Week 4: VIKINGS (1-1-1) at Rams (3-0)

[Vikes_Bolts1228]

3 minutes ago, marshpit23 said:

Team game, kid (I’m old, so mean this as disrespect). We win and lose as a team. It’s extremely difficult to isolate one player in a loss/win. Understandable the QB takes on the onus of the win/loss. And I agree, Cousins needs to exhibit greater ball control. This wasn’t strictly a Goff vs. Cousins experience. With that said, the defense had a ton to do with the outcome of this game; both defenses. When it counted, LA’s defense made the plays to win. The Cousin’s fumble was very unfortunate, especially considering the very recent past. This was a team loss. A very. Unfortunate loss, as we had an opportunity to pick up a difficult road win. 

Once again, read the post right about you that was probably posted when you were writing this.

I've mentioned plenty of times this isn't 100% Kirk's fault. But you CANNOT deny he's not part of the problem right now. TURNOVERS DO NOT WIN GAMES.

QB's NEED to have pocket awareness. Kirk came into Minnesota with that as a glaring weakness and it continues to be a glaring weakness.

[SemperFeist]

5 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

I agree with everything you said there except the assertion that the QB contract does not prevent the team from going out and signing talent at other positions -- whatever that may be that they wanted to sign. Cousins' contract most certainly does prevent the team from doing other things in free agency with that money. I don't think Wilf was just going to pocket the difference. That is not how he has been running the team.

Yes, in that sense the money could have been used elsewhere. But most of it still would have needed to be used on a QB, unless you think they should have gone after one in the draft. 

But you could just as easily say that Richardson’s contract prevented them from signing an o-lineman. Or that Kendrick’s, Hunter’s, or Diggs’ contracts prevented them from going after a top notch o-lineman. 

It wasn’t Cousins’ contract so much as it was the team’s priorities were placed elsewhere. 

[Cearbhall]

Just now, Vikes_Bolts1228 said:

Once again, read the post right about you that was probably posted when you were writing this.

I've mentioned plenty of times this isn't Kirk's fault. But you CANNOT deny he's not part of the problem right now. TURNOVERS DO NOT WIN GAMES.

I don not disagree. Kirk's turnovers a huge problem. Kirk is who he is though and I don't think that will change. The team knew what they were getting when they signed him. It is incumbent upon them to deal with this by drastically improving the offensive line. Kirk is going to keep struggling with pressure. That will lead to turnovers like it always has for him.

[SemperFeist]

Just now, Cearbhall said:

I don not disagree. Kirk's turnovers a huge problem. Kirk is who he is though and I don't think that will change. The team knew what they were getting when they signed him. It is incumbent upon them to deal with this by drastically improving the offensive line. Kirk is going to keep struggling with pressure. That will lead to turnovers like it always has for him.

And turnovers by the offense, whether it’s Cousins, Cook, or anyone, doesn’t excuse the defence from allowing so many points following a turnover. 

We’re supposed to have a defense that can handle a few mistakes by the offense. Even going back to 2015, they really haven’t stepped up in that manner.

 

[vikesfan89]

7 minutes ago, Vikes_Bolts1228 said:

@vikesfan89

Here's all my posts regarding Kirk that also mention the defense or rest of team.

Please, tell me again how I'm editing my posts.

Tell me again how I'm putting this ALL on Kirk.

I don't know how to make a quote tree but you should look at page 26 13 posts down and you'll see my first response before you added anything about the defense. I probably did miss some things when you didn't solely blame cousins but I'm not wrong in you editing your posts after I responded. I haven't looked at the rest

 

[Vikes_Bolts1228]

Just now, Cearbhall said:

I don not disagree. Kirk's turnovers a huge problem. Kirk is who he is though and I don't think that will change. The team knew what they were getting when they signed him. It is incumbent upon them to deal with this by drastically improving the offensive line. Kirk is going to keep struggling with pressure. That will lead to turnovers like it always has for him.

I would argue that you need to change when you're being paid to do so. But can he do that when he's literally getting tackled right when he's handing the ball off? It's Kirk's biggest weakness. He doesn't do well under pressure. Is it his fault he plays against crappy offensive lines? Not at all. But at the same time, a lot of QBs look good behind good or better offensive lines.

At the same time, in this league you're only as good as your last play.

Look at the 2009 NFCCG. Favre had a pretty good game. What do we remember from that game? The INT.

This game will be remembered for our supposed #1 defense getting tortured and Kirk turning the ball over yet again when going for the tie.

[Cearbhall]

Just now, SemperFeist said:

Yes, in that sense the money could have been used elsewhere. But most of it still would have needed to be used on a QB, unless you think they should have gone after one in the draft. 

But you could just as easily say that Richardson’s contract prevented them from signing an o-lineman. Or that Kendrick’s, Hunter’s, or Diggs’ contracts prevented them from going after a top notch o-lineman. 

It wasn’t Cousins’ contract so much as it was the team’s priorities were placed elsewhere. 

Very true. It was where the team's priorities were placed which was quantitatively more on Cousins' contract than anything else but everything else is also part of the equation.

I do not disagree with the team at all prioritizing the QB position first. That is pretty standard. By doing that, however, it limits other moves they can make. If I was running an NFL team I would prioritize the offensive line a lot higher than the Vikings have prioritized the line in the last almost 20 years. I wouldn't let that priority be over getting the best QB that I could reasonably afford. It would be spending less money somewhere else.

It is an open debate whether Kirk Cousins was the best use of those dollars but it is a debate that is pretty pointless to pursue right now. That decision has been made. To be fair, I advocated throwing a 2 year $70M contract at Drew Brees. That would have handicapped the Vikings even further with respect to their flexibility in free agency with the other positions.

