The 2018 Kirk Cousins Megathread

[RpMc]

24 minutes ago, Dolmonite26 said:

Cept not really

Good counter point...

[PrplChilPill]

11 hours ago, wcblack34 said:

Richardson, Barr, Waynes. Thielen’s impending payday. Weatherly is playing himself into a new contract sooner rather than later. Still need to improve the OL. The cracks are there. 

I also think we can all agree that Cousins isn’t in the same stratosphere as Manning and Brees. Even in Manning’s final season, he made better decisions and understood the game far better than Cousins. 

Brees can elevate those around him. Cousins needs people to elevate him. 

Until the QB payscale gets corrected, the Wilson, Wentz, Mahomes rookie contract model is going to be the way to go. Overpaying for mediocrity is NEVER a good idea. 

So, just hope a guy fell in the draft last year, and not even sign a starting QB? That seems like a bad plan. What great QB was available, or even cheap one you think can carry this team to the super bowl? 

Edited December 13, 2018 by PrplChilPill

[Vikes_Bolts1228]

1 hour ago, Heimdallr said:

Am I the only one who has not forgotten how futile it is to play without an above average QB?

you either pay your QB or hope you win the lottery and find a rookie that is elite within their first few years while also having the rest of your roster ready at the same time.

Cousins isn’t Brady, but he gives you a shot, which is better than most of the league, and better than we have had in 40+ years (outside of Favre’s one good year)

I'd take Kirk over ANY QB we've had since Favre in 2009. That includes Case and Bridgewater

If we didn't sign Kirk and went after one of the rookies in the first round in 2018....we'd be much worse off than we are right now. Then we'd be HOPING he turns into a player while our core defense is still this side of 32. If we busts, then congrats....we didn't even have a chance to put this remaining 3-4 years of this defense to use.

We've saw what Kirk can do (Packers/Rams) games so I still have faith we'll see that QB again. 

[Vikes_Bolts1228]

13 hours ago, wcblack34 said:

I also think we can all agree that Cousins isn’t in the same stratosphere as Manning and Brees. Even in Manning’s final season, he made better decisions and understood the game far better than Cousins. 

Brees can elevate those around him. Cousins needs people to elevate him. 

 

So you say that and go ahead and then compare Kirk with Brees anyway?    It's like talking about Outback Steakhouse not being in the same stratosphere as Murray's Steakhouse and then proceeding to say "Well, the steaks at Outback aren't as good as Manny's." DUH. REALLY?! One is a mid-range chain restaurant (Kirk)....the other is one of the best in the country (Manning).

Also, do you actually understand how many QBs actually fit the "elevates those around him" discussion? It's cherry-picking that you're using 2 of the top-10 quarterbacks to ever play the game to compare to Kirk. 

Brees is a record setting, 1st ballot hall of fame quarterback who will be known as one of the best to play the game.

Manning literally made better decisions and understood the game probably better than every QB in the history of the NFL. Only possibly second to Tom Brady. What are you trying to accomplish by comparing Kirk to Peyton F'n Manning? It's a lazy argument to say "Kirk's decision making/understanding of the game isn't as good as Peyton's!" Yeah, no crap. 99.9% of QBs to play the game can't measure up to Manning's decision making/understanding of the game at any point of his career.

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Vikes_Bolts1228

[wcblack34]

4 hours ago, Vikes_Bolts1228 said:

QBs with a rookie contract that can legit help a team over-come the hump to the Super Bowl are far and few between. It's not a "way to go" it's more of a thing you back/luck into. Usually after years of sucking enough to get a top pick to select one of those QBs (Goff-1st, Wentz-2nd, Mahomes-10th)

It's easy to look at Wentz/Wilson/Mahomes/Goff and say "Yep, that's how you do it" but we all know the history of drafting QBs in the NFL.

