Vikes_Bolts1228 Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Virginia Viking said: Isn't that what I said?? No clue. Edited December 19, 2018 by Vikes_Bolts1228 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twslhs20 Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 22 hours ago, Worm Guts said: It's impossible to predict what others would have done if given the chance, but it would have offered more flexibility. Right now, Kirk Cousins our QB for the next 3 years no matter what. Yeah and that's the problem. It's 6 years of Tavaris Jackson, 5 years of Christian Ponder, A couple years of Sam Bradford and Case Keenum, and finally 3 years of Kirk. All at the expense of significant draft and salary capital. Spielman's only hit may have been Teddy, but he didn't have the stones to keep him. Kirk won't win you games when it matters most, but he'll surely lose them. The Skins knew what they were doing with Cousins with all those tags. We need a GM that can get us a QB 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, twslhs20 said: Yeah and that's the problem. It's 6 years of Tavaris Jackson, 5 years of Christian Ponder, A couple years of Sam Bradford and Case Keenum, and finally 3 years of Kirk. All at the expense of significant draft and salary capital. Spielman's only hit may have been Teddy, but he didn't have the stones to keep him. Kirk won't win you games when it matters most, but he'll surely lose them. The Skins knew what they were doing with Cousins with all those tags. We need a GM that can get us a QB So, you need a GM that will get you a 3-13 record? It's either that or mortgage your entire future draft capital to trade up for a guy that you hope can be that...where it could potentially work (as in the case of Patrick Mahomes) or fail miserably (like RGIII, Mark Sanchez, Johnny Manziel...and potentially Carson Wentz, if he can't stay healthy). Edited December 19, 2018 by swede700 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VikeManDan Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 37 minutes ago, twslhs20 said: All at the expense of significant draft and salary capital. Yet a strong majority of key contributors are locked up... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twslhs20 Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, swede700 said: So, you need a GM that will get you a 3-13 record? It's either that or mortgage your entire future draft capital to trade up for a guy that you hope can be that...where it could potentially work (as in the case of Patrick Mahomes) or fail miserably (like RGIII). How is that any different than Jackson, Ponder or Bradford? We we're, at best, meddling 9-7 teams, that were one and done in the playoffs. Yeah that's super cool. Only difference between those records is the type of player you get to draft. Give me 3-13 all day. And its the same garbage logic every time. A coordinator, or a head coach, or this player or that player get scapegoated until the last variable that changes is the QB. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, twslhs20 said: How is that any different than Jackson, Ponder or Bradford? We we're, at best, meddling 9-7 teams, that were one and done in the playoffs. Yeah that's super cool. Only difference between those records is the type of player you get to draft. Give me 3-13 all day. And its the same garbage logic every time. A coordinator, or a head coach, or this player or that player get scapegoated until the last variable that changes is the QB. 5 Jackson was a 7th rd value taken in the 2nd rd (for whatever reason)...in the Fran Foley "era", nonetheless. Ponder was certainly a reach, but that was also the Triangle days....they wanted Locker, but were unable to trade up to get him (obviously, that would have failed too, but none of the QBs from that draft have really panned out, except for Cam and Dalton). I'm not sure why there are complaints on Bradford. Sure, they took a risk that he would get injured again...but when he was in there and healthy, he was brilliant. It was worth the risk. You may say they are just excuses, but that's water under the bridge. There are reasons...it ain't easy to solve QB issues. They aren't the only ones to have the issue. Not everyone is going to be able to draft Aaron Rodgers at the #24 pick or hit a HOFer on their 6th rd QB. There's a little luck that's also involved with it. How about the Broncos? They were able to sign an aging veteran HOF QB in Peyton Manning to get them to the Super Bowl...but have they really solved their QB issues since John Elway retired? How about the Dolphins? I know I'd still rather have Kirk Cousins than Ryan "freakin" Tannehill...and he's probably the best QB they've had since Marino...and that ain't saying much. Edited December 19, 2018 by swede700 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcblack34 Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 4 hours ago, Virginia Viking said: In his first season on the contract...so far...he hasn't earned a second contract at the same pay, in my opinion. But. I am willing to give him at least the 2nd year of this contract before declaring him a total failure. IF he can learn to minimize turnovers by 10%, increase red zone efficiency, become an offensive manager, limiting overall mistakes by 5%...that's really all KIRK can do. The Vikings, on the other hand, need to invest in the offensive line, and hire