Vikings Playoff Scenarios

[fiestavike]

Yes, it is my opinion that how many games a team wins in a season decides whether they are a winning team or not. It is also a cold, hard, indisputable fact.

So again, when the Vikings were 5-0 in '16, they were a .500 team?

Got it.

It's a shame you can't see the utter nonsense of your so-called logic.

Good bye.

I know y'all have past issues between you, but you are being ridiculously obtuse and churlish.

[Pondering Her Percy]

So again, when the Vikings were 5-0 in '16, they were a .500 team?

Got it.

It's a shame you can't see the utter nonsense of your so-called logic.

Good bye.

I know y'all have past issues between you, but you are being ridiculously obtuse and churlish.

The problem is, Stump is burning bridges with many on this board at this point. How many issues are members on this board having with Kapp?? Zero as far as I know and I'm on here every day. Charvike maybe but that fizzled out quickly and Charvike will openly admit when he is wrong and overreacted. Stump has been the complete opposite of that

[StumpHunter]

You are arguing that you can't go off of a team's record to know whether a team is a losing or winning team, yet my argument is utter nonsense? You derail your very own thread to argue against reality. Nice job.

Dude just stop. You've made it clear that wins and losses vs. winning/losing teams only count when you want them to count. They only count when it benefits your argument. That's your opinion but it's nobody else's. And please take notice that your opinion on many things regarding this team (wins/losses, Cousins in primetime, Cousins vs. winning teams, Cousins coming back from a deficit, Cousins in general, Rhodes, this defense, this OL, etc.) is often being disagreed with by others on this board including myself. If you cant deal with it and want to continue burning bridges with everyone, be my guest because you'll just end up getting banned eventually. If you can get by it, take it for what it is and move on, then please do.

You get banned for disagreeing with people on this board? Interesting.

I never get personal, I argue the points being made and not the ones I think someone is making (example, when you claim "wins/losses only count when you want them too").

I have never mentioned Cousins in primetime, but that is fine that people disagree with me on my takes that Cousins has exactly one comeback win in his career as a Viking, is an above average QB who struggles against good teams while domination bad ones (1-9 as a QB for the Vikings against winning teams, 16-2-1 against below .500 teams), the defense isn't the problem when they give up 13 points in a game, that Rhodes has not been targeted as much as, or given up as many yards or TDs per game as Waynes or that an OL that has given up the least pressure over the past 4 games of ANY Oline in the NFL for the QB holding the ball longer than ANY QB in the NFL.

If people want to argue their opinions are more valuable than cold hard facts, good for them. Sometimes there is context around those facts, that make them less relevant. Sometimes people just get angry and start name calling when faced with reality like Kapp does. Or change the argument to one they can win that no one is arguing, like you do.

Also remember, there is a big difference between an unpopular opinion and an incorrect one.

[VikingLord]

So again, when the Vikings were 5-0 in '16, they were a .500 team?

Got it.

It's a shame you can't see the utter nonsense of your so-called logic.

Good bye.

I know y'all have past issues between you, but you are being ridiculously obtuse and churlish.

"Churlish"?

Love it! That reminds me of that Key and Peele substitute teacher skit.

To the discussion at hand, over his career Kirk Cousins has been the best of QBs and the worst of QBs. He alone isn't responsible for any wins or losses - he's just associated with those results. Football is a team game and no one player or single play can win or lose a game.

As far as this year goes, I can't fault Cousins for a lot. He's played really well, especially since the debacle against the Bears. He threw the bad pick in the endzone against the Packers, looked really skittish against the Bears, was a little off against the Chiefs, and could have been a little more patient late against the Seahawks. In every win, he's been solid if not spectacular at times. But there are a lot of things that went on in the losses that had a larger impact on the outcome than Cousins (bad penalties that extended opposing drives, bad calls by the refs, poor defense, questionable coaching decisions, poor special teams play).

[J. Kapp 11]

Dude just stop. You've made it clear that wins and losses vs. winning/losing teams only count when you want them to count. They only count when it benefits your argument. That's your opinion but it's nobody else's. And please take notice that your opinion on many things regarding this team (wins/losses, Cousins in primetime, Cousins vs. winning teams, Cousins coming back from a deficit, Cousins in general, Rhodes, this defense, this OL, etc.) is often being disagreed with by others on this board including myself. If you cant deal with it and want to continue burning bridges with everyone, be my guest because you'll just end up getting banned eventually. If you can get by it, take it for what it is and move on, then please do.

You get banned for disagreeing with people on this board? Interesting.

I never get personal, I argue the points being made and not the ones I think someone is making (example, when you claim "wins/losses only count when you want them too").

I have never mentioned Cousins in primetime, but that is fine that people disagree with me on my takes that Cousins has exactly one comeback win in his career as a Viking, is an above average QB who struggles against good teams while domination bad ones (1-9 as a QB for the Vikings against winning teams, 16-2-1 against below .500 teams), the defense isn't the problem when they give up 13 points in a game, that Rhodes has not been targeted as much as, or given up as many yards or TDs per game as Waynes or that an OL that has given up the least pressure over the past 4 games of ANY Oline in the NFL for the QB holding the ball longer than ANY QB in the NFL.

If people want to argue their opinions are more valuable than cold hard facts, good for them. Sometimes there is context around those facts, that make them less relevant. Sometimes people just get angry and start name calling when faced with reality like Kapp does. Or change the argument to one they can win that no one is arguing, like you do.

Also remember, there is a big difference between an unpopular opinion and an incorrect one.

I'll try not to be obtuse here.

Here's the problem, Stump. You claim the Vikings have won 1 game against a winning team under Cousins. And I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. You have created a very narrow definition of what a winning team is, and I disagree. So does most of the football world, although I can't prove that.

Not that 3 wins against winning teams is anything to brag about, but Cousins' upward trend this season is obvious to most fair-minded observers. You refuse to acknowledge it, which is your right. But it doesn't make your opinion right. And again, after the Chicago game, I was leading the charge to find a way to get out from under his contract. His play since then has convinced me otherwise, and I have become an ardent supporter. He's done some really good work, and most of it without Adam Thielen, who's his most trustworthy receiver and a guy who makes it impossible for teams to stuff the box and stop the run.

That's my opinion.

By definition, opinions are neither right nor wrong. Not sure if you were aware of that, but an opinion CANNOT be right or wrong. If it's proven right, it becomes a fact. However, opinions that are supported with facts are more credible than those that are not. I have given one fact after another that Cousins has played like a top-tier quarterback in this league, whether it's by QBR or Expected Points or any other metric. I've done it over and over in a half dozen threads. Meanwhile, you trot out the same two things. 'He holds the ball too long" (an opinion) and "he hasn't beaten a winning team," which is clearly false. Dallas and Philly had winning records when we played them, and they'd have winning records right now if we hadn't beaten them. This definition of a winning team is one that only you use, either here, in the media, or anywhere else. You're free to use it, but that doesn't mean everybody has to agree with you, and it doesn't make it fact. From my perspective, your opinion about Cousins loses credibility because you use facts that, to me, aren't really facts.

So your comment about unpopular opinions being right ... sorry man. It's your opinion, and I disagree.

As far as name-calling, show me where I called you a name. I said your logic was nonsense. That's not calling you a name. That's attacking your position, your thought process. Yeah, it may have been worded overly strong. I'll try to do better. But I have never called you a name, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't say I did.

[StumpHunter]

You get banned for disagreeing with people on this board? Interesting.

I never get personal, I argue the points being made and not the ones I think someone is making (example, when you claim "wins/losses only count when you want them too").

I have never mentioned Cousins in primetime, but that is fine that people disagree with me on my takes that Cousins has exactly one comeback win in his career as a Viking, is an above average QB who struggles against good teams while domination bad ones (1-9 as a QB for the Vikings against winning teams, 16-2-1 against below .500 teams), the defense isn't the problem when they give up 13 points in a game, that Rhodes has not been targeted as much as, or given up as many yards or TDs per game as Waynes or that an OL that has given up the least pressure over the past 4 games of ANY Oline in the NFL for the QB holding the ball longer than ANY QB in the NFL.

If people want to argue their opinions are more valuable than cold hard facts, good for them. Sometimes there is context around those facts, that make them less relevant. Sometimes people just get angry and start name calling when faced with reality like Kapp does. Or change the argument to one they can win that no one is arguing, like you do.

Also remember, there is a big difference between an unpopular opinion and an incorrect one.

I'll try not to be obtuse here.

Here's the problem, Stump. You claim the Vikings have won 1 game against a winning team under Cousins. And I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. You have created a very narrow definition of what a winning team is, and I disagree. So does most of the football world, although I can't prove that.

Not that 3 wins against winning teams is anything to brag about, but Cousins' upward trend this season is obvious to most fair-minded observers. You refuse to acknowledge it, which is your right. But it doesn't make your opinion right. And again, after the Chicago game, I was leading the charge to find a way to get out from under his contract. His play since then has convinced me otherwise, and I have become an ardent supporter. He's done some really good work, and most of it without Adam Thielen, who's his most trustworthy receiver and a guy who makes it impossible for teams to stuff the box and stop the run.

That's my opinion.

By definition, opinions are neither right nor wrong. Not sure if you were aware of that, but an opinion CANNOT be right or wrong. If it's proven right, it becomes a fact. However, opinions that are supported with facts are more credible than those that are not. I have given one fact after another that Cousins has played like a top-tier quarterback in this league, whether it's by QBR or Expected Points or any other metric. I've done it over and over in a half dozen threads. Meanwhile, you trot out the same two things. 'He holds the ball too long" (an opinion) and "he hasn't beaten a winning team," which is clearly false. Dallas and Philly had winning records when we played them, and they'd have winning records right now if we hadn't beaten them. This definition of a winning team is one that only you use, either here, in the media, or anywhere else. You're free to use it, but that doesn't mean everybody has to agree with you, and it doesn't make it fact. From my perspective, your opinion about Cousins loses credibility because you use facts that, to me, aren't really facts.

So your comment about unpopular opinions being right ... sorry man. It's your opinion, and I disagree.

As far as name-calling, show me where I called you a name. I said your logic was nonsense. That's not calling you a name. That's attacking your position, your thought process. Yeah, it may have been worded overly strong. I'll try to do better. But I have never called you a name, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't say I did.

I am open to hearing why the Eagles and Dallas were better teams when we faced them than they are now.

[fiestavike]

either standard seems fