Should i trade two minor pieces for a rook and a pawn? what do you think i am a casual player looking for answers, thanks :)

I'm just average, and i'm hoping you're not asking about a on-going game, but I would tend to say no... but like most games, it depends on the position.

I've captured two minor pieces for a rook and a pawn before, and it turned out well, but only because my opponent did not see a mate coming. Otherwise, I'm not sure: it will probably hurt in the endgame though.

If your thinking about making this trade on f7/f2 in the opening, definitely not. Two pieces are worth significantly more than the rook and the f-pawn  in the middle game. Different story if such a trade guarantees you a passed pawn in an endgame. 

It's an equal trade but the usual advice given is not to give up the minor pieces early on. That is because early on there will be few open files. So the rook is stuck behind pawns while the two minor pieces get into the action and exert more influence.

I played a tournament game once against someone I knew real well. We weren't necessarily friends either. Before I captured, he said "You know, two minor pieces are better than a rook and a pawn." I didn't believe him, and took his rook and pawn for my two minor pieces. I wound up losing the game. In general, it depends on the position. If there are many open files, the rook is worth a lot more than two minor pieces. If there are still a lot of pieces on the board, the rook will have a whole lot less of an influence on the game than the two minor pieces. But, as always, that's just a general guideline and not a concrete rule. 

yes!

Of course, it depends on what minor pieces you are talking about and what stage of the game is. If you are getting the bishop pair, you should give up the rook and a pawn without hesitation, maybe even rook and TWO pawns. Even in the endgame, where the rook is a beast, the bishops generally outweigh the rook. However, since bishop and knight dont work well together, in the absence of any other pieces it is about equal in the endgame, maybe a slight edge for the rook and pawn.

And of course, as Estragon pointed out, there are so many other possible factors that you can't really have a rule you can follow every time.

As a casual player rooks are clumsy and going to be best for you in the end game.  Don't look to trade two of your minor pieces for a rook pawn, like as a practice this is not a common goal of any chess player I know of.  

I think I am not casual anymore I recently played back to back wins against an 1625 and an 1613 I didn't get lucky and they didn't blunder I don't know but at Least I know that I am providing I just beat a 1400 with the two minors pieces for a rook I ended up trading everything and I beat him In the endgame...

Usually two pieces is better than the rook and pawn. There was one game I played where I drew an FM in a completely equal position. The material balance: I had a rook and three pawns for his two bishops (in an ending too - 2R+6P v R+2B+3P). And yet there was no way to make progress, as the two bishops are so much stronger than the rook that my pieces ended up completly uncoordinated (and completely forced, I actually played relatively accurately for once), and there was no way to make progress. Engine analysis shows that with correct play the game was indeed drawn. If two bishops can hold against a rook and 3P then, except when compensation is present, they will most often beat a rook and pawn.