on the roster.  Maybe everyone is playing injured.  My feeling is a RB playing through a hammy injury is going to be ineffectual...

 

Whatever the situation is, I’m going with Cook on a snap count because it’s the most logical decision by the team.  The fact that a reporter confirmed it is compelling.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@seanismorris @BMcP

 

Obviously we have different opinions on this but I think you guys made great points. I just don't see the Vikings even giving Cook limited snaps if he's not at 100%. As seanismorris said, the Vikings already made the mistake of rushing him back once which is why I think if he's active he's at 100% and if he's not 100% he'll be inactive. If Cook is at 100% I don't see how the Vikings can afford to keep him out of the game with how inept their ground game as been.

 

Obviously the Cardinals are terrible and should be a win for the Vikings, but I watched every minute of the Bills blowing the Vikings out so I'm not ready to chalk this one up as an easy/guaranteed win. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time Cook was on a snap count he got 20 yards on 10 carries and was out of the game for the entire 2nd half. Can't risk the same thing happening, picked up Ito Smith and will hope Dalvin is back to form next week. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any other matchup and I would pribably take the wait ans see approach......

 

But ARZ?! This is killing me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Heizz said:

Any other matchup and I would pribably take the wait ans see approach......

 

But ARZ?! This is killing me.

Vikings line is so bad that I could easily see this being a trap game, especially with Cook not being 100%

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This situation wouldn't be so bad if Latavius Murray weren't such a garbage player behind this offensive line, and if the backfield didn't devolve into a 4-man split whenever Cook gets hurt. Even in the choicest of matchups I can't feel good about rolling Murray out there. Why did I think buying into this backfield was a good idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm benching for ekler. Can't risk his leg falling off or having a pedestrian line. 

 

Saying that, he'll probably take a 75 yarder to the house on his first carry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still don't understand why this guy is even playing. Definitely benching him.

Edited by LongBalls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gandalfthecat said:

If he does get 50% of the snaps, it’s within the realm of possibility that he, y’know, has a good game. 

 

 

 

"There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sonny_D said:

 

"There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

 

Love that quote. 

 

I’m going to be optimistic because I don’t have a choice. Fortune favours the brave. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the match up but would rather take chances with David Johnson 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.