really good line coach and offensive coordinator. A second contract implies a raise at the then-current market value. If he plays as he has so far, that's not a bargain, will count as a bigger hit against our cap, and will hamstring the team from putting the talent around him that he needs to maybe, just maybe, lead the team to the big game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 3 hours ago, wcblack34 said: A second contract implies a raise at the then-current market value. If he plays as he has so far, that's not a bargain, will count as a bigger hit against our cap, and will hamstring the team from putting the talent around him that he needs to maybe, just maybe, lead the team to the big game. Yes...I realize that. I was just remarking that he shouldn't even get his present pay in a 2nd contract...translated....if he continues to play as he has played this season, he's gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said: Yes...I realize that. I was just remarking that he shouldn't even get his present pay in a 2nd contract...translated....if he continues to play as he has played this season, he's gone. He's the 2nd best QB in the division, according to Football Outsiders, which is all I think we should ever hoped for. People are still getting way too hung up on his pay. It'll be dwarfed in 2 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, swede700 said: He's the 2nd best QB in the division, according to Football Outsiders, which is all I think we should ever hoped for. People are still getting way too hung up on his pay. It'll be dwarfed in 2 years. I'm sure it will be dwarfed soon. But look at your own sentence...2nd best in the division "which is all I think we should ever hoped for." Then he's not worth now, nor ever will be, a contract as one of the two or three best QB's (Rodgers, Brees) or QB with great potential (Carr, Garappolo...eventually Wentz, Goff and Watson) in the game. Yeah...I will always be too hung up on his pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 6 hours ago, twslhs20 said: Give me 3-13 all day. Well, duh. You only like it when they lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 7 hours ago, twslhs20 said: but he didn't have the stones to keep him. Stones? Signing Cousins was the ballsy move. Re-signing Bridgewater, or Keenum, was the safe play. Spielman tied his job to the Cousins signing. That’s a gutsy move. Both Bridgewater and Keenum had built in excuses if they failed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twslhs20 Posted December 20, 2018 Share Posted December 20, 2018 7 hours ago, SemperFeist said: Well, duh. You only like it when they lose. Well aren't you intelligent for taking things out of context. You keep doing you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krauser Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 Cousins isn’t the main problem this year. The turnovers are bad, but he’s otherwise met or exceeded expectations. He’s scheme and talent dependent, but then so is basically every QB, or did you fail to notice what happened to Ryan after Shanahan left, or to Rodgers since 2015? If Cousins was in Goff’s position, the Rams would be just as good. His contract isn’t an overpayment. He’s making a little less than Stafford and comparable money to Garoppolo. Noticeably better QBs (Rodgers, Ryan, Brees) are paid considerably more. Hes quite a bit better than Keenum in everything except pocket mobility. Keenum’s thrown 12 INTs (Cousins 10) and fumbled 8 times (Cousins 9) but has only lost one fumble (Cousins 7), so even the turnovers are roughly a wash there aside from the Vikings bad luck with fumble recoveries. Cousins obviously is a much, much better passer than Keenum. He costs $9M more than Keenum this year, which is about right. There shouldn’t be too much regret with signing Cousins. Keeping Teddy was the only other viable option and even that was dependent on his knee holding up long term, which the team apparently doesn’t expect it to, and which of course hasn’t been tested yet. The mistake in hindsight (and foresight) was trading a 1st for Bradford. Playing out the year with Hill would’ve left them a top 10 pick and a chance to draft Mahomes or Watson. The problem with the offense this year is that JDF decided to try to make Cousins into Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers, running everything out of shotgun, and sticking with 3 WR sets despite only having 2 good receivers. It’s pretty shocking that JDF got so far away from the Eagles scheme: the run game and TEs were underused, the screens were poorly executed especially to RBs, and they couldn’t convert on short yardage. Cousins needs to get back to the McVay/Shanahan model with zone runs from under center, frequent play action and a second TE or FB on the field. Luckily it looks like that’s what Stefanski is doing. If he’d been given the OC position in the first place, this year would’ve gone better. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vikes_Bolts1228 Posted December 21, 2018 Share Posted December 21, 2018 33 minutes ago, Krauser said: The mistake in hindsight (and foresight) was trading a 1st for Bradford. Playing out the year with Hill would’ve left them a top 10 pick and a chance to draft Mahomes or Watson. The only good thing about that is that neither looks like a superstar..... 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.