The 2018 Kirk Cousins Megathread

[Cearbhall]

10 minutes ago, JDBrocks said:

I think it's a bit disingenuous to use those examples

I agree. I am not the one that brought those examples up though so I don't know why you are responding to me rather than the post that brought them up.

I don't believe those examples are needed to understand the obvious: the NFL salary cap is a zero sum game.

Investing in one area is taking away from another. Investing $28M in a QB has resulted in losses to the roster in other places.

[JDBrocks]

18 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

I agree. I am not the one that brought those examples up though so I don't know why you are responding to me rather than the post that brought them up.

I don't believe those examples are needed to understand the obvious: the NFL salary cap is a zero sum game.

Investing in one area is taking away from another. Investing $28M in a QB has resulted in losses to the roster in other places.

I was responding to you because you said this:

3 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

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.

I don't believe that to be true. 

I don't disagree with your point in general, but the quote doesn't really strengthen your argument.

[Worm Guts]

3 hours 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.  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.     

Whether he’s a franchise QB or not, we were better with Teddy Bridgewater and Case Keenum as quarterbacks. That’s the frustration. The goal in signing Kirk Cousins was to make the team better, and it’s not. The discussion is obviously more nuanced than Kirk is failure, but we haven’t achieved what we wanted.

[Torchezim]

As I’ve said, Cousins has played well this year. He’s played well against bad teams and just not so good against good teams.  That is not franchise caliber QB. 
 

If people’s blind support let’s them believe that Cousins has what it takes to lead this team to the promised land then let them believe it. They have no clue imo, and I’m done trying to reason with them.  You guys keep being content with 7-9 win seasons and never accomplishing anything of merit.  Never good enough to be a legitimate Super Bowl threat (without a miracle, and even then, we got blown out afterwards), and never bad enough to get a grasp on an elite top fledged QB in the draft. Both of those options are better than being stuck deep in long bouts of mediocrity with no end of it in sight. 
 

The thought of being attached to Zimmer and Cousins for the next few years has me cringing at idea and wanting to denounce my allegiance. But I can’t, because I’m a Vikings fan, and that lasts forever. I just hope we figure it out. However long it takes; find the right coach and the right QB.  As long as I’m alive and it happens, it’ll be worth it. 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Torchezim

[swede700]

I have no blind support, yet I can completely understand the situation and am not willing to just throw it away on the "chance" it might be better.  And while I'm not content with them not winning the Super Bowl, I also can see that they have not won just 7-9 wins his entire tenure (you must be confusing him with Mike Tice or the first 6 years of Denny's tenure).  They've won 10 or more 3 times and that's under 3 different QBs.

I'm not happy that they haven't won, but I can appreciate that they've had nearly a .600 winning percentage under him, despite having 4 different QBs, 4 different OCs, and significant inconsistency in the OL.  A great defense will keep you in the game and can win you a title if you have a decent offense, but without even close to consistency on the offensive side of the ball from year to year, they haven't had much of a chance to compete consistently on that side of the ball.  Without that consistency, we'll have to continue to rely on them grabbing lightning in a bottle to win, and you seem to enjoy that by asking for them to change it all once again.         

[vike daddy]

3 hours ago, Torchezim said:

If people’s blind support let’s them believe that Cousins has what it takes to lead this team to the promised land then let them believe it. They have no clue imo...

so much hyperbole. so much passive aggression.

[PrplChilPill]

10 hours 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.

It's almost like there are 50+ other guys on the team, and having a top 10 QB isn't enough.......

[Torchezim]

14 hours ago, swede700 said:

I have no blind support, yet I can completely understand the situation and am not willing to just throw it away on the "chance" it might be better.  And while I'm not content with them not winning the Super Bowl, I also can see that they have not won just 7-9 wins his entire tenure (you must be confusing him with Mike Tice or the first 6 years of Denny's tenure).  They've won 10 or more 3 times and that's under 3 different QBs.

