PrplChilPill Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 8 hours ago, wcblack34 said: Teddy was available as a potential future starter, and/or stop-gap. Wouldn't have cost $28 million. Even sticking with Keenum at $18 for a year or two was a better option. You think Keenum is a better QB? You would have bet the future of this roster on Bridgewater being healthy? I can't see the second as realistic at all. I can see the first, if I use a telescope, but barely. If you don't think Case it's better, how it's it a better option? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrplChilPill Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 19 minutes ago, vikingsrule said: I don't get the Jackson love. We also don't know if a team would trade up to get Jackson if the Vikings still needed a QB. You certainly don't know that when you have to fill holes before the draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 45 minutes ago, Cearbhall said: Patriots have drafted 15 QBs since 1990. That is one every couple years even while they had Bledsoe and then Brady holding the starting job. It is unclear how many undrafted rookies have made their roster in that time. I am a believer in bringing in a rookie QB every year. Around half of those coming from the draft feels about right. I could be missing a couple but haven't the Patriots only drafted 1 in the first 2 rounds since Brady's been there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 23 minutes ago, vikingsrule said: I don't get the Jackson love. I don't really either but he's got a lot of potential and was probably the best option that we had a shot at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcblack34 Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 27 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said: You think Keenum is a better QB? You would have bet the future of this roster on Bridgewater being healthy? I can't see the second as realistic at all. I can see the first, if I use a telescope, but barely. If you don't think Case it's better, how it's it a better option? Based on contracts, Cousins is not 10 mm per year better than Keenum. Can you ask on a healthy Teddy? Maybe not. But missing on Teddy doesn’t cost you 28 million per year. Frankly, if I had to trust Case or Kirk for one game, I take Case every Sunday of the season and every week of the playoffs. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrplChilPill Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 16 minutes ago, wcblack34 said: Based on contracts, Cousins is not 10 mm per year better than Keenum. Can you ask on a healthy Teddy? Maybe not. But missing on Teddy doesn’t cost you 28 million per year. Frankly, if I had to trust Case or Kirk for one game, I take Case every Sunday of the season and every week of the playoffs. I don't care about the money. I care about a SB. So, would you bet your SB future this year on Kirk or Teddy? Realistically, before the year started? I can't imagine most teams agree with you on Case vs Kirk, but at least it might, possibly, be debatable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolmonite26 Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 22 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said: I don't care about the money. I care about a SB. So, would you bet your SB future this year on Kirk or Teddy? Realistically, before the year started? I can't imagine most teams agree with you on Case vs Kirk, but at least it might, possibly, be debatable. The money matters for winning a Superbowl tho 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrplChilPill Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 9 minutes ago, Dolmonite26 said: The money matters for winning a Superbowl tho Not this year......who would you have signed with the money you saved on Cousins? It probably won't matter much next year either, if they cut Remmers and Rudolph and renegotiate with Griffen..... Say you saved the money, and signed Teddy.......you really think they win the SB this year? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 17 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said: Not this year...... Disagreed. The money always matters. The money is the game within the game in the salary cap world of the NFL. Finding value against the salary cap is a huge part of fielding a consistently competitive team. It matters this year. It always matters. Overlooking the cap ramifications is short-sighted. If there isn't someone the team can sign this year with the money there are contracts that can be extended or money can be pushed forward to another year where it may be of better value to use. Not all players can be good cap values. However, it is important to pick and choose wisely where and when a team invests higher than market value. There are good reasons to do it but it should be done eyes wide open with a clear understanding why it is being done. It should not be overlooked or thought of as not mattering. It always matters. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrplChilPill Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Cearbhall said: Disagreed. The money always matters. The money is the game within the game in the salary cap world of the NFL. Finding value against the salary cap is a huge part of fielding a consistently competitive team. It matters this year. It always matters. Overlooking the cap ramifications is short-sighted. If there isn't someone the team can sign this year with the money there are contracts that can be extended or money can be pushed forward to another year where it may be of better value to use. Not all players can be good cap values. However, it is important to pick and choose wisely where and when a team invests higher than market value. There are good reasons to do it but it should be done eyes wide open with a clear understanding why it is being done. It should not be overlooked or thought of as not mattering. It always matters. Who would you have signed if you saved 9 MM dollars? And, would the team this year be better? Because putting off competitiveness another year, with this roster, seems foolish. Guys get hurt, or retire, or age and get worse. This team is youngish, stacked with talent.....you would have not signed a legit QB to sign more extensions? Then what next year, when you need a QB, sign more extensions instead of a QB? Edited December 13, 2018 by PrplChilPill 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said: Who would you have signed if you saved 9 MM dollars? First, I want to point out that this whole line of questions distrats from my point that the money always matters. The specifics of what any one of us would have done isn't important to that point. The money always matters. It is a huge part of putting together a consistently competitive team. That statement is in no way related to what I would have done nor does it imply that what I would have done would have been better. However, I'll answer your questions... As I have stated a few other times on this board I would have signed Case Keenum. I would have tried to lock up Teddy for $8M and then signed Case Keenum. 