 

 

 

 

 

Which is why you draft one in the first two rounds every other year. You always have your replacement ready on a cheap rookie deal, and if one doesn't pan out, you've got the next one ready to go. It's easy to say that "well if you draft a QB every 2 years, you're neglecting another spot," but the money you save allows you to keep homegrown talent and splurge on FA's that won't take 15% of your cap space. It isn't easy to hit on a QB, but we've swung and missed on Cousins, and it's going to cost us the ability to put the team around him he needs (and even then, I don't believe he will ever be a "clutch" guy). 

[wcblack34]

1 hour ago, PrplChilPill said:

So, just hope a guy fell in the draft last year, and not even sign a starting QB? That seems like a bad plan. What great QB was available, or even cheap one you think can carry this team to the super bowl? 

Teddy was available as a potential future starter, and/or stop-gap. Wouldn't have cost $28 million. 

Even sticking with Keenum at $18 for a year or two was a better option. 

[wcblack34]

48 minutes ago, Vikes_Bolts1228 said:

So you say that and go ahead and then compare Kirk with Brees anyway?    It's like talking about Outback Steakhouse not being in the same stratosphere as Murray's Steakhouse and then proceeding to say "Well, the steaks at Outback aren't as good as Manny's." DUH. REALLY?! One is a mid-range chain restaurant (Kirk)....the other is one of the best in the country (Manning).

Also, do you actually understand how many QBs actually fit the "elevates those around him" discussion? It's cherry-picking that you're using 2 of the top-10 quarterbacks to ever play the game to compare to Kirk. 

Brees is a record setting, 1st ballot hall of fame quarterback who will be known as one of the best to play the game.

Manning literally made better decisions and understood the game probably better than every QB in the history of the NFL. Only possibly second to Tom Brady. What are you trying to accomplish by comparing Kirk to Peyton F'n Manning? It's a lazy argument to say "Kirk's decision making/understanding of the game isn't as good as Peyton's!" Yeah, no crap. 99.9% of QBs to play the game can't measure up to Manning's decision making/understanding of the game at any point of his career.

 

 

 

It's an absolutely valid comparison when talking about QB's who took up that much of their team's salary cap space, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE EXAMPLES.

And if you're going to expend that much of your cap space on a QB, he damn well better elevate those around him. 

Is the username "BlairWalsh" available, because I think some folks are missing the points.

Edited December 13, 2018 by wcblack34

[Vikes_Bolts1228]

1 hour ago, wcblack34 said:

It's an absolutely valid comparison when talking about QB's who took up that much of their team's salary cap space, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE EXAMPLES.

And if you're going to expend that much of your cap space on a QB, he damn well better elevate those around him. 

Is the username "BlairWalsh" available, because I think some folks are missing the points.

 

No, it's not a valid comparison.

Why aren't you naming Joe Flacco (13.71%....benched)? Or Matt Stafford (14.61%.....dreadful offense)? Or Derek Carr (13.53%....dreadful offense)? All of those players take up more cap % than Kirk's 12.57% and Kirk is playing better than all three of them season wide. You could even throw in Ben Roethlisberger (12.8%) who's statically right around Kirk and only has 1 more win on the season despite a vastly better offensive line (#1 per PFF) compared to the Vikings #30 offensive line.

Like I said, you're cherry picking to make your point seem better by using legendary hall of fame players rather than players who take up more of their teams cap % than Kirk but are performing worse and that's just this season. If it wasn't 2:25, I bet you would go back every year and find QB's who take up more than Kirk's 12.57% but haven't come close to "elevating the players around them."

We used 13.86% of our cap this year on Kirk/Simian/Sloter. We used 13.27% on QB's last season on Case/Sam/Teddy. Wow....such a huge, crippling increase! 

Kirk's contract isn't keeping the team from improving. We literally were able to lock up MULTIPLE key pieces (Hunter, Diggs, Kendricks) and add a defensive tackle (Richardson) in spite of Kirk's contract. Are you going to blame the contract on years of ignoring the offensive line until recently? We're probably going to lose Barr but that's about it. Is he really worth saying "Man, we're so screwed without Barr. It's all Kirk's fault!"  And it sounds like we're going to be able to pick up Wayne's 5th year and still have room to bring Richardson back. There's also players who are primed for restructure/cap casualties that will buy us more room (Rudolph, Griffen)

This argument is as stupid as "Joe Mauer's contract killed the Twins!" and acting like the Vikings are making some HUGE, never before seen mistake.

