The 2018 Kirk Cousins Megathread

[Worm Guts]

4 hours ago, Dolmonite26 said:

Just so we're clear: it's not that you actually care about whether he's actually good in big games or not, you just want the media created, unfounded in analytical data narrative to go away?

That's.....quite the take man.

I want the media narrative to go away because it becomes impossible to believe it from repeated great performances in big games. 
And it’s definitely not a unfounded to this point.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Worm Guts

[swede700]

15 hours ago, Cearbhall said:

I don't know what taxes are in New York but my Minnesota taxes are no picnic. I have been seriously looking to establish residence in South Dakota for tax purposes.

Drew Brees also could have gotten more money on the open market so he is another example of a player taking a hometown discount.

I don't expect that Kirk will take less from the Vikings than he could make elsewhere, but it would be great if he did. As a person gets older they become more and more willing to look at things other than income maximization. That was without doubt true for me. It is great to spend a decade or two in your 20s and 30s maximizing earnings and I wouldn't suggest anything else when you still haven't yet made enough money to make working optional. But eventually you have enough to do pretty much anything you want* and you realize it is more important to be somewhere with people you enjoy doing something that interests you. I, for one, do not miss my days with a big corporation and have never regretted my decision to retire**. Kirk very well may be to the point where he is considering things beyond raw income in making decisions. He has enough money. On the other hand, he is still young. If he wants to maximize his earnings I sure hope nobody would begrudge him. That is well within his rights.

*This is different than having enough to do everything, but all the things that are most important to you.
**By that, I mean leave the full-time workforce. I still work part-time doing something that I feel good doing. Besides, working helps pay the MN taxes.

 

$40M  (which Brees got in 2012 when he was only a couple of years older than Kirk is now) is not a hometown discount.  Certainly he took a little less to sign this last deal (which was for $25M a year), but generally he's always gotten around the going market rate.  

I do agree with your main points however.  I don't think people are going to begrudge Kirk one way or the other...but we, as fans, aren't nearly as attached to him as New Orleans is to Brees.  

[sledgehammer]

On 1/7/2020 at 4:53 PM, whitehops said:

he can choke badly, if he's consistently put in a position where he has to improvise. the main one being if pressure comes before his internal clock goes off, or if coverage holds up on his first read or two. i have no idea how to quantify/verify this, but i feel like he goes through his reads slower than the best QBs which is a problem when there's constant pressure. he just looks so helpless when a play breaks down, like it's a struggle just to throw it away. 

 

 

, 

Yes, but that's the job of the OC and coaching staff, to call plays that suit him. 

[SotanKing]

I thought this was a really good analysis...this is one area where the playcalling can be much better...expecting your QB to constantly bail you out on 3rd & long situations isn't sustainable...you have 2 top receivers and a decent QB whom you paid top dollars...why not trust them in 2nd & long situations instead of lot of inefficient runs that only make situation worse and sets up 3rd & long? It's crazy how much Vikings run on 2nd & long situations (especially when the running game hasn't been efficient for a while). I don't know whether it's due to Zimmer's obsession with run or is it more on Stefanski but man...this offense can be more efficient with better playcalling.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by upriser7

[swede700]

It may be stupid, but they still had success.  There were people who thought putting football on tv was stupid too.  

Edited January 9, 2020 by swede700

[PrplChilPill]

2 hours ago, swede700 said:

It may be stupid, but they still had success.  There were people who thought putting football on tv was stupid too.  

If I drive drunk and get home safely, I shouldn't keep doing it just because it worked.......

This is one thing people ignore when looking at Cousins and the O.......how the playcalling doesn't help much.

[perrynoid]

Perhaps a rationale for running on 2nd and long is that it makes a more manageable 3rd down distance?  Also, it would tend to blunt the pass rush if we run instead of just threw on 2nd and long, which, given our OL pass blocking skills, might not be such a bad thing?

