The 2018 Kirk Cousins Megathread

[Eric dunn]

38 minutes ago, Heimdallr said:

Outside of 1 random good year from each of Favre, Culpepper and Cunningham, Kirk is by far the best QB the Vikings have had since Tarkenton. 40 years. 

I just cannot wrap my mind around the idea of getting rid of him. Do you really want to go back to another 40 years of Christian Ponder, Brad Johnson, Tommy Kramer, Case Keenum, Tarvaris Jackson, Wade Wilson, Donovan McNabb, Sam Bradford, Gus Frerotte, Rich Gannon, Jim McMahon and Steve Dils, Kelly Holcomb, Brooks Bollinger, Shaun Hill, Joe Webb, Todd Bouman, Spergon Wynn, Jeff George or Sean Salisbury?

We finally, after 40 years of pain, have a chance to have a legitimately good QB for an extended period of time.

Giving that up for the extremely slim chance of hitting the lottery on a Lamar Jackson or Patrick Mahomes makes absolutely no sense to me.

I get this line of thinking also, Kirk is a good QB. And probably the best we have had in a while. 

But my thinking is that I honestly do not believe Kirk can lead this team to a championship. I think he will fail when you need him the most. Kirk is what he is at this point in his career, which mostly has been a .500 QB. After next year we will have a 3 year sample size on what I think is a super bowl caliber roster. If he can’t do it now, with a system catered to him, an all pro RB, two pro bowl receivers, and a top 10 defense. Then I don’t know if he ever does it. So yeah he’s good, but is he good enough to win a championship. Because if not then what are we doing here? That’s the reason you play football. Not to go 8-8 and make the playoffs every other year & get eliminated. Because as we sit right now he’s in line for an extension around 35 million per year. That means we won’t have as much money to use in other places. If he was Russell Wilson and carried the team? Sure. But he needs a great supporting cast, and if he’s getting paid 35 million annually it’s going to be hard maintaining that.

Im not saying take the first QB that comes up. But if a rare opportunity presents itself to hop up in the draft and select a guy like Tua, I think it’s a chance worth taking. If Kirk somehow turned it around, then great give him an extension and trade the young guy. But this way we have a possible young franchise QB on a rookie deal, which in today’s NFL can be a blessing. I don’t know about y’all, but I’d sure like to take a chance at getting our Watson, Mahomes, Jackson, Wentz, Dak, Kyler. It’s risky business of course, they could be the next Paxton, Winston, Mariota, etc. But if we hit on one, it changes the franchise. Vs holding out hope that a 30-31 year old QB is going to somehow not be bad Kirk. Just my thought. Not saying the other side is wrong, this is just where I stand with the situation. If Kirk is extended I won’t agree with it, but I’ll be rooting for him. 

[swede700]

15 hours ago, Eric dunn said:

My main point was that we don’t want to have to say well Kirk’s our guy so we have to run this system that caters to him. 

Well, if you want to actually win, yes you do.  Because whether or not you like it, he's the QB and will be the QB for 2020-21, so you have to run the system that caters to him, because he's 1 of 2 players on the field who touches the ball on every offensive play.  

[SemperFeist]

You should always run a system that caters to the QB. Always. 

[swede700]

14 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

Kansas City had Alex Smith, a good quarterback, good enough to win 10 games a year and be yearly playoff contenders. He was also the best QB that the Chiefs had for a very long time. They decided that good wasn’t good enough and they went and attacked the position, and got a guy who’ll have them as perennial Super Bowl contenders. Not just playoff contenders. 

Some people aren’t ok with mediocrity. And that’s what Cousins gives you. 

If they believe that one of these QBs in this draft are of the level of Mahomes, then I have no issue with them making the move to get him.  However, I do think they'll be fine either way...I don't view it with Kirk as a "mediocrity" situation, because it's better than mediocre...it's just not a situation where they're perennial SB contenders.  I'd be content with a Matt Ryan situation, because they aren't perennial SB contenders either, but he's a fairly consistent good QB.  Unless you have a HOF-level QB, I think the expectation of being a perennial SB contender is always going to set yourself up for disappointment.     

[Worm Guts]

15 hours ago, Heimdallr said:

Outside of 1 random good year from each of Favre, Culpepper and Cunningham, Kirk is by far the best QB the Vikings have had since Tarkenton. 40 years. 

I just cannot wrap my mind around the idea of getting rid of him. Do you really want to go back to another 40 years of Christian Ponder, Brad Johnson, Tommy Kramer, Case Keenum, Tarvaris Jackson, Wade Wilson, Donovan McNabb, Sam Bradford, Gus Frerotte, Rich Gannon, Jim McMahon and Steve Dils, Kelly Holcomb, Brooks Bollinger, Shaun Hill, Joe Webb, Todd Bouman, Spergon Wynn, Jeff George or Sean Salisbury?