I get that Kirk's contract is looking like a mistake but are you ready to call it a complete failure less than 1/3 (27% to be exact) of the way through the deal? What if Kirk in a new offense and a (hopefully) better offensive line goes 11-5....12-4 next year? Is Kirk's contract still going to be a failure? 

Also, we have the best cap guy in the business. He's not going to let this one contract cripple the team. 

Is the username "SkipBayless" available because you sure are obsessed with running the guy down....

Edited December 13, 2018 by Vikes_Bolts1228

[vikesfan89]

6 hours ago, wcblack34 said:

Which is why you draft one in the first two rounds every other year. You always have your replacement ready on a cheap rookie deal, and if one doesn't pan out, you've got the next one ready to go. It's easy to say that "well if you draft a QB every 2 years, you're neglecting another spot," but the money you save allows you to keep homegrown talent and splurge on FA's that won't take 15% of your cap space. It isn't easy to hit on a QB, but we've swung and missed on Cousins, and it's going to cost us the ability to put the team around him he needs (and even then, I don't believe he will ever be a "clutch" guy). 

Has a team ever done that?

[vikesfan89]

Maybe the best option would have been too sign Teddy and draft Jackson but that would have been seen as punting on the season

And Jackson had and still had a lot of question marks

[swede700]

9 hours ago, Heimdallr said:

Am I the only one who has not forgotten how futile it is to play without an above average QB?

you either pay your QB or hope you win the lottery and find a rookie that is elite within their first few years while also having the rest of your roster ready at the same time.

Cousins isn’t Brady, but he gives you a shot, which is better than most of the league, and better than we have had in 40+ years (outside of Favre’s one good year)

Nick Foles won the Super Bowl last season. 

[Cearbhall]

27 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

Has a team ever done that?

Patriots have drafted 15 QBs since 1990. That is one every couple years even while they had Bledsoe and then Brady holding the starting job. It is unclear how many undrafted rookies have made their roster in that time. I am a believer in bringing in a rookie QB every year. Around half of those coming from the draft feels about right.

[swede700]

6 minutes ago, Cearbhall said:

Patriots have drafted 15 QBs since 1990. That is one every couple years even while they had Bledsoe and then Brady holding the starting job. It is unclear how many undrafted rookies have made their roster in that time. I am a believer in bringing in a rookie QB every year. Around half of those coming from the draft feels about right.

The Vikings have drafted 10 QBs since 1990.  You could have had a justified argument about that 20 years ago, but they've drafted 6 in the last 12 years...which, if my math is correct, about 1 every 2 years.  The problem is that they were searching for a starter, not just searching for a backup to develop behind an entrenched starter.  The latter is much easier to do than the former.

Edited December 13, 2018 by swede700

[since72]

2 minutes ago, swede700 said:

The Vikings have drafted 10 QBs since 1990.  You could have had a justified argument about that 20 years ago, but they've drafted 6 in the last 12 years...which, if my math is correct, about 1 every 2 years.  The problem is that they were searching for a starter, not just searching for a backup to develop.

Exactly.  The Vikings didn't have the luxury of drafting a "possible replacement" for Tom Brady.  They needed a starter.  Not someone to groom.  Now that they have a starter, they can draft someone to groom for when Cousins's deal runs out or look for another starting QB free agent.  Obviously, going with drafted QB's is much, much cheaper.  But also much, much riskier.  Wouldn't want the franchise on the shoulders of Brett Hundley.

[vikingsrule]

55 minutes ago, vikesfan89 said:

Maybe the best option would have been too sign Teddy and draft Jackson but that would have been seen as punting on the season

And Jackson had and still had a lot of question marks

I don't get the Jackson love.