Jump to content
Heimdallr

The 2018 Kirk Cousins Megathread

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, marshpit23 said:

I feel he same way. It’s irritating! We have a very tough schedule this season. Kirk & Co. need to establish and build chemistry, this takes time. I have no doubt that we will be tight in the mix, but saying we need to win it all is a bit much.

I think this idea is overblown. He has a full offseason as being the expected starter, that's plenty of time. Case Keenum didn't need much time at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skywindO2 said:

I think this idea is overblown. He has a full offseason as being the expected starter, that's plenty of time. Case Keenum didn't need much time at all. 

I wouldnt go so far as to say Keenum had good chemistry with his receivers. Yes, he knew who his most reliable targets were, but he threw a lot of passes late, resulting is a lot of contested ball situations. We didn’t see a lot of completions where he hit his receivers in stride, leading to yards after the catch. Some of that may be Keenum’s lack of top level anticipation, but it also has to do with a lack of consistent reps. Which you just don’t get enough of during the regular season.

And that also doesn’t include how little he looked for receivers other than 14 and 19. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, skywindO2 said:

I think this idea is overblown. He has a full offseason as being the expected starter, that's plenty of time. Case Keenum didn't need much time at all. 

Hell Bradford has a week and a half and he came out firing that year. I'd expect him to start out well, have some hiccups along the way and hopefully play the best he's ever played by December.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are talking about different levels of production. Sure, someone can become a passable starting QB in an offseason. But more chances to establish chemistry can make a connection even better. Were Rodgers and Nelson at their peak right away as a duo, or was that something that developed over time? We're talking about the Super Bowl or bust narrative, so not sure why bringing up two QBs who didn't bring their teams to the Super Bowl (one didn't even make the playoffs) is evidence that it can happen overnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bradford may have come firing out of the gate in 2016, but most of the plays were designed to be easy throws and simple reads. 

Then look at how he played against New Orleans in 2017. That’s chemistry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

Bradford may have come firing out of the gate in 2016, but most of the plays were designed to be easy throws and simple reads. 

Then look at how he played against New Orleans in 2017. That’s chemistry. 

It's hard not to think what might have been this past year with a healthy Bradford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, wcblack34 said:

It's hard not to think what might have been this past year with a healthy Bradford.

I don’t think anything would have really changed. We went 13-3 and made it to the NFC Championship game. I don’t think Bradford would have made the difference to overcome any of the reasons that we didn’t advance to the Super Bowl. 

Edited by SemperFeist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

I don’t think anything would have really changed. We went 13-3 and made it to the NFC Championship game. I don’t think Bradford would have made the difference to overcome any of the reasons that we didn’t advance to the Super Bowl. 

May have ended up with home field advantage. May have had the Eagles on their heels a bit more. I think Bradford gave an element to the offense that Keenum simply couldn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

I don’t think anything would have really changed. We went 13-3 and made it to the NFC Championship game. I don’t think Bradford would have made the difference to overcome any of the reasons that we didn’t advance to the Super Bowl. 

I don't know if I agree with that....

341 passing yards in Week 1....only did that (300+) two other times in regular season, with six games under 200 yards. Two of the three losses were by 7 points or less, I'd like to think that a more productive passing game would've made a difference between a win and a loss in those. Even in the Eagles game, I'd argue Keenum's turnovers were part of why the game got out of hand.

Share this post


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

I don't know if I agree with that....

341 passing yards in Week 1....only did that (300+) two other times in regular season, with six games under 200 yards. Two of the three losses were by 7 points or less, I'd like to think that a more productive passing game would've made a difference between a win and a loss in those. Even in the Eagles game, I'd argue Keenum's turnovers were part of why the game got out of hand.

I tend to agree that the Vikings may have won a game that they lost if Sam Bradford was the QB of the team in those game. However, I am even more convinced that the team would have lost a few of the games that they won with Keenum at QB had they been starting Bradford instead. I think the team would have ended the year worse than 13-3 if Bradford was healthy and starting all 16 games. The team mostly won with their strong defensive efforts but I think having Bradford at QB would have wore out the defense just like it did the year before. Keenum kept a lot of drives alive that would have died off if Bradford was doing his thing. Keeping those drives alive is huge for giving the defense a breather.