[SotanKing]

1 hour ago, perrynoid said:

Perhaps a rationale for running on 2nd and long is that it makes a more manageable 3rd down distance?  Also, it would tend to blunt the pass rush if we run instead of just threw on 2nd and long, which, given our OL pass blocking skills, might not be such a bad thing?

But they aren't getting much yards on the 2nd down runs? Vikings run game has been struggling for a while...Cook despite a god start ended the game last weekend with 97 yards on 28 carries (lot of inefficient runs in 2nd half). The reason why it's working now is  because Vikings have been 2nd best team in league in 3rd down conversions on pass attempts (48%). Not sure if It's just not sustainable strategy over multiple games vs good teams.

You look at other teams on the graph who rush > 30% on 2nd and long situations....all those teams either had backup QB playing or really poor offensive weapons. Vikings are the only odd team out there who have really good receiving core and a decent QB but are still rushing so much on 2nd & long. I wouldn't mind rushing on 2nd & long if Vikings had a rushing offense like Ravens who average like 6-7 yards per carry.  But sadly Vikings don't have that. You need not rush just for the sake of rushing.

Edited January 9, 2020 by upriser7

[SotanKing]

For example, I loved this call from Stefanski in the Lions game earlier this season...it was a tight game, 2nd & 6...and Stefanski calls play action when pretty much most of Lions defense was expecting a run call there...it ended up with a perfect completion to Diggs and sealed the game. I was hoping he would call atleast one of these in 4th Quarter vs Saints but nope...just run run pass and lot of runs ended up with negative yardage. Just went way too conservative and it almost cost the game.

 

[vikingsrule]

26 minutes ago, upriser7 said:

For example, I loved this call from Stefanski in the Lions game earlier this season...it was a tight game, 2nd & 6...and Stefanski calls play action when pretty much most of Lions defense was expecting a run call there...it ended up with a perfect completion to Diggs and sealed the game. I was hoping he would call atleast one of these in 4th Quarter vs Saints but nope...just run run pass and lot of runs ended up with negative yardage. Just went way too conservative and it almost cost the game.

 

I ageee. Cook looked great in the first half, the run game was very efficient. And then we proceeded to pound the ball. I don’t know if it’s a mentality thing (probably is because Zimmer is old school) or they don’t trust Cousins enough to not self implode. There should have been fewer runs, if anything call some screen passes to mix it up if they prefer the ball control approach. It’s just becomes frustrating watching them squander leads by being ultra conservative.

[swede700]

It depends...the offensive line is better run-blocking than it is pass-blocking, so the risk is much higher that Kirk will take an unfortunate sack which puts them in worse position then just running the ball and getting a yard or two.  And we've seen screen passes from Kirk that end up going bad.    

 

Edited January 9, 2020 by swede700

[SemperFeist]

We have no idea what the play calling was expected to be at the end of the Saints game. When you’re RB takes a 7 yard loss, it changes what your plan. You may very well have seen a PA on 2nd down had they gained a few yards on 1st down. 

But when it’s 2nd and 17, you’re not going to catch the defense off guard. They’re set to pin their ears back at that point. 

[PrplChilPill]

1 hour ago, SemperFeist said:

We have no idea what the play calling was expected to be at the end of the Saints game. When you’re RB takes a 7 yard loss, it changes what your plan. You may very well have seen a PA on 2nd down had they gained a few yards on 1st down. 

But when it’s 2nd and 17, you’re not going to catch the defense off guard. They’re set to pin their ears back at that point. 

That chart isn't about one game..... Do we think that game is an outlier, or part of the pattern? I know what I think, and it's across multiple OCs.

[perrynoid]

Another possible explanation: a bad run still results in time off the clock.  I think the Saints had to eat up their time-outs to stop the clock, right?  Or has my brain been shrinking even faster than I thought?

[Dolmonite26]

3 hours ago, swede700 said:

the risk is much higher that Kirk will take an unfortunate sack which puts them in worse position then just running the ball and getting a yard or two.

Otherwise known as being ultra conservative