Jump to content
Heimdallr

The 2018 Kirk Cousins Megathread

Recommended Posts

People need to be careful not to judge a 3-year deal on half a season or even one season. It's a 3-year deal for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest difference between the offense this year and the offense last year is a lack of commitment to the run. 

 

Share this post


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

The biggest difference between the offense this year and the offense last year is a lack of commitment to the run. 

 

Can't ignore that the defense had been a sieve, which means the offense has to do more. The Vikes could run the ball more if they weren't chasing points as much as they are.

Share this post


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

People need to be careful not to judge a 3-year deal on half a season or even one season. It's a 3-year deal for a reason.

My understanding of the reason is because it was the only term that Cousins would consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

My understanding of the reason is because it was the only term that Cousins would consider.

So if we are eliminated in the wild card round this year but go on to win a Super Bowl in Year 3, the deal should be considered a failure because the success didn't happen this year?

If he delivers one Super Bowl, the deal is a success in my mind, no matter what year the title comes in. But calling it a failure already would be premature.

Share this post


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

So if we are eliminated in the wild card round this year but go on to win a Super Bowl in Year 3, the deal should be considered a failure because the success didn't happen this year?

If he delivers one Super Bowl, the deal is a success in my mind, no matter what year the title comes in. But calling it a failure already would be premature.

Oh, I agree. Calling it a failure already would be premature. I hope there is nothing that I said that would make one think otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kirk is exactly who we were told he is as much as some of us didn't want to hear it.

Shows flashes of being a top-5 QB, consistently plays like a top-12, and has flashes of bad and/or bone headed play.

Kirk was supposed to come in here and be the QB who wins games if the defense lays an egg 2-3 times a year. Right now, he's the QB who's trying to keep his team in it against opponents better than .500 because of the defense taking a big step back, an extremely spotty run game, and a mess of an offensive line.

Kirk isn't the QB to take a team to the next level. He's the QB that takes a team higher up in their level and he's done that so far with this team. Without Kirk, we don't stand a chance keeping it close vs. the Rams and I highly doubt we come back and tie Green Bay. That's great and promising but right now, outside of the Green Bay tie, someone like Case probably leads us to 4-4 instead of 4-3-1. 

But with Kirk, I have confidence we can win every game on our schedule. We should have beat Green Bay. We should have beat the Saints if Thielen didn't fumble. We almost very nearly beat the top team in the NFL with zero defense and WIN that game if they play decent for a half.

 Not a confidence I had with Keenum. 

We just need to get into the playoffs and I think we can beat any team in the NFL. We're two costly mistakes (Thielen fumble, Carlson missed kicks) away from being 6-2 (but, a lot of teams can say that)

 

Edited by Vikes_Bolts1228

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vikes_Bolts1228 said:

We're two costly mistakes (Thielen fumble, Carlson missed kicks) away from being 6-2 (but, a lot of teams can say that)

 

And an Everson Griffen breakdown away from 7-1...which is evidence that has me agreeing with Florio that the Vikings are lacking that igniting force/resolve to come back from some setbacks.  The lack of energy after the Thielen fumble never should have happened.  Somebody needed to lead and step up to get them past it (probably should have been Kirk), but no one did.  

Edited by swede700

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, swede700 said:

And an Everson Griffen breakdown away from 7-1...which is evidence that has me agreeing with Florio that the Vikings are lacking that igniting force/resolve to come back from some setbacks.  The lack of energy after the Thielen fumble never should have happened.  Somebody needed to lead and step up to get them past it (probably should have been Kirk), but no one did.  

That really bugs me.

Even outside of the Everson thing, that Buffalo game....the defense was playing great until Linval's hit to the head of Allen then it all fell apart. The defense looked 100% out of it right after that hit and let a DREADFUL team run up & down the field.

And I'll bet someone tried the "forget about the fumble!" thing last week after half. But nobody made a play until the middle of the 4th quarter when it was a 3 score game. What happens if Griffen sacks Brees on the Saints' first drive in the 2nd half? Or an INT? Or a fumble? Or even a big hit? Nobody made a play to get the team/crowd back into the game. Or on offense....f the Vikings came out of the half, drove down the field, and got 3 or 6....it's a different game. Instead we punt and fail miserably on a stupid 4th down play at our own 45.

