Optimist, pessimist, or somewhere in-between?

[Cliff]

I probably need to change my answer to pessimist.

Even after that great win. The team played great on opening day which should inspire all the optimism in the world, right? Instead I find myself thinking "Well, it looks like Atlanta is going to finish sub .500 ... "

If I'm still finding a way to be any kind of gloomy after a win like that I've got be pessimistic on the team.

Well I, for one, appreciate your honesty.

But the truth is you're not that far off. Even though we looked really great yesterday, we weren't as good as we could have been. As the game wore on, we became more and more conservative. I'm not talking about the run/pass ratio, but in the types of runs we were doing. In the first half, there was a great mix of up the gut, outside zone and misdirection. Once we were up 28, everything was between the guards. That's a little too conservative for me. If the idea is to shorten the game, the best way to do that is to sustain drives. You can't do that running up the gut play after play.

For what it's worth, Atlanta is probably not a sub-.500 team. They may not be in the championship hunt, and they may even miss the playoffs. But they've got a good roster. I'd be shocked if they don't finish with a winning record.

Here's my question. Does Kirk Cousins get credit for beating a team with a winning record if Atlanta finishes, say, 9-7 or 10-6?

I'll say this whether the team ends up being good or not - I had fun watching them on Sunday.

It absolutely counts. A winning record is a winning record. Any NFL team that goes 9-7 my not be super bowl bound but they're not slouches.

[StumpHunter]

Well I, for one, appreciate your honesty.

But the truth is you're not that far off. Even though we looked really great yesterday, we weren't as good as we could have been. As the game wore on, we became more and more conservative. I'm not talking about the run/pass ratio, but in the types of runs we were doing. In the first half, there was a great mix of up the gut, outside zone and misdirection. Once we were up 28, everything was between the guards. That's a little too conservative for me. If the idea is to shorten the game, the best way to do that is to sustain drives. You can't do that running up the gut play after play.

For what it's worth, Atlanta is probably not a sub-.500 team. They may not be in the championship hunt, and they may even miss the playoffs. But they've got a good roster. I'd be shocked if they don't finish with a winning record.

Here's my question. Does Kirk Cousins get credit for beating a team with a winning record if Atlanta finishes, say, 9-7 or 10-6?

I'll say this whether the team ends up being good or not - I had fun watching them on Sunday.

It absolutely counts. A winning record is a winning record. Any NFL team that goes 9-7 my not be super bowl bound but they're not slouches.

The odds are 5 in 30 Atlanta isn't a winning team though.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Here's my question. Does Kirk Cousins get credit for beating a team with a winning record if Atlanta finishes, say, 9-7 or 10-6?

lol I thought about this the other day too. I mean did Philly count as beating a winning team last year? They did finish 9-7 I believe.

[CharVike]

Well I, for one, appreciate your honesty.

But the truth is you're not that far off. Even though we looked really great yesterday, we weren't as good as we could have been. As the game wore on, we became more and more conservative. I'm not talking about the run/pass ratio, but in the types of runs we were doing. In the first half, there was a great mix of up the gut, outside zone and misdirection. Once we were up 28, everything was between the guards. That's a little too conservative for me. If the idea is to shorten the game, the best way to do that is to sustain drives. You can't do that running up the gut play after play.

For what it's worth, Atlanta is probably not a sub-.500 team. They may not be in the championship hunt, and they may even miss the playoffs. But they've got a good roster. I'd be shocked if they don't finish with a winning record.

Here's my question. Does Kirk Cousins get credit for beating a team with a winning record if Atlanta finishes, say, 9-7 or 10-6?

I'll say this whether the team ends up being good or not - I had fun watching them on Sunday.

It absolutely counts. A winning record is a winning record. Any NFL team that goes 9-7 my not be super bowl bound but they're not slouches.

I don't give the wins or loses to the QB.If the team does nothing around him a QB won't win. I don't care who the QB is. Rothesberger just lost big time to a team with a winning record. He couldn't do anything. Looked like a scrub. So he has a lose against a team with a wining record. If he faced them for 16 games he might win 3. Does that make him a bum? His D sucks. Shut Brady out and Ben gets the win. Right? Big Ben gets to against R Wilson next. And R Wilson is a guy that carried a bum Seahawk team to the SB championship. The LOB had nothing to do with it in most peoples minds. It was all Wilson and nothing else. When in fact it was the LOB and nothing else. Wilson should spank this team. They are a losing team with a bum at QB. Don't get much easier than that. Now Ben will be 0-2. All his fault. Most felt the Skins blew because Cousins sucked. They have the great Keenum now who lead a srub team to the SB almost. Also had one of the greatest performances ever in a champ game. But they still lost. They won't make the playoffs and part of the reason is Keenum blows regardless of what the Viking faithful think. Cousins blows to. If our D gets blown up we won't win. I seen that played out already last year. Next time we play the Rams and our D or whatever gives up 30+ points people think Cousins should win that easily while on the road. Guess what? He won't win that and no other QB will either including the great Keenum or the great Ben. Neither will Brady. And I seen Brady loose twice to a Giant bteam that got after his but. He wanted out.

[mansquatch]

Football is the ultimate team sport...

There wasn't much to nitpick from Sunday's game. Elflein blew I think two or three protections. The DL having 4 offsides wasn't great either. .

Our ST executed great on the blocked punt and Harris's first pick both put ATL on it's heels. The O did it's job and took those short fields and punished the Falcons with TDs. ATL never recovered from this opening salvo.

Defense and ST can and do drive wins. The O needs to do it's part also, ultimate team sport.

I would keep in mind that the first 4 to 6 games of the NFL are like an extension of the preseason. You really do not know who is for real and who is a poser until November. My biggest take away is the running game and defense both looked legit in that game. The ST also seemed at the very least not bad. (Punt coverage was great!)

The Vikings looked like a very well balanced team. Let's hope they do not do anything to stop looking that way.

[CharVike]

Football is the ultimate team sport...

There wasn't much to nitpick from Sunday's game. Elflein blew I think two or three protections. The DL having 4 offsides wasn't great either. .

Our ST executed great on the blocked punt and Harris's first pick both put ATL on it's heels. The O did it's job and took those short fields and punished the Falcons with TDs. ATL never recovered from this opening salvo.

Defense and ST can and do drive wins. The O needs to do it's part also, ultimate team sport.

I would keep in mind that the first 4 to 6 games of the NFL are like an extension of the preseason. You really do not know who is for real and who is a poser until November. My biggest take away is the running game and defense both looked legit in that game. The ST also seemed at the very least not bad. (Punt coverage was great!)

The Vikings looked like a very well balanced team. Let's hope they do not do anything to stop looking that way.

That's true but if you have zero at QB you don't have a chance unless you build a D that gets ranked among the best off all time. A D that makes the early 70s purple people look like a sive. The purple people eaters couldn't win until Fran came along. And even a HOF QB couldn't carry them to a SB victory. Dilfier won a SB because he played on a team with a D that took the game over. Those Ds come along every 100 years or so. They did the scoring also. Hate to be negative but Elf needs to hit the pine or somebody will get hurt badly. You can't have a guy like that out there. With him in there don't attempt many passes maybe 12 at the max. Even that might be too high. I've watch a long time and he is as bad as it gets. Don't see how he made the team let alone start. Speilman needs to hit the phone and give up a high pick for an average bum G. You need a functioning body out there. Thats why I like the monsters. At least they won't get pushed around. They can't move but who cares. People need to go around them. That takes time.

[mansquatch]

Did you watch the snaps I'm referring to? There is a reason I said he "blew protections" as opposed to saying he "got beat." In the cases I'm referring to he didn't get beat, he blocked the wrong guy and let the guy he was supposed to block have a clear run at the QB. That is an execution issue, not a physical issue, ergo something that can be corrected.

So Kirk Cousins is a fat zero at QB? Really? Did you watch the Beras during the Thursday game? That is what zero at QB looks like. Are you really going to say you think that is the level at which Cousins plays the game?

And 100 years, not so much. Just a few examples in recent history: 2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs, 2013 Seahawks, and 2015 Broncos were all strong defensive teams and were winners. You could probably add the 2001 Patriots in there as well.

It might be educational to consider the past three NFC SB representatives: ATL, PHI, and LAR. In all cases you have a team with a non-elite QB. None of them possessed a great defense either. The LAR were probably the best, but even that D wasn't other worldly. In the case of the PHI you have Nick Foles starting. For the Rams you have Goff. Goff while OK isn't an elite passer. If anything he is more of a system guy. Ryan isn't elite, but he is easily top 10 and easily the best of this bunch. All three of these teams have one thing in common though: They had an elite playcaller. Sean McVay, Doug Pedersen, and for the Falcons, Kyle Shanahan. This was the difference maker.

IMO, if you really want to ponder how well the Vikings offense will perform, then the question is if Stefanski/Kubiak can do a good enough job to make the offense a winner. Kubiak's resume certainly gives me reason to have some confidence, but time will tell.

Also, I just found this out, Rick Dennison, our current OL Coach, was the OC of the 2015 Broncos during their SB run. So in addition to having Kubiak, we also have a former SB winning OC in the room. (How has that not made much news?) This staff has considerable chops.

[CharVike]

Did you watch the snaps I'm referring to? There is a reason I said he "blew protections" as opposed to saying he "got beat." In the cases I'm referring to he didn't get beat, he blocked the wrong guy and let the guy he was supposed to block have a clear run at the QB. That is an execution issue, not a physical issue, ergo something that can be corrected.

So Kirk Cousins is a fat zero at QB? Really? Did you watch the Beras during the Thursday game? That is what zero at QB looks like. Are you really going to say you think that is the level at which Cousins plays the game?

And 100 years, not so much. Just a few examples in recent history: 2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs, 2013 Seahawks, and 2015 Broncos were all strong defensive teams and were winners. You could probably add the 2001 Patriots in there as well.

It might be educational to consider the past three NFC SB representatives: ATL, PHI, and LAR. In all cases you have a team with a non-elite QB. None of them possessed a great defense either. The LAR were probably the best, but even that D wasn't other worldly. In the case of the PHI you have Nick Foles starting. For the Rams you have Goff. Goff while OK isn't an elite passer. If anything he is more of a system guy. Ryan isn't elite, but he is easily top 10 and easily the best of this bunch. All three of these teams have one thing in common though: They had an elite playcaller. Sean McVay, Doug Pedersen, and for the Falcons, Kyle Shanahan. This was the difference maker.

IMO, if you really want to ponder how well the Vikings offense will perform, then the question is if Stefanski/Kubiak can do a good enough job to make the offense a winner. Kubiak's resume certainly gives me reason to have some confidence, but time will tell.

Also, I just found this out, Rick Dennison, our current OL Coach, was the OC of the 2015 Broncos during their SB run. So in addition to having Kubiak, we also have a former SB winning OC in the room. (How has that not made much news?) This staff has considerable chops.

I never said Cousins is zero. I said many times he is the best we have had since Fran. I still stand by that. I said you can win with zero at QB if you have an elite D. Many feel R Wilson is elite. No he's not. He won a SB with the LOB. The LOB won it. Then he lost a SB with the int to Butler. But the LOB got them there. IMO Elf will get somebody hurt. He is a liability. If it's physical or mental he's a liability. I think Goff was a high draft pick. That isn't everything but he has top level skills or he would have slipped to a lower round. Or maybe he is a Ponder level skills.

[Cliff]

Here's my question. Does Kirk Cousins get credit for beating a team with a winning record if Atlanta finishes, say, 9-7 or 10-6?

lol I thought about this the other day too. I mean did Philly count as beating a winning team last year? They did finish 9-7 I believe.

Yes, that is factored into his terrible record against winning teams. Anything above .500 is a "winning" team in that stat.

[Cliff]

For what it's worth even as a now self-realized team pessimist, Kirk had a good game. His limited role isn't his fault and shouldn't be counted against him at all.

My problem is that he has generally good-to-great games against bad-to-average teams. Which leads me back to my previous "Well, Atlanta must be a below average team this year" line of thinking.

He'll change my mind week by week, hopefully. It'll also speak well if Atlanta actually turns out to be a good (or "winning") team.

[CharVike]

For what it's worth even as a now self-realized team pessimist, Kirk had a good game. His limited role isn't his fault and shouldn't be counted against him at all.

My problem is that he has generally good-to-great games against bad-to-average teams. Which leads me back to my previous "Well, Atlanta must be a below average team this year" line of thinking.

He'll change my mind week by week, hopefully. It'll also speak well if Atlanta actually turns out to be a good (or "winning") team.

How can anyone determine if a players role was limited. Do you know what they do? Maybe Kirk is allowed to change the play based on what he sees. If that's the case his role is never limited. Maybe he can only run the play that is called. If that's the case then all QBs in that situation have a limited role. I don't know how our combo of OCs handles this. If in fact Kirk runs the play called and that's it then yes he has a very limited role all the time. Look at any player or any team and their play usually changes based on who they play. The Steelers were just beaten into a pulp by the Pats. Big Ben's role looked very limited. He couldn't get his team to score. I don't know who they play next but and I say but if it's the Dolphins Big Ben will look much better and he will put up an easy win. His role won't be limited. Just look at Zims coaching record and see what it is against winning teams. I'm not going through them but I would bet not very good against winning teams. Limited in other words. If we go into NE and face the rested Pats Kirk by himself won't get us the win. If our D blows and Brady scores at will then I would say our D should take some fault. It's not all Kirk's fault. But some can say it is because we didn't score enough. That's always the case when we lose. Last year in Green Bay Kirk lost the game. Although I feel our inability to kick a FG lost it. But it was Kirk's lose and this was a non contender lose. He lost to a bad team. Based on last year Atlanta is a bad team. So Kirk or us beat a bad team soundly. We get a bad team in the Packers next. This should be an easy one.

[Cliff]

How can anyone determine if a players role was limited. Do you know what they do? Maybe Kirk is allowed to change the play based on what he sees. If that's the case his role is never limited. Maybe he can only run the play that is called. If that's the case then all QBs in that situation have a limited role. I don't know how our combo of OCs handles this. If in fact Kirk runs the play called and that's it then yes he has a very limited role all the time. Look at any player or any team and their play usually changes based on who they play. The Steelers were just beaten into a pulp by the Pats. Big Ben's role looked very limited. He couldn't get his team to score. I don't know who they play next but and I say but if it's the Dolphins Big Ben will look much better and he will put up an easy win. His role won't be limited.

I just meant limited in that he only threw the ball 10 times. Not that the coaches limited him on purpose, exactly. His role was limited just because that's what the situation called for. If you're up a couple of scores and able to run like they were ... you run ...

If a QB only throws 10 passes in a game and didn't really run to speak of, he had a limited roll. Just, physically. Not in a negative way.

Just look at Zims coaching record and see what it is against winning teams. I'm not going through them but I would bet not very good against winning teams. Limited in other words.

Well last year it was awful which aligned with Cousins record. If we go back to 2017 of course it probably looks pretty good since the team was 13-3. Just in 2017 by itself Zimmer-led teams have more wins against teams with a winning record than Kirk in his entire career.

If we go into NE and face the rested Pats Kirk by himself won't get us the win. If our D blows and Brady scores at will then I would say our D should take some fault. It's not all Kirk's fault. But some can say it is because we didn't score enough. That's always the case when we lose. Last year in Green Bay Kirk lost the game. Although I feel our inability to kick a FG lost it. But it was Kirk's lose and this was a non contender lose. He lost to a bad team. Based on last year Atlanta is a bad team. So Kirk or us beat a bad team soundly. We get a bad team in the Packers next. This should be an easy one.

I'm not advocating that a QB wins or loses the game by himself. I am saying that when the QB plays poorly it impacts the team potentially more than any other position on the field. It just feels like Cousins isn't very good at improvising when a play breaks down. Better teams tend to have better defenses. Better defenses tend to cause more plays to break down.

I'm looking to week 4 as a big time Cousins test. The Bears are a very disruptive team and it'll be interesting to see how he handles them.

Greenbay *might* have a good defense too so I wouldn't overlook them.

[S197]

I probably need to change my answer to pessimist.

Even after that great win. The team played great on opening day which should inspire all the optimism in the world, right? Instead I find myself thinking "Well, it looks like Atlanta is going to finish sub .500 ... "

If I'm still finding a way to be any kind of gloomy after a win like that I've got be pessimistic on the team.

Lol. I came here to change my answer too. I mean that game was about as perfect as you can ask for in the NFL (unless you’re playing Miami) but I find myself still critiquing Cook and worrying about Elflein.

I think it’s a defense mechanism to be honest. Keep expectations down to lessen the blow. I mean this team has hurt a fan base more than any other team out there due to their overall success but never being able to finish.

FWIW, I think the Falcons will be good, likely in contention for a playoff spot again. They just looked rusty and poorly prepared. It happens, even to good teams (NE last year as an example), it will be interesting to see if they bounce back.

[mansquatch]

I think SI and Cliff are suffering from Forum Fatigue!

When it comes to Cousins I still can't put all of last season on him. I really feel like three of the losses where more about JDF's inadequecy than that of Cousins. In the Rams game Cousins's was probably the best player of the field for the Vikings and then Reiff let's him down at the end and Kirk takes the blame for the fumble. Obviously opinions vary.

The season is young. Elflein's mistakes are correctable. He wasn't physically beaten, he just blew his assignment. Besides, next Sunday we could to remind all the idiot power ranking dweebs that GB is a has been.

[Cliff]

I think SI and Cliff are suffering from Forum Fatigue!

When it comes to Cousins I still can't put all of last season on him. I really feel like three of the losses where more about JDF's inadequecy than that of Cousins. In the Rams game Cousins's was probably the best player of the field for the Vikings and then Reiff let's him down at the end and Kirk takes the blame for the fumble. Obviously opinions vary.

The season is young. Elflein's mistakes are correctable. He wasn't physically beaten, he just blew his assignment. Besides, next Sunday we could to remind all the idiot power ranking dweebs that GB is a has been.

I'm looking more at Cousins over his career thus far. He's obviously not responsible for the record of an entire team or the teams he's on. He's not solely responsible for last season's record either. I guess by the end of the season we'll see if the streak bears out.

How many more seasons/games would Cousins-led teams have to continue to lose against "winning teams" before the more optimistic among us started to think it had more to do with him? He's started 4 entire seasons and started as backup in 14 games before that. After watching him last year every game it's just difficult for me to "believe".

On the other hand, if he bucks that trend it'll certainly make me feel better about him. As always, a Vikings player can easily change my mind for the more positive!