The 2018 Kirk Cousins Megathread

[milanb]

1 hour ago, disaacs said:

Agreed.  I'm not whining, but I don't believe Kirk Cousins is as good as his statistics would seem to indicate and that the $7-$8M that they could have saved by signing someone else (or probably $15M in the case of Teddy) would be a better allocation of resources because they could use it on improving depth elsewhere.  

For all the gaudy statistics, I also saw a bad tendency to turn over the ball in the worst circumstances (on his own side of the field), and as good as the Vikings' defense is, it'd be awfully difficult to overcome that continuously if he does the same thing here. It could cost them a few games if he does that.  If anything good happened to the Vikings last year it's that Case did actually take care of the ball.  Kirk will have to do the same and be careful about choosing when to take chances.  

I (mostly) agree with this.

I am not at all convinced that Kirk Cousins is a huge upgrade over the QB play that the Vikings got from Case Keenum last year.

And the cap hit means that the Vikings are going to be hard-pressed to improve at other positions.

This signing has all the feel of a step sideways, rather than forward or backward.

[SemperFeist]

1 minute ago, milanb said:

I am not at all convinced that Kirk Cousins is a huge upgrade over the QB play that the Vikings got from Case Keenum last year.

Do you think that Keenum could/will sustain that level of play? 

If all you’re asking is the QB to play at the level that Keenum did, you aren’t asking a lot from the QB. And one thing that Cousins has shown is a sustainable level of play. 

I have a lot more faith in Cousins sustaining the level of QB play that we saw in 2017, if not elevating it, than I do in Keenum. 

[CriminalMind]

Keenum, is very likely heading for a regression year ... not bad like backup QB level ... but I would not bet on top 18 QB level.

I believe Cousins will give us top 10 QB play for 3 years.

Edited March 14, 2018 by CriminalMind

[SemperFeist]

Another thing that I like about Cousins, is his ability to play/experience in adverse conditions. 

The Vikings have really had a QB (Ponder, Bridgewater, Keenum) who have been overly reliable in cold weather. Partly due to their physical limitations. 

We play two very important games each year, usually in poor conditions, in Green Bay and Chicago, plus it’s likely we’ll see some poor weather in the playoffs, as well. Having a QB that you don’t worry about in poor conditions will be nice to have. 

[vike daddy]

1 minute ago, CriminalMind said:

Keenum, is very likely heading for a regression year ... but bad like backup QB level ... but I would not bet on top 20 level.

I believe Cousins will give us top 10 QB play for 3 years.

once the season starts we could have a thread dedicated to tracking the performances of Bradford, Keenum, and Teddy.

[Duff Man]

52 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

I watched those same games but saw something completely different. I saw Keenum bring the team back not once, but twice, in the waning minutes of the playoff game against the Saints. It was a very impressive effort.

Keenum certainly could have been better but at the end of the watching both of those games I felt that the egg laying happened on the defensive side. Being a defensive team this is very problematic to me. Against the Eagles things took a turn for the worse when the Vikings had drove down the field fixing to score and the Eagles got a strip sack when the DE they got from with the pick we gave them for Bradford got to Keenum. The team would have been better off with that DE on our team instead of theirs. That is the lesson I learned abotu overpaying for a QB, the overpayment for Bradford was gross and cost us dearly.

If I was making the decisions, the Vikings would have Keenum and the money instead of Cousins. Since I am not making the decisions, I am going to be rooting hard for things to work out well with Cousins. At least I don't think as lowly of him as I did of Sam Bradford when Bradford came to the team.

Keenum had to bring it back twice against the Saints because his dumb INT late in the game.  He did have a nice drive prior to the Minneapolis miracle. 

But that eagles game he was atrocious. Even if our defense had showed up we still weren't winning it with 7 points. Thats mainly why I have reservations on Case. I don't think he is an 18m/year QB. Where were all his supporters last year who thought he was better than Cousins?  

[Eric dunn]

Im pretty happy about this move, ive warmed up to the idea. I mean im not overly excited, as i dont know if he's worth 28 million APY. But its nice to have stability at the QB position and a top 12 QB for a least 3 years. Should produce some nice numbers with this offense. 

[milanb]

3 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

Do you think that Keenum could/will sustain that level of play? 

If all you’re asking is the QB to play at the level that Keenum did, you aren’t asking a lot from the QB. And one thing that Cousins has shown is a sustainable level of play. 

I have a lot more faith in Cousins sustaining the level of QB play that we saw in 2017, if not elevating it, than I do in Keenum. 

Compared to Kirk Cousins, Case Keenum threw for fewer TDs and yards last year, but had a higher passer rating (98.3 vs 93.9) and much fewer turnovers (8 vs 18).

Yes, Cousins has put together good numbers for three straight years compared to the one big season  for Case Keenum, but I am thinking of the bigger picture: how is this team better than it was at the end of last year? They lost badly in the NFC Championship to a team that was without its star QB. Is adding Kirk Cousins going to put the Vikings over the top? I just don't see it.

[Uncle Buck]

3 hours ago, joru1000 said:

I think we should draft a QB in the middle rounds, just in case if Cousins gets injured I won't be a PO'd.

That's kind of where Sloter comes in I think.  Do you think we could get someone better than Sloter in the middle rounds?  I haven't done too much research on any QB's other than the big 5.