Fortunately, the team has Kirk Cousins this year instead of Sam Bradford. There are concerns about Cousins as it relates to his ability to deal with poor pass protection but it is possible that the pass protection will further solidify this year or that Cousins will find a way to improve in that area. It is very unlikely that Bradford was going to change his normal pattern of giving up on drives via short dump-offs short of the sticks on third down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

I don’t think anything would have really changed. We went 13-3 and made it to the NFC Championship game. I don’t think Bradford would have made the difference to overcome any of the reasons that we didn’t advance to the Super Bowl. 

We probably would have beat Detroit the first time around. That gets us to 14-2 and the first seed in the playoffs.

I don't think we lose any of the games that Keenum helped us win. We probably further embarrass Chicago and Green Bay, beat down Baltimore, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Detroit (2nd time) and still keep it close vs Washington and LA Rams.

Edited by SteelKing728

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Klomp said:

I don't know if I agree with that....

341 passing yards in Week 1....only did that (300+) two other times in regular season, with six games under 200 yards. Two of the three losses were by 7 points or less, I'd like to think that a more productive passing game would've made a difference between a win and a loss in those. Even in the Eagles game, I'd argue Keenum's turnovers were part of why the game got out of hand.

Only if you’re looking at it in terms of Bradford’s strengths versus Keenum’s weaknesses. 

Keenum’s strengths, namely mobility and escapability, were key factors in the offense’s ability to move down the field. This offensive line wasn’t good enough to keep Bradford consistently clean, and that would have likely led to much different outcomes. Plus, Bradford has never had the gunslinger mentality that Keenum does, and that mentality led to a number of big plays from Keenum, that may not have occurred with Bradford. 

This team went 13-3, you really can’t expect anything better for the regular season. 

Maybe in the playoffs Bradford would have been better than Keenum, maybe. But Keenum was pressured nearly all game long against the Eagles, and I wouldn’t expect that to have changed with Bradford behind center. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SemperFeist said:

Only if you’re looking at it in terms of Bradford’s strengths versus Keenum’s weaknesses. 

Keenum’s strengths, namely mobility and escapability, were key factors in the offense’s ability to move down the field. This offensive line wasn’t good enough to keep Bradford consistently clean, and that would have likely led to much different outcomes. Plus, Bradford has never had the gunslinger mentality that Keenum does, and that mentality led to a number of big plays from Keenum, that may not have occurred with Bradford. 

This team went 13-3, you really can’t expect anything better for the regular season. 

Maybe in the playoffs Bradford would have been better than Keenum, maybe. But Keenum was pressured nearly all game long against the Eagles, and I wouldn’t expect that to have changed with Bradford behind center. 

You could say mobility/escapability were key factors for Keenum, but that also causes more OL breakdowns when the QB isn't getting rid of the ball as fast. Bradford isn't mobile, but he got rid of the ball. I think Keenum occasionally made things worse for himself by not getting rid of the ball on time. That's one thing I thought Bradford was better at, and I think Cousins will get back to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Kirk Cousins pushed himself so hard last summer that by Washington's second regular-season game, he felt as if his body and mind aged 10 extra weeks. This time, even though he's in a new place in Minnesota, his goal for the summer break is to make it a little less intense. 

Cousins: ''I had treated July and August like it was game day. 'You have to pace yourself a little bit. Because I feel a little behind the 8-ball and am learning the offense, I do need to be in it every day, but there also needs to be a healthy balance of getting away, catching your breath and getting a change of scenery, knowing that when we come back at the end of July we still have six more weeks' before the opener. 'I was pleasantly surprised with the rapport [with John DeFilippo]. There was a fair amount of carry-over from what I've done in the past, so that was a good first step. Whenever I did suggest something, he's just been a great listener. He's been a great communicator, and I love his passion for the game.'' 

https://kfan.iheart.com/featured/vikings-blog/content/2018-06-15-cousins-vikings-head-into-summer-break-with-more-to-learn-kfan-1003-fm/

Edited by vike daddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like Cousins got his guaranteed money and is pulling an Albert Haynesworth...

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m kidding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×