That's why I was so disgusted with the "taking a knee" to go into the half. At least try TWO plays and see if you can get a little bit of momentum back. 

 

Edited by Vikes_Bolts1228

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vikes_Bolts1228 said:

That's why I was so disgusted with the "taking a knee" to go into the half. At least try TWO plays and see if you can get a little bit of momentum back. 

 

I personally disagree with that take, and I've heard it from multiple sources.  I personally believe it was the absolute right thing to do, because the team was in no position from a mental standpoint (as far as I could tell) that anything positive would have come out of it.  That, and the fact that they were going to get the ball back after the half told me that sitting on it and just going into the half to regroup was the right call.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, swede700 said:

I personally disagree with that take, and I've heard it from multiple sources.  I personally believe it was the absolute right thing to do, because the team was in no position from a mental standpoint (as far as I could tell) that anything positive would have come out of it.  That, and the fact that they were going to get the ball back after the half told me that sitting on it and just going into the half to regroup was the right call.  

THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

If a team can't recover from a bad turnover and turn in a drive right after, why are they on the field? Would a Tom Brady tell Belichick "Let's just go into half. I'm in no position mentally to go out there."

You or whoever the "sources" were are basically admitting the team was essentially too afraid to head back out there because they might make another mistake and/or were already mentally beaten before the 2nd half kickoff. Wow.

You're paying a QB $84 million to lead the team. You have two all-pro receivers (including one who's breaking records left & right this season). A top-10 receiving tight end. You were moving the ball at will in the first half and you let a turnover scare you into not running a 2 plays and seeing if you can get some yardage?

What if they do complete 2-3 passes and get into the half with a field goal knowing they get the ball back and a chance to put up 3 or 6 more and pull within 1 or take the lead? Hell, even complete 2 short passes to Thielen and get his mind off the fumble. Instead, you walk into half with that fumble as the last thing you remember?

A team with Super Bowl aspirations and came into the season as one of the best on paper that doesn't show an ounce of swagger isn't a Super Bowl team.

Oh and "taking a knee to prevent a turnover" worked so well in 1998 as well...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Vikes_Bolts1228 said:

Oh and "taking a knee to prevent a turnover" worked so well in 1998 as well...

Not taking a knee before halftime didn't work out great either. That fumble allowed the Falcons to score before halftime. No matter the choice there is a chance that it will not work out great. The best one can do is play the odds. Given how poor the Vikings are in end of half situations I don't doubt that the odds of something bad happening is greater than the odds of the Vikings getting getting close enough to put their shaky FG unit on the field and maybe making the FG.

Regardless of whether odds favored ending the half or trying to score in that last 30 seconds I hope that we all agree that the team needs to get better in end of half situations. From what I have watched their are lots of teams that aren't very good in these situations but the best teams seem to have it down to a science. The Vikings ought to work hard to be among the best in the last four minutes of each half. Those situations are very important to the outcome of games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Klomp said:

So if we are eliminated in the wild card round this year but go on to win a Super Bowl in Year 3, the deal should be considered a failure because the success didn't happen this year?

If he delivers one Super Bowl, the deal is a success in my mind, no matter what year the title comes in. But calling it a failure already would be premature.

I think that Cousins, and every quarterback, should be judged season to season along with that teams expectations.  I don't think it was just fans who had lofty expectations going into the 2018 season.  Now, not everything is Cousins fault...maybe not much is Cousins fault.  But, if the Vikings don't make the playoffs or don't go deep into the playoffs many will be disappointed.  Cousins will be targeted by a lot of people simply because he's the quarterback.  That's not terribly fair...but, it is what it is.  I think the coaching staff should receive the most blame if that indeed happens...but, it's the middle of the season...a lot of football still to play...the long boat can still be righted.

Edited by Virginia Viking

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



×