[vike daddy]

6 minutes ago, milanb said:

Is adding Kirk Cousins going to put the Vikings over the top? I just don't see it.

it's certainly a fair question to ask and examine. but did the Vikings have any better option at QB, with who was available?

if we retained Keenum, would he have improved his game and took us to some Lombardi infused promised land? would Bridgewater or Bradford? would any of the non-Viking free agent QB;s been a step forward? i don't think so, for  any of them.

given that, the Vikings did the best at what they were able to do. that should be commended, i feel.

 

 

further more...

given Keenum's previous body of work, did anyone truly react with a sense of after signing him we'd be in the NFC CG? he improved immensely, all would agree with that. can Cousins improve? if Keenum could, why not Cousins?

Edited March 14, 2018 by vike daddy

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, vike daddy said:

it's certainly a fair question to ask and examine. but did the Vikings have any better option at QB, with who was available?

if we retained Keenum, would he have improved his game and took us to some Lombardi infused promised land? would Bridgewater or Bradford? would any of the non-Viking free agent QB;s been a step forward? i don't think so, for  any of them.

given that, the Vikings did the best at what they were able to do. that should be commended, i feel.

 

 

further more...

given Keenum's previous body of work, did anyone truly react with a sense of after signing him we'd be in the NFC CG? he improved immensely, all would agree with that. can Cousins improve? if Keenum could, why not Cousins?

 I think all your points are well taken VD.  I think some are viewing Cousins to be such a high upgrade that doesn't take into count some of the ragged parts of his game.  There are still times when his accuracy disappears.  His bone headed decisions inevitably come at the worst possible times.  I do trust the new OC and the QB coach will be able to work at this with Cousins.  I just don't see his presence as solving the key issue of this team...getting to and winning the Super Bowl.

[Cearbhall]

6 minutes ago, vike daddy said:

given Keenum's previous body of work, did anyone truly react with a sense of after signing him we'd be in the NFC CG? he improved immensely, all would agree with that. can Cousins improve? if Keenum could, why not Cousins?

Cousins is less likely to improve dramatically because he has already had more starts. You see a lot more improvement from a QB in their first 25 starts than in any other 25 starts. Keenum is still early in his career in terms of number of starts. I expect that he has a lot more improvement in front of him than Kirk Cousins. However, we can't compare what Keenum does in Denver to what Cousins does here. Cousins is coming into a better offense than Keenum is going into. My guess is that the net change in offensive productivity will be greater in Denver than it is in Minnesota but that isn't too meaningful. Keenum just has to be better than whatever bum Denver was trotting out there last year whereas Cousins will have to be better than Keenum to improve the offense in MN. The offensive improvement in MN is likely to be incremental and owing as much to Cook as it is to Cousins.

[milanb]

5 minutes ago, vike daddy said:

it's certainly a fair question to ask and examine. but did the Vikings have any better option at QB, with who was available?

 

QB play is important but it's not everything. The Eagles won the Super Bowl with Nick Foles at QB.

The Vikings could have taken a chance on Keenum, and used the money they saved to upgrade along the OL, and maybe trade for Sheldon Richardson at DT.

 

[Uncle Buck]

49 minutes ago, milanb said:

I (mostly) agree with this.

I am not at all convinced that Kirk Cousins is a huge upgrade over the QB play that the Vikings got from Case Keenum last year.

And the cap hit means that the Vikings are going to be hard-pressed to improve at other positions.

This signing has all the feel of a step sideways, rather than forward or backward.

The way I'm looking at it, Cousins is a sideways move as you stated, but he is a sideways move to the 2017 version of Case Keenum, which was probably his absolute ceiling. 

Where they may be thinking that Cousins is worth paying him an extra $10M/year is that he is more likely to remain at 2017 Keenum level than Case Keenum is, if that makes any sense.  Had we resigned Case for $20M, we might have gotten an encore of last year's performance, BUT there is a decent chance that he could revert to his old self, which is the backup caliber player many people expected to see last year. 

The thing is, Keenum had a LOT of things go his way last year.  A lot of the ducks he threw up very well could have been intercepted, but were dropped by defenders.  As Coach Zimmer put it, Keenum "had a horseshoe up his backside" or something to that effect.    Hot streaks usually come to an end, and it wouldn't be surprising if he played the same way, made the same decisions, etc., but more of those passes started being picked off.  That could end up costing us games.  

With Cousins, the hope is that his mean is Keenum's ceiling, which is what we saw with Keenum last year.  If we can be assured to a greater extent that we will have that kind of quarterback play (and resulting success) for the next three years, we should have a decent shot at making it to the next level and winning it all.  Then he will be worth the extra money we are paying him.  To me, it won't be a disaster if we don't win a Super Bowl in the next three years, but it will be a failure if Cousins' play doesn't at least give us a shot at it.

That's my theory anyway.  

Edited March 14, 2018 by Uncle Buck

[swede700]

3 hours ago, joru1000 said:

I think we should draft a QB in the middle rounds, just in case if Cousins gets injured I won't be a PO'd.

A mid-round QB isn't going to have any chance to save a season.  If you want to save a season (and not be PO'd), then you need to bring in a veteran QB with experience.  A midround QB is going to be like a deer in headlights.