Kyle Rudolph unfollows Vikings after Irv Smith Jr. drafted

[VikingsVictorious]

There are no guarantees with the draft I know that. But when was the last time we were in position to draft the top rated QB? Some how Jimmy got himself in position to draft Aikman. Maybe it wasn't a tanked season. But I thought it was. And to your point he also drafted Walsh in the sup draft and he blew. 50% is probably correct. But we will pick 18-28 next year with no chance for a QB. Very little chance should I say.

Wow. Let's see. The Cowboys went 3-13 the year before Johnson became their coach, that was Landry's last year as coach of the Cowboys. Therefore they had the number one pick since the next worse teams won 4 games. Jimmy Johnson had nothing to do with the Cowboys getting the number 1 pick. So, if you think Jimmy Johnson positioned the Cowboys to the number 1 pick when he was the head coach of the Miami Hurricanes, please explain it to us. Because I really want to know how he did that.

Going 3-13 doesn't indicate tanking. It indicates having a bad team. Tanking only occurs when a team takes steps to ensure that they lose more games than they should. For example if the Vikings didn't trade for Bradford they would have had a very poor season, because they didn't try not to. Then we would have got Mahomes and been set for life.

[YikesVikes]

You have proof that we wanted them back? And it wasnt because Murray didnt want to play second fiddle to Cook and Richardson wanted more than another 1 year deal?

I know Murray said this:



It's easy to sit here (similar to what you did with Mahomes and Jackson) and pick the 2 best players we lost in FA. But do you KNOW we really wanted them back?? Or did we want to move on? Or did a player want to move on? You're making assumptions on things you dont know.....again, just to help your Kirk Cousins argument

Murray wanted to start so bad he went to a team with a healthier, better starting RB.

I KNOW you really liked them both. Conveniently we didn't want either back now. I am sure the same will be true with who ever we lose next year too. "We didn't want those guys anyway"

LMAO. We are able to spin everything on this board.

[YikesVikes]

Richardson and Murray

The great Richardson. 4.5 sacks and couldn't hold the point. You act like it's John Randle. He's not that good. The Browns brain trust signed him. If he was so good we would have resigned him. He's not worth the coin he wanted. A one year gap fill.

The ole... "if he was good, we would have resigned him" LMAO

[YikesVikes]

No. You don't know that the Vikings even wanted to keep them. So move on.

For years people complained about the Vikings not doing anything to address the QB situation. So they draft Ponder. And people complained. Then Teddy, and people complained. Then they traded for Bradford and people complained. Now Cousins, and people continue to complain. I'm pretty sure that had we not signed Cousins, and kept Keenum and the Vikes went 8-7-1 last year, people would be complaining about not getting Cousins. Seriously, it's annoying.

It is almost like we haven't had a franchise QB since Fran and people want that to change.

I actually frequent boards of some of the teams that were in the running for Cousins, and none of them complain about not getting him. It is pretty much a consensus outside of MN the signing has not worked out so far.

Its been one season though. No signings last year for a team not named NWE worked out either.

[J. Kapp 11]

I'd be a lot more surprised if you claimed that folks outside of Minnesota thought signing Cousins had worked out so far.

Because the only way a move like Spielman made to bring Cousins in is ever going to be considered astute is if the Vikings not only make the playoffs, but get farther in them than they managed with Keenum at the helm, regardless of what Cousins manages to do as an individual player.

Also, is it possible that last year's Vikings was like the 1972 Vikings who were coming off a great year, were loaded with talent, traded to bring back Fran Tarkenton at QB, and somehow ended up laying enough eggs during the season that they fell way short of expectations?

That the 1972 result wasn't indicative of the overall potential of the Vikings, nor Fran Tarkenton's abilities of that era should serve as a cautionary tale about predicting the future based on a singularly disappointing result, both for a team and for an individual player, especially at QB.

It's very reasonable to believe that this upcoming season the Vikings and Cousins are more likely to return to contention than to remain average or regress further IMHO.

Keenum had nothing to do with the unforeseen season the Vikings had. Yes they made the NFC Champ game thanks to a miracle home playoff win. Our D had some very good games even held the Rams in check. We held the Bears down. We shut out the Pack. Last year our D wasn't as good.

OK, seriously? Case Keenum had NOTHING to do with the season the Vikings had?

Wow. I must have been in an alternate universe for 6 months. Because what I saw was that Case Keenum, for all his warts and horseshoes and the like, saved our season in 2017.