We finally, after 40 years of pain, have a chance to have a legitimately good QB for an extended period of time.

Giving that up for the extremely slim chance of hitting the lottery on a Lamar Jackson or Patrick Mahomes makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

Ultimately I don't care if the Vikings have a good QB, I care if the Vikings are good. My issue is that we were better with Case Keenum and Teddy Bridgewater than we have been with Kirk Cousins.  We need to figure why exactly that is, and hopefully fix it.

My assumption is that the biggest issue Cousins immobility paired with a poor offensive line. I think the signing of Cousins was a mistake given the team we had, although that doesn't mean the solution at this point is as simple as getting rid of him.

[DisplacedViking]

I'm not sure the criteria used to ascertain this concerning Teddy:

"My issue is that we were better with Case Keenum and Teddy Bridgewater than we have been with Kirk Cousins."

I love Teddy and still frequently don his Viking #5 jersey proudly. But we went 6-6 & 11-5 with him behind center and lost the only playoff game he started, and that was at home. We have gone 8-7-1 & 10-5 (Kirk didn't play week 17) under Cousins, and beat the mighty Saints in New Orleans while going 1-1 in the playoffs. I don't understand how we could be considered a better team while Teddy started than under Kirk.

Now I can understand how someone would like Teddy better, or prefer him over Kirk to lead their favorite team.

I like them both and will support my favorite team no matter who is on the roster, moreover I will support every player on the roster unless they are horrible humans. I am pleased that it doesn't look like we put up with that type any longer.

[Nozizaki]

The only line of thinking I can support is that the team around Teddy would be ~$15M better annually. But Teddy has really struggled with accuracy on deep shots (something Kirk has been relatively consistent and good at), which is one of the biggest ways of punishing a defense for over aggressively defending the run.

I think the bar for Kirk next year is probably a Super Bowl appearance. I like Kirk a lot and nothing would be more satisfying for him to hoist the Lombardi for the Vikings, but I do understand people's line of thinking that having a top 10 roster in quite literally every area is pretty tough. I will say the things he struggles with are the same things every non-mobile quarterback struggles with, and that's pressure up the middle. Yes this is a Super Bowl caliber roster, but if the Vikings knew the center piece of their offense would be Cousins, they should've started building with the O-Line. He can make lower tier WRs and RBs look better, as he did in Washington. They unfortunately didn't know and the team has done a poor job improving the O-Line since 2009. Hopefully they can improve from PFF's 19th best unit towards the top 10 next year, with a couple key additions (Trent Williams?).

This isn't an excuse and I understand that this is a big prove it year and if the team regresses it will likely spell his end and the team building for a new window with a different QB.

[PrplChilPill]

A lot of people pointing out that Kirk is good, not great, seem to be the same people defending Zimmer, who can't beat good teams consistently at all...... I'd put more onus on the head coach than one player....

[vikingsrule]

I don’t agree that the Vikes have a top 10 roster. Maybe in 2017 they did. 

The reality is the Vikes have an average at best OL and a RB who couldn’t surpass 100 rush yards since October 20 and over 4 yards per carry since November. The receiver spots are top 10. Cousins is a top 10 QB this year. 

On defense, the interior DL has to be below average (don’t have the numbers but they weren’t great) and a bottom 10 group of CBs. The defense is great at DE, LB and Safety.

Throw an aging and increasingly expensive roster, where does the talent infusion come in to fill the gaping spots on the roster.

Edited January 15, 2020 by vikingsrule

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, vikingsrule said:

I don’t agree that the Vikes have a top 10 roster. Maybe in 2017 they did. 

The reality is the Vikes have an average at best OL and a RB who couldn’t surpass 100 rush yards since October 20 and over 4 yards per carry since November. The receiver spots are top 10. Cousins is a top 10 QB this year. 

On defense, the interior DL has to be below average (don’t have the numbers but they weren’t great) and a bottom 10 group of CBs. The defense is great at DE, LB and Safety.

Throw an aging and increasingly expensive roster, where does the talent infusion come in to fill the gaping spots on the roster.

I think these two things are connected.  When the OL had better games, Cook did better.  Let's face it, Dalvin is not AD. He doesn't have Peterson's durability or the ability to crash through an 8 man front and create his own holes.  Peterson is rare.  Only Jim Brown and Earl Campbell came closest the Peterson, and Campbell didn't have the durability. 