17 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said: would the team this year be better? That is getting into hypotheticals but I personally believe they would have won more games. 17 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said: you would have not signed a legit QB to sign more extensions? I don't think I understand what you are getting at with this question. The question is very misleading. Nowhere have I ever said I wouldn't sign a legit QB. This is a leading question that lacks foundation. 17 minutes ago, PrplChilPill said: Then what next year, when you need a QB, sign more extensions instead of a QB? Evaluate where you are at the time. Evaluate options available. Make decisions that you believe are in the best interests of the team. If the team went with Teddy and Case it is impossible to know how things would have turned out and what I would have done next year. Too many variables. Edited December 13, 2018 by Cearbhall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 After reading the last several posts, I must say, you guys are giving me a headache! I know it's all in good fun, but why waste the pixels on a screen arguing about what might have been the better decision last year?? My point is that Cousins is the quarterback for this team now and for another two years. Unless he gets injured or draws a suspension for something, he will be the Vikings starter for the reminder of this season, for 2019 and 2020. What the Vikings need to do, if the next two seasons are the teams window to go get a Lombardi, is to: 1. Hire the best offensive coordinator and quarterback coach tandem that will stress fundamentals with Cousins "managing" the offense on the field. 2. Bring back an emphasis to a balanced offensive scheme between running the ball and passing. 3. Use the drafts and free agency to upgrade the talent all along the offensive line. Argue/debate about the present and the future. Debating past decisions will give you stomach ulcers!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 11 hours ago, Vikes_Bolts1228 said: I'd take Kirk over ANY QB we've had since Favre in 2009. That includes Case and Bridgewater If we didn't sign Kirk and went after one of the rookies in the first round in 2018....we'd be much worse off than we are right now. Then we'd be HOPING he turns into a player while our core defense is still this side of 32. If we busts, then congrats....we didn't even have a chance to put this remaining 3-4 years of this defense to use. We've saw what Kirk can do (Packers/Rams) games so I still have faith we'll see that QB again. 2 I agree with this statement with the exception of a healthy Bridgewater. If we knew that Teddy was truly back to 100%, I think it would have made sense to go with him. The savings could have used to build up the offensive line. Another thing about Teddy is that he seems to be very good under pressure - hence the nickname G.U.M.P. He seemed to thrive in pressure situations. It has been said by others on this site that Kirk doesn't do very well in big games. Based on the game against Seattle, it looks like they may have had a point. Maybe he can dispell that rumor during the last three weeks of the season and in the playoffs. Ultimately, the team obviously must have had their doubts about Bridgewater's prospects of ever returning to 100%. Mike Zimmer loved Teddy, and I doubt he would have considered replacing him if it weren't for health reasons. Other than that, I agree with you that Kirk is the best QB we've had since '09 Favre, and I think we did make the right choice in signing him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 32 minutes ago, Uncle Buck said: I agree with this statement with the exception of a healthy Bridgewater. If we knew that Teddy was truly back to 100%, I think it would have made sense to go with him. The savings could have used to build up the offensive line. Another thing about Teddy is that he seems to be very good under pressure - hence the nickname G.U.M.P. He seemed to thrive in pressure situations. It has been said by others on this site that Kirk doesn't do very well in big games. Based on the game against Seattle, it looks like they may have had a point. Maybe he can dispell that rumor during the last three weeks of the season and in the playoffs. Ultimately, the team obviously must have had their doubts about Bridgewater's prospects of ever returning to 100%. Mike Zimmer loved Teddy, and I doubt he would have considered replacing him if it weren't for health reasons. Other than that, I agree with you that Kirk is the best QB we've had since '09 Favre, and I think we did make the right choice in signing him. I am not exactly sure I agree with you...the problems with the QB's since Favre is the gray area surrounding them. Tarvaris Jackson--had good potential. Played on a team dominated by Adrian Peterson, and terrible offensive strategy. Joe Webb--Yes, Kirk is better than Joe Webb. Christian Ponder--Yes, Kirk is better than Ponder. Teddy Bridgewater--I'm a believer that had Teddy not been injured, he'd still be the starter and excelling beyond what Cousins is capable off. Sam Bradford--Judging only pure talent, Sam has the best arm, by far, of anyone on this list. He is also the most snake bit, brittle QB since Joe Namath! Case Keenum--Statistically, Keenum's 2017 was one of the most exceptional years for a Vikings QB, ever! So, I'm not yet sold that Cousins is the best we've had since '09. I hope next season there will not be an argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vike daddy Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 10 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said: Teddy Bridgewater--I'm a believer that had Teddy not been injured, he'd still be the starter and excelling beyond what Cousins is capable off. you're of the era to know how Bud Grant felt about this matter - it doesn't matter how talented the player is, if he isn't healthy enough to stay on the field. Cousins beats out Teddy in this regard too, he's a very durable player. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.