I'm not happy that they haven't won, but I can appreciate that they've had nearly a .600 winning percentage under him, despite having 4 different QBs, 4 different OCs, and significant inconsistency in the OL.  A great defense will keep you in the game and can win you a title if you have a decent offense, but without even close to consistency on the offensive side of the ball from year to year, they haven't had much of a chance to compete consistently on that side of the ball.  Without that consistency, we'll have to continue to rely on them grabbing lightning in a bottle to win, and you seem to enjoy that by asking for them to change it all once again.         

And where have those wins got us?  Again, like a lot of us have been saying, we don’t care about regular season wins if we just know that it won’t work out in the end.  And your statement of people will just “throw it all away” is misinforming to other that may pass through here. 
 

We’re throwing it “all away” after six years of nothing. A miracle ending in a divisional playoff game kept us from being 0-3 in the postseason, and Big game after Big game we see our team come out as a shell of themselves. 
 

We don’t need to see his great record against bad teams.  I want to see his record against winning and good teams.  Share that one please.  

I cannot wait until he is replaced. Keeping him around just to fire him in a couple years makes no sense.  

[Torchezim]

11 hours ago, vike daddy said:

so much hyperbole. so much passive aggression.

It wasn’t aggressive or passive?  I directly stated how it came across and wasn’t subtle about anything. 
 

Im not sure you know what hyperbole means. 

[Worm Guts]

4 hours ago, Torchezim said:

 

A miracle ending in a divisional playoff game kept us from being 0-3 in the postseason, and Big game after Big game we see our team come out as a shell of themselves. 
 

 

Kind of off topic, but Zimmer’s playoff record is what it should be. The win against the Saints was no more lucky than the Seattle game was unlucky. I tend to think people would be less likely to call the Saints win lucky if Diggs had stepped out of bounds and Forbath kicked the game winning FG.

I think dismissing the win is unnecessary regardless of the point you’re trying to make.

[SemperFeist]

57 minutes ago, Worm Guts said:

I tend to think people would be less likely to call the Saints win lucky if Diggs had stepped out of bounds and Forbath kicked the game winning FG.

It wasn’t just lucky because of the miracle play. The Vikings completely fell apart in the second half of that game. Even had diggs caught the ball and gone out of bounds, it would have still be an unbelievably lucky play. 

[Torchezim]

1 hour ago, Worm Guts said:

Kind of off topic, but Zimmer’s playoff record is what it should be. The win against the Saints was no more lucky than the Seattle game was unlucky. I tend to think people would be less likely to call the Saints win lucky if Diggs had stepped out of bounds and Forbath kicked the game winning FG.

I think dismissing the win is unnecessary regardless of the point you’re trying to make.

I’m not trying to dismiss the win but I am trying to point out that had that not happened, Zimmer would have been under much more scrutiny then, than he was. The second half was an embarrassing defensive performance and that was supposed to be his specialty.  That’s why we hired them.  Because his defense fell apart like that, the unbelievably lucky play HAD to happen. 

[Worm Guts]

1 hour ago, SemperFeist said:

It wasn’t just lucky because of the miracle play. The Vikings completely fell apart in the second half of that game. Even had diggs caught the ball and gone out of bounds, it would have still be an unbelievably lucky play. 

If Diggs catches the ball and goes out of bounds, it’s mildly lucky but it’s not a miracle.

[Worm Guts]

46 minutes ago, Torchezim said:

I’m not trying to dismiss the win but I am trying to point out that had that not happened, Zimmer would have been under much more scrutiny then, than he was. The second half was an embarrassing defensive performance and that was supposed to be his specialty.  That’s why we hired them.  Because his defense fell apart like that, the unbelievably lucky play HAD to happen. 

Of course he could just as easily have 2 (or more) playoff wins if the Seattle game goes different.

[Dolmonite26]

On 12/31/2019 at 2:35 PM, Cearbhall said:

I don't believe those examples are needed to understand the obvious: the NFL salary cap is a zero sum game.

Apologies, but this absolutely not true.

Roster building is obviously much more nuanced and even when just accounting for positional value that 28M can be spent in a wide range of ways that extends far beyond the numerical value of that figure. Nfl rosters are built in a dynamic marketplace, where even the cap isn't static and changes year over year (along with contractual obligations).

So while I personally agree that Kirk was most likely a bad investment (his play this year has actually wavered my opinion on this), it's not for zero sum reasons.