The offensive line played well against teams the Vikings were supposed to beat...AND...for some strange reason...against the Saints.  They really struggled against the good defenses, like Chicago, Green Bay and San Fran.  Those are games that Cook struggled as well.

If Cook is extended, then I would also increase the number of plays that Mattison is in the game.  You could really see Cook wearing down during the season.

[Dolmonite26]

49 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said:

I think these two things are connected.  When the OL had better games, Cook did better

This isn't quite true tho.

While it is 100% true that when a team has a good line the running game is much more efficient. However for the Vikings this year, the line was never a very good run blocking unit.  They had moments but we're by and large average.

They got away with it early because Cook was playing out of his mind. His YAC and broken tackle metrics were through the rough and were simply not sustainable.

Great play is never sustainable at any position, even great players have regression. But RBs are particularly vulnerable to it because it such a hard position to be individually great at.

Whether it was injury related of performance related, Cook, predictably, Couldn't sustain his play and the Vikings suffered for it because they made him the engine of the offense.

[Eric dunn]

3 hours ago, swede700 said:

Well, if you want to actually win, yes you do.  Because whether or not you like it, he's the QB and will be the QB for 2020-21, so you have to run the system that caters to him, because he's 1 of 2 players on the field who touches the ball on every offensive play.  

Obviously he’s the QB for next season so yeah run the same system. But continuity in the NFL is hard, so it’s not likely we will be able to sustain this Kubiak/Shanahan/Stefanski offense if we extend him another 4 years. Eventually there’s gonna be a Defillipo. He’s not a drop back passer, we saw that in most games where the running game was stopped & play action was not working. Sometimes you need a QB that can make up for scheme deficiencies, and Kirk can’t do that imo. Like I said I’m not bashing him, I like Kirk. But the fact is, everything around him has to be ideal to perfect. And that’s just not how things always work in the NFL. 

[Eric dunn]

4 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

You should always run a system that caters to the QB. Always. 

Right. But you tell me what system Russ, Watson, Mahomes Rodgers, Dak, Brees, Luck(when playing), Brady, & Rivers run? Maybe you know, but the point is it doesn’t matter what system they run. You could run any system with them and it wouldn’t change where they stand as QBs in the NFL. Because they can overcome deficiencies in personnel and/or scheme. Of course their OCs likely try to run what’s best to their strengths, as any coach would with any player. With Kirk it seems like you need good OL, good weapons, good running game, heavy play action. With a 35+ million dollar per year deal we aren’t going to be able to keep a great team around him likely, so he will have to make up for that and carry the team sometimes. Do you think he can do that? I don’t , based off of a big sample size. 

[swede700]

12 minutes ago, Eric dunn said:

Obviously he’s the QB for next season so yeah run the same system. But continuity in the NFL is hard, so it’s not likely we will be able to sustain this Kubiak/Shanahan/Stefanski offense if we extend him another 4 years. Eventually there’s gonna be a Defillipo. He’s not a drop back passer, we saw that in most games where the running game was stopped & play action was not working. Sometimes you need a QB that can make up for scheme deficiencies, and Kirk can’t do that imo. Like I said I’m not bashing him, I like Kirk. But the fact is, everything around him has to be ideal to perfect. And that’s just not how things always work in the NFL. 

But, they actually need to find one.  The QBs that can make up for scheme deficiencies are few and far between.  As we've seen in our own history, Brett Favre could do that...but Daunte Culpepper could not, Tarvaris could not, Ponder could not...and I'm not even sure Teddy could do that.  

[Cearbhall]

38 minutes ago, Eric dunn said:

Obviously he’s the QB for next season so yeah run the same system.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Kirk Cousins is a free agent after next season. He is going to want to play so his value is high for his next bite off the apple.

If the Vikings draft a QB in the first round (or even later), that guy looks good in OTAs, and the Vikings make it clear that staying in Minnesota means working as a backup to prepare the young QB to play then I would be shocked if Cousins refused to waive his no trade clause. He wants to play next year and sign a contract after the new round of TV deals are signed.

I don't hate Kirk Cousins as QB. I would put an offer on the table to extend him to a team friendly 4-5 year extension. If he takes it, that is great. In the very likely scenario he is not interested I would look hard for another QB that gives the team some control beyond next year and trade Kirk Cousins. If he refuses to waive the no-trade clause he can sulk on the bench about the millions he is losing on his next contract by not getting to play. He could sit there and think about the millions he turned down when he refused to extend his contract before the new CBA and TV deals.

I really think that he would accept a trade to a team that would start him and that he would then play out the year for that team and sign a new record contract after the TV deals come in when future cap projections are full of promise.