[marshpit23]

4 minutes ago, Vikes_Bolts1228 said:

Once again, read the post right about you that was probably posted when you were writing this.

I've mentioned plenty of times this isn't 100% Kirk's fault. But you CANNOT deny he's not part of the problem right now. TURNOVERS DO NOT WIN GAMES.

QB's NEED to have pocket awareness. Kirk came into Minnesota with that as a glaring weakness and it continues to be a glaring weakness.

Yes, I can agree that Kirk has some culpability. Kirk’s ability to escape pressure needs to be negated by quick reads, accuracy, smarts, and awareness. I can concede that his awareness is lacking, but that’s it though. He is an intelligent, accurate QB that can lead this team ito many victories. We obviously need our defense and running attack to be present; currently they are MIA. 

[Vikes_Bolts1228]

3 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

I don't know how to make a quote tree but you should look at page 26 13 posts down and you'll see my first response before you added anything about the defense. I probably did miss some things when you didn't solely blame cousins but I'm not wrong in you editing your posts after I responded. I haven't looked at the rest

 

If you REALLY want to blame me for adding something to a post that I may have forgotten when making my original point then going back to put it in, so be it. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you. If you think I'm going back like a ninja and editing posts, so be it if it's that big of a deal to you.

I quoted enough of my posts to say that I wasn't going back and changing posts after you replied.

[vikesfan89]

1 minute ago, Vikes_Bolts1228 said:

If you REALLY want to blame me for adding something to a post that I may have forgotten when making my original point then going back to put it in, so be it. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you. If you think I'm going back like a ninja and editing posts, so be it if it's that big of a deal to you.

I quoted enough of my posts to say that I wasn't going back and changing posts after you replied.

I don't blame you but then don't blame me for not seeing the edit. 

Anyways I'm sure everyone's sick of this back and forth.

Defense sucked, cousins and line could have done more, Zimmer should not be fired

[SemperFeist]

3 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

Very true. It was where the team's priorities were placed which was quantitatively more on Cousins' contract than anything else but everything else is also part of the equation.

I do not disagree with the team at all prioritizing the QB position first. That is pretty standard. By doing that, however, it limits other moves they can make. If I was running an NFL team I would prioritize the offensive line a lot higher than the Vikings have prioritized the line in the last almost 20 years. I wouldn't let that priority be over getting the best QB that I could reasonably afford. It would be spending less money somewhere else.

It is an open debate whether Kirk Cousins was the best use of those dollars but it is a debate that is pretty pointless to pursue right now. That decision has been made. To be fair, I advocated throwing a 2 year $70M contract at Drew Brees. That would have handicapped the Vikings even further with respect to their flexibility in free agency with the other positions.

My belief will always be that the mistake regarding addressing the o-line wasn’t in FA, but in the draft. 

[Vikes_Bolts1228]

7 minutes ago, marshpit23 said:

Yes, I can agree that Kirk has some culpability. Kirk’s ability to escape pressure needs to be negated by quick reads, accuracy, smarts, and awareness. I can concede that his awareness is lacking, but that’s it though. He is an intelligent, accurate QB that can lead this team ito many victories. We obviously need our defense and running attack to be present; currently they are MIA. 

Dude I cannot agree more. The only point I'm trying to make is that he's been a turnover machine. He panics under pressure. We saw it last week. He lost the ball on back to back drives, took a lot of sacks, and held on to the ball FARRRRR too long on a few drop backs.

Outside of his turnovers.....he's been an absolute joy to watch.

But once again, I can't sit here and compliment him without being worried about his turnovers.

Kirk isn't 100% the problem. Not at all. But right now, the past games, he's contributing to the problem with his pocket awareness and turnovers. If you want to go back to last year, Case did GREAT with the offensive line he was given (maybe slightly better than this line). His best aspect was alluding the rush and extending plays and not turning the ball over.

It's Kirk's issue and it's not helping right now when the defense isn't doing well at all. The less the defense is on the field, the better. And Kirk hasn't been helping that matter the last two weeks.

[Vikes_Bolts1228]

4 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

I don't blame you but then don't blame me for not seeing the edit. 

Anyways I'm sure everyone's sick of this back and forth.

Defense sucked, cousins and line could have done more, Zimmer should not be fired

I don't blame you at all.

Just don't call me out for editing posts to make you seem wrong when I was making the same point dating back to the 4th quarter.

Other than that....yes. Agreed on your points.

[SotanKing]

It's not exactly Kirk's fault that he has been the most pressurized QB in the league so far.....that freaking leads to fumbles..especially when you have pressure from blind side.

[Cearbhall]

Just now, SemperFeist said:

My belief will always be that the mistake regarding addressing the o-line wasn’t in FA, but in the draft. 

Fair enough. That is a rational opinion. Mine is different but that is okay. I would have considered offensive line an immediate need several times in the last 17 years and would have as a result been looking at free agency. It isn't like the team wasn't trying in the draft. They have just not had good results.

I would have also been putting more draft resources into the offensive line too and by that I don't just mean more or higher picks. I would have been out looking for the best people possible at evaluating that talent and projecting them to the NFL. Given the results, if I was managing the situation heads would have been rolling in the scouting department given all the draft picks that ended up being worthless. Whatever it cost to get the best possible people to properly value college kids and how they project into the NFL I would have been spending money there. Given that money is not unlimited, yes, this would have meant I was spending less on something else. The team wouldn't have such a nice practice facility or something.