SemperFeist Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 Full on the Jordan Love, Jacob Eason, Jalen Hurts bandwagons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 It's amazing how quick things change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 42 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said: It's amazing how quick things change It's just a bipolar mentality that some fans have.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 23 minutes ago, swede700 said: It's just a bipolar mentality that some fans have.. You can’t honestly think that this Cousins experiment has even come close to delivering the results that it was expected to. Even though Cousins is playing well, he’s still not playing at a level that justifies tying up $30M+ worth of cap space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 (edited) 44 minutes ago, SemperFeist said: You can’t honestly think that this Cousins experiment has even come close to delivering the results that it was expected to. Even though Cousins is playing well, he’s still not playing at a level that justifies tying up $30M+ worth of cap space. As a matter of fact, yes, this is exactly what I expected. And while it may have been a little more than I thought he was maybe worth, it was (and still is) the going market rate for a top-10 to 12 starting QB in the NFL, which is what he is...so yes, it is justifiable (from an objective point of view), despite my personal preference at the time (which was to bring back Teddy and have him compete with a draft pick). Would I still rather have spent that money somewhere else? Maybe, but as far as I'm concerned, their spending of it there is still justified, because they've still been in contention regardless, and as of yet, they haven't lost anyone significant to the roster as a result of it. Edited December 31, 2019 by swede700 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 If the expectation of the team when they signed Cousins was to be a borderline playoff team, then it was a terrible decision to sign him. If the team felt that Cousins was the final piece for a super bowl window, then, barring a miracle this post season, the experiment has failed. And it’s time to move on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 Just now, SemperFeist said: If the expectation of the team when they signed Cousins was to be a borderline playoff team, then it was a terrible decision to sign him. If the team felt that Cousins was the final piece for a super bowl window, then, barring a miracle this post season, the experiment has failed. And it’s time to move on. I can't speak for them, but I can assume that they felt he was the best option available to them at the time to be the piece to take them to the Super Bowl. Because who else was there? Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger, and Aaron Rodgers weren't available to them. Brett Favre wasn't going to come out of retirement again 7 years later. I can't blame them for the decision they made. I also can't say it was a failure. A failure would have meant that they weren't in contention at all. I can't view it as a black-white situation, where it's either you win it all or it's a complete failure and you have to move on. You only move on if there's a better potential option. It's the same way I view the Zimmer situation. You don't change for change's sake, because that, far more often than not, definitely leads to failure. We've seen that same story, over and over, especially with this franchise. Now, if they do find a QB in the draft that they feel could be a better option, especially to take over in 2021, I'm all for it...but in the free agent market, I'm not sure there will be one (unless miraculously Tom Brady actually does leave New England). 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikesfan89 Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 I don't think they expected him to carry us to the super bowl but that he gave us the best chance of anyone available. The Packers game did disappoint me and lower my expectations of him but before that he was playing better than I expected Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nozizaki Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 4 minutes ago, SemperFeist said: If the expectation of the team when they signed Cousins was to be a borderline playoff team, then it was a terrible decision to sign him. If the team felt that Cousins was the final piece for a super bowl window, then, barring a miracle this post season, the experiment has failed. And it’s time to move on. Why is this on Cousins? There's a reason that Zimmer is regarded as a good coach but never brought up as top 5 coach in the NFL. A lack of offense in the team's biggest games comes down to coaching, and we've scapegoated 2 OC's so far. The NFL is moving towards offensive minds and Minnesota keeps losing their OC, if they are good to a HC gig or if they're not so good they get replaced. Kirk hasn't had the same playcaller in consecutive years since he had this guy named Sean McVay in Washington back in '15/'16. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingsrule Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 (edited) 39 minutes ago, SemperFeist said: If the expectation of the team when they signed Cousins was to be a borderline playoff team, then it was a terrible decision to sign him. If the team felt that Cousins was the final piece for a super bowl window, then, barring a miracle this post season, the experiment has failed. And it’s time to move on. I agree with both. If Cousins was signed to be a “franchise QB” well then the entire FO should be fired for being idiots because Cousins will never be a franchise QB. If he was signed to complement an elite defense and run game but still play well against good competition, it was a poorly timed move considering the defense has fallen off and Cousins can’t carry the offense against good teams. If Zimmer, Spielman and the Wilfs are content with being a 8-10 win team and maybe getting in the playoffs every other year, I think Cousins is a good fit. So the signing was good if this is the goal because that’s the best most should expect from Cousins given the state