[StumpHunter]

It is almost like we haven't had a franchise QB since Fran and people want that to change.

I actually frequent boards of some of the teams that were in the running for Cousins, and none of them complain about not getting him. It is pretty much a consensus outside of MN the signing has not worked out so far.

Its been one season though. No signings last year for a team not named NWE worked out either.

Come on man. There is a difference between signing a CB and not winning the SB and signing a QB and losing 4 more games.
It obviously wasn't all on Kirk, and I have never actually read anyone make that claim, despite what some would like to believe. He does hold some responsibility for the season though, and some responsibility for a failed season makes his signing bad SO FAR.

[CharVike]

Keenum had nothing to do with the unforeseen season the Vikings had. Yes they made the NFC Champ game thanks to a miracle home playoff win. Our D had some very good games even held the Rams in check. We held the Bears down. We shut out the Pack. Last year our D wasn't as good.

OK, seriously? Case Keenum had NOTHING to do with the season the Vikings had?

Wow. I must have been in an alternate universe for 6 months. Because what I saw was that Case Keenum, for all his warts and horseshoes and the like, saved our season in 2017.

The team played very well. When we played the Steelers we needed a big game from Keenum and he couldn't do it. He won't do anything for the Skins. As I pointed out we shut out the Pack. Keenum had nothing to do with that win. Our D had a very good season. They cracked against the Saints and fell apart against the Eagles. Keenum had to pull the game out and he couldn't.

[CharVike]

The great Richardson. 4.5 sacks and couldn't hold the point. You act like it's John Randle. He's not that good. The Browns brain trust signed him. If he was so good we would have resigned him. He's not worth the coin he wanted. A one year gap fill.

The ole... "if he was good, we would have resigned him" LMAO

OK he was one of the best. A beast in the middle. A ton of sacks and you couldn't move him. But we couldn't sign him. Is that better. LMAO Look it up. He wasn't as great as you think. Couldn't hold the point and was blown up. We signed our good players. From Diggs to Barr and so on. Next it will be how great the stiff Sendjo was. He was garbage. Showed a couple flashes thanks to Zim. But overall he blew.

[VikingsVictorious]

Keenum had nothing to do with the unforeseen season the Vikings had. Yes they made the NFC Champ game thanks to a miracle home playoff win. Our D had some very good games even held the Rams in check. We held the Bears down. We shut out the Pack. Last year our D wasn't as good.

OK, seriously? Case Keenum had NOTHING to do with the season the Vikings had?

Wow. I must have been in an alternate universe for 6 months. Because what I saw was that Case Keenum, for all his warts and horseshoes and the like, saved our season in 2017.

Keenum's ability to avoid the rush and make plays was about as good as anybody. He was a big part of the success. Diggs and Thielen's abilities to catch errant throws helped Keenum a lot.

[YikesVikes]

Its been one season though. No signings last year for a team not named NWE worked out either.

Come on man. There is a difference between signing a CB and not winning the SB and signing a QB and losing 4 more games.
It obviously wasn't all on Kirk, and I have never actually read anyone make that claim, despite what some would like to believe. He does hold some responsibility for the season though, and some responsibility for a failed season makes his signing bad SO FAR.

That's a pretty ignorant stance for a couple of reasons.
1. Every year we play different teams. Sometimes the divisions workout and we have an easier schedule. Sometimes it is hard. Lets not even get into the differences of home games vs. away games at different points in the season. The bottom line is that each season is different and to blame a player that just joined a team for losing more games than the year before is very shortsighted.

2. He is signed for 3 years. Calling a signing bad after 1 season is stupid. Adding so far doesn't change this.

3. As I pointed out. All resignings and signings were bad signings by using this mantra.

[StumpHunter]

Come on man. There is a difference between signing a CB and not winning the SB and signing a QB and losing 4 more games.
It obviously wasn't all on Kirk, and I have never actually read anyone make that claim, despite what some would like to believe. He does hold some responsibility for the season though, and some responsibility for a failed season makes his signing bad SO FAR.

That's a pretty ignorant stance for a couple of reasons.
1. Every year we play different teams. Sometimes the divisions workout and we have an easier schedule. Sometimes it is hard. Lets not even get into the differences of home games vs. away games at different points in the season. The bottom line is that each season is different and to blame a player that just joined a team for losing more games than the year before is very shortsighted.

