Jump to content

Vikings extend QB Kirk Cousins (Two years)


RaidersAreOne

Recommended Posts

As good as he has been, referencing Fouts, Moon and Marino in a conversation about Cousins is laughable, if not downright ridiculous, considering they were all in the top 5 amongst their contemporaries at QB.  Cousins hasn't often even been considered in the top 10 amongst his.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swede700 said:

As good as he has been, referencing Fouts, Moon and Marino in a conversation about Cousins is laughable, if not downright ridiculous, considering they were all in the top 5 amongst their contemporaries at QB.  Cousins hasn't often even been considered in the top 10 amongst his.  

Requiring a Super Bowl win to be considered elite is laughable, as is saying Tarkenton wasn’t elite because he failed to win one. 

Edited by wcblack34
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, meixdaddy_10 said:

Yes! But Trent Dilfer is totally ELITE!!!

There’s always exceptions, I think that should be recognized. But if we’re talking elite level QBs, I’d assume HOF worthy QBs and a majority of those HOF QBs have won a super bowl. All that says is you don’t need a HOF worthy QB to win a super bowl but it’s incredibly difficult to do so; mostly having a bit of luck/getting hot at the right time and a really strong defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, wcblack34 said:

He is in the Pro-Football Hall of Fame. As are Dan Fouts, Warren Moon and Dan Marino. That is the very definition of elite.

Guess we should just kick them out and call it the "Hall of Guys Who Won a Super Bowl."

I am not declaring you should agree with me. I am giving you my opinion as to how I think Cousins, and those like him are judged by ME.  It's perfectly fine to disagree, but getting snotty about it is beneath you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s just not a logical argument. There’s a very era-specific preference given to certain guys, and inconsistent subjectivity applied to Kirk and others of this era (but especially Kirk).

Kirk Cousins is playing better football than nearly all of his peers right now, and has been for the equivalent of a full regular season. No one is putting him in the hall of fame, no one is calling him the best QB in football. He’s just playing outstanding ball, and it’s a strange look to refuse to acknowledge it. He’s been objectively great. The “cherry picked” stats back that up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JDBrocks said:

It’s just not a logical argument. There’s a very era-specific preference given to certain guys, and inconsistent subjectivity applied to Kirk and others of this era (but especially Kirk).

Kirk Cousins is playing better football than nearly all of his peers right now, and has been for the equivalent of a full regular season. No one is putting him in the hall of fame, no one is calling him the best QB in football. He’s just playing outstanding ball, and it’s a strange look to refuse to acknowledge it. He’s been objectively great. The “cherry picked” stats back that up.

Exactly. I hate his contract as much as the next guy. And I have been advocating for drafting first round quarterbacks once every few years since the rookie wage scale came into effect. But the simple fact is that he is earning his money right now. He is being paid the going rate. I don't think we can say that Kirk has definitively lost a game for this team since the second or third game of last season. He has definitely put them in a position to win a lot of those games. That was always the knock on him before.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, wcblack34 said:

Exactly. I hate his contract as much as the next guy. And I have been advocating for drafting first round quarterbacks once every few years since the rookie wage scale came into effect. But the simple fact is that he is earning his money right now. He is being paid the going rate. I don't think we can say that Kirk has definitively lost a game for this team since the second or third game of last season. He has definitely put them in a position to win a lot of those games. That was always the knock on him before.

You guys aren't hearing me.  I  have said that Cousins is playing very well.  What you seem to be missing is that's not enough for me anymore.  His play doesn't thrill me 7 weeks into the season. However, should the Vikings when the Super Bowl, I will be thrilled, wrong about Cousins, but thrilled.  I  don't believe Kirk Cousins, Mike Zimmer, and most other players on the roster have it in them to win it all.  You can disagree...but please stop trying to get me to change my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why watch or comment at all if you aren’t thrilled? If he, and by extension, the team isn’t exciting or good enough until they win a super bowl, it seems like an awful waste of time and energy. I think everyone wants them to win a Super Bowl. Refusing to even consider changing your mind in the face of objectively good play is just something I can’t wrap my head around.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/22/2021 at 4:36 PM, wcblack34 said:

Requiring a Super Bowl win to be considered elite is laughable, as is saying Tarkenton wasn’t elite because he failed to win one. 

I was never the one to suggest that a Super Bowl win is required, but it certainly helps.  The difference is that Tarkenton and Marino played at an elite level for over a decade.  That can't be said about Cousins.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...