of the rest of the roster. Edited December 31, 2019 by vikingsrule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 37 minutes ago, vikingsrule said: I agree with both. If Cousins was signed to be a “franchise QB” well then the entire FO should be fired for being idiots because Cousins will never be a franchise QB. If he was signed to complement an elite defense and run game but still play well against good competition, it was a poorly timed move considering the defense has fallen off and Cousins can’t carry the offense against good teams. If Zimmer, Spielman and the Wilfs are content with being a 8-10 win team and maybe getting in the playoffs every other year, I think Cousins is a good fit. So the signing was good if this is the goal because that’s the best most should expect from Cousins given the state of the rest of the roster. Last I checked, Cousins didn't give up 37 pts when he led the Vikings to 30 vs. Seattle and he didn't give up a 90+ yd run to Damian Williams. When you look at the entire state of the NFL at the QB position, Cousins is a franchise QB, whether you choose to believe it or not. He's not a HOF QB by any stretch of the imagination, but he is a franchise QB. Historically, he is the modern day equivalent of Ken Stabler (just look it up on pro-football reference). I'm not sure anyone can make the argument that Ken Stabler was not a franchise QB. Neither can the same be said of Dave Krieg or Roger Staubach (other names that show up again and again on the list). Unfortunately, I think your perception has been skewed, because you think a franchise QB is of the HOF level. That's not anywhere near reality. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 1 hour ago, swede700 said: Maybe, but as far as I'm concerned, their spending of it there is still justified, because they've still been in contention regardless, and as of yet, they haven't lost anyone significant to the roster as a result of it. That is a highly debatable statement and I definitely disagree with it. How much better would the Vikings have been with Sheldon Richardson still playing DT next to Linval Joseph? Sure, Richardson will never be a sack machine but he is a step up from Shamar Stephen. How much better would the Vikings offense be if they kept Nick Easton? Sure, Easton isn't an exciting talent but he sure would be a step up over Pat Elflein. It isn't all about superstars. These players matter. Even the loss of a Tom Compton (below average) level player matters. He was below average but he was a good value for his cost. Teams need those guys too but the Vikings were unable to retain him. Who wouldn't feel better about our kick return game if we still had Patterson? And what about the guys they could have signed on the market had another $10M? The team needs a few average level players in the trenches. Losing out on those guys is significant. The opportunity cost can be huge too. How would things have worked out had the Vikings signed Mitch Morse to play center and used their first round pick somewhere else? What if the team invested the money into Roger Saffold? There are so many possibilities. The opportunity cost of the Cousins contract is huge. I do not bring this up to suggest that investing the money into a QB was a mistake. My only intention is to rebut the asinine statement that the decision doesn't have significant ramifications on the rest of the roster. It does. Part of the Cousins deal is significant losses in the rest of the roster. The question should be whether it was worth those losses. Putting the bar for the debate at whether there were losses suffered is quite the move. That is not where the debate should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 7 minutes ago, swede700 said: Last I checked, Cousins didn't give up 37 pts when he led the Vikings to 30 vs. Seattle and he didn't give up a 90+ yd run to Damian Williams. Yep. But the losses the Vikings suffer as part of the Vikings signing Cousins contributed to the Vikings giving up 37 points and them giving up a 90+ yd run. Teams do not have unlimited cap dollars and resources. An expense somewhere is a loss somewhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 1 hour ago, swede700 said: Last I checked, Cousins didn't give up 37 pts when he led the Vikings to 30 vs. Seattle and he didn't give up a 90+ yd run to Damian Williams. No, he didn’t. But he did have multiple opportunities, in both games, to make the needed plays to get the win. And he didn’t. He didn’t even come close. When the Vikings led the chiefs 23-20, Cousins just needed to keep the offense on the field. They went 3 and out. After the chiefs tied it 23-23, he just needed to get into scoring position. They went 3 and out. Against the Seahawks, with 3:30 left and down by 4, they got one first down. A franchise QB doesn’t have to be a HOF level player, but they do need to be someone that you can rely on when the game is on the line, when the defense isn’t pulling its weight, or when the team is behind. Cousins has not shown to be that QB. Not even close. He may be a starting caliber QB, but he is no where near a franchise caliber QB. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDBrocks Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 2 hours ago, Cearbhall said: Yep. But the losses the Vikings suffer as part of the Vikings signing Cousins contributed to the Vikings giving up 37 points and them giving up a 90+ yd run. Teams do not have unlimited cap dollars and resources. An expense somewhere is a loss somewhere else. I think it's a bit disingenuous to use those examples. the 90 yard run was a break down by the safeties, two of the best players on the team. Not attributable to a lack of resources. 37 points against the Seahawks looks a lot different if Rhodes decides to cover his guy or the two turnovers don't happen deep in Vikings territory. I don't think that can be attributed to a lack of resources or cap space either. I do think that Cousins should have performed better in pressure situations in order to live up to his contract, but suggesting that his contract prohibited the Vikings from winning those two games is reaching at best, IMO. 3 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.