2. He is signed for 3 years. Calling a signing bad after 1 season is stupid. Adding so far doesn't change this.

3. As I pointed out. All resignings and signings were bad signings by using this mantra.

Generally when you argue a stance is ignorant, you should provide evidence that a stance is ignorant.

1. Correct, the extra 4 losses weren't all on Cousins. Which is what I said. He does hold some responsibility though, and he was brought in to make the team better and win, not worse and lose more games. Unless you are arguing he made the team better? I would love to see that attempted.

2. Teams judge NFL contracts all the time after just 1 season and cut people accordingly. My point is that based on what actually happened, the contract has been a bad one, but that could change if we compete for a SB this year. Not sure why that take is ignorant, but I suppose if you ignore what a poster actually writes you can make anything seem ignorant. "Adding so far doesn't change this." And I am the troll...

3. DE's are brought in to create a pass rush, RBs are brought in to make the run game better, QBs are brought in to win football games. Rick Spielman himself has said the same thing. Am I ignorant to agree with Rick on why he brought in Cousins? Fascinating.

[CharVike]

That's a pretty ignorant stance for a couple of reasons.
1. Every year we play different teams. Sometimes the divisions workout and we have an easier schedule. Sometimes it is hard. Lets not even get into the differences of home games vs. away games at different points in the season. The bottom line is that each season is different and to blame a player that just joined a team for losing more games than the year before is very shortsighted.

2. He is signed for 3 years. Calling a signing bad after 1 season is stupid. Adding so far doesn't change this.

3. As I pointed out. All resignings and signings were bad signings by using this mantra.

Generally when you argue a stance is ignorant, you should provide evidence that a stance is ignorant.

1. Correct, the extra 4 losses weren't all on Cousins. Which is what I said. He does hold some responsibility though, and he was brought in to make the team better and win, not worse and lose more games. Unless you are arguing he made the team better? I would love to see that attempted.

2. Teams judge NFL contracts all the time after just 1 season and cut people accordingly. My point is that based on what actually happened, the contract has been a bad one, but that could change if we compete for a SB this year. Not sure why that take is ignorant, but I suppose if you ignore what a poster actually writes you can make anything seem ignorant. "Adding so far doesn't change this." And I am the troll...

3. DE's are brought in to create a pass rush, RBs are brought in to make the run game better, QBs are brought in to win football games. Rick Spielman himself has said the same thing. Am I ignorant to agree with Rick on why he brought in Cousins? Fascinating.

What do you mean "compete for the Super Bowl". Do you need to win the division and get home field advantage? Making the playoffs? Making the champ game and not even showing up to play. I thought we competed last year. We were there to make the playoffs the last game, if that's considered competing, and we couldn't beat the Bears. They ran the ball down our throats. Howard made it look easy and he blows. First two carries 49 yards. That's half the field. Were was the great Richardson? Stuff the stiff especially at home.Then Howard 6 yard rush for TD on 1st and goal. Here is an opinion from a writer.
After Minnesota climbed back into the game to make it 13-10 with 1:51 remaining in the third quarter, Chicago mounted a 16-play drive that lasted 9:05 and ended with a 3-yard touchdown run by Tarik Cohen and a 2-point conversion pass from Mitchell Trubisky to linebacker Nick Kwiatkoski. How did our D allow that team to burn 9 something off the clock and let some bum score. That's a great D getting owned. Step up. The playoffs are on the line. Cousins didn't play well either and it was many 3 and outs. The Bears can play D also. But our D never showed up including Richardson the great one. But the bottom line to your point is did we compete for the Super Bowl that game or were we out of it before that game. I think we competed all year and still had a chance the last game. Many things broke down including Griff and Rhodes which didn't happen in 2017.

[StumpHunter]

Generally when you argue a stance is ignorant, you should provide evidence that a stance is ignorant.

1. Correct, the extra 4 losses weren't all on Cousins. Which is what I said. He does hold some responsibility though, and he was brought in to make the team better and win, not worse and lose more games. Unless you are arguing he made the team better? I would love to see that attempted.

2. Teams judge NFL contracts all the time after just 1 season and cut people accordingly. My point is that based on what actually happened, the contract has been a bad one, but that could change if we compete for a SB this year. Not sure why that take is ignorant, but I suppose if you ignore what a poster actually writes you can make anything seem ignorant. "Adding so far doesn't change this." And I am the troll...

3. DE's are brought in to create a pass rush, RBs are brought in to make the run game better, QBs are brought in to win football games. Rick Spielman himself has said the same thing. Am I ignorant to agree with Rick on why he brought in Cousins? Fascinating.

What do you mean "compete for the Super Bowl". Do you need to win the division and get home field advantage? Making the playoffs? Making the champ game and not even showing up to play. I thought we competed last year. We were there to make the playoffs the last game, if that's considered competing, and we couldn't beat the Bears. They ran the ball down our throats. Howard made it look easy and he blows. First two carries 49 yards. That's half the field. Were was the great Richardson? Stuff the stiff especially at home.Then Howard 6 yard rush for TD on 1st and goal. Here is an opinion from a writer.
After Minnesota climbed back into the game to make it 13-10 with 1:51 remaining in the third quarter, Chicago mounted a 16-play drive that lasted 9:05 and ended with a 3-yard touchdown run by Tarik Cohen and a 2-point conversion pass from Mitchell Trubisky to linebacker Nick Kwiatkoski. How did our D allow that team to burn 9 something off the clock and let some bum score. That's a great D getting owned. Step up. The playoffs are on the line. Cousins didn't play well either and it was many 3 and outs. The Bears can play D also. But our D never showed up including Richardson the great one. But the bottom line to your point is did we compete for the Super Bowl that game or were we out of it before that game. I think we competed all year and still had a chance the last game. Many things broke down including Griff and Rhodes which didn't happen in 2017.

So the D held the Bears to 13 points through 3 quarters, and eventually wore down because the offense kept going 3 and out and we lose 24 to 10 to a team with nothing to play for. Sure sounds like we competed for a Super Bowl.

[CharVike]

What do you mean "compete for the Super Bowl". Do you need to win the division and get home field advantage? Making the playoffs? Making the champ game and not even showing up to play. I thought we competed last year. We were there to make the playoffs the last game, if that's considered competing, and we couldn't beat the Bears. They ran the ball down our throats. Howard made it look easy and he blows. First two carries 49 yards. That's half the field. Were was the great Richardson? Stuff the stiff especially at home.Then Howard 6 yard rush for TD on 1st and goal. Here is an opinion from a writer.
After Minnesota climbed back into the game to make it 13-10 with 1:51 remaining in the third quarter, Chicago mounted a 16-play drive that lasted 9:05 and ended with a 3-yard touchdown run by Tarik Cohen and a 2-point conversion pass from Mitchell Trubisky to linebacker Nick Kwiatkoski. How did our D allow that team to burn 9 something off the clock and let some bum score. That's a great D getting owned. Step up. The playoffs are on the line. Cousins didn't play well either and it was many 3 and outs. The Bears can play D also. But our D never showed up including Richardson the great one. But the bottom line to your point is did we compete for the Super Bowl that game or were we out of it before that game. I think we competed all year and still had a chance the last game. Many things broke down including Griff and Rhodes which didn't happen in 2017.

So the D held the Bears to 13 points through 3 quarters, and eventually wore down because the offense kept going 3 and out and we lose 24 to 10 to a team with nothing to play for. Sure sounds like we competed for a Super Bowl.

The game is 4 quarters. The Bears were too much for us. Their D is better than ours. They create TOs we don't. That's what you are not seeing. They won't let us pound the rock on them this year. A D can't wear down at home when everything is on the line. Suck it up. Create some TOs. As I stated first two Bear carries and 48 yards. The D was wore out from the start. Again what do you mean "compete for the Super Bowl". Only two teams make the championship game are they the only two competing?

[StumpHunter]

So the D held the Bears to 13 points through 3 quarters, and eventually wore down because the offense kept going 3 and out and we lose 24 to 10 to a team with nothing to play for. Sure sounds like we competed for a Super Bowl.

The game is 4 quarters. The Bears were too much for us. Their D is better than ours. They create TOs we don't. That's what you are not seeing. They won't let us pound the rock on them this year. A D can't wear down at home when everything is on the line. Suck it up. Create some TOs. As I stated first two Bear carries and 48 yards. The D was wore out from the start. Again what do you mean "compete for the Super Bowl". Only two teams make the championship game are they the only two competing?

Their D is better than ours, and still struggled against great teams at times, and even bad teams at times. It happens to even the best defenses, and when it does, it is nice to have an offense that can score more than 10 points.

Competing would be to make the playoffs, and lose in a close one to the eventual SB champs. Or lose in the playoffs because of a missed FG or bad call after a great regular season where the Vikings were one of the best teams in the NFL.

Not getting blown out in week 17 against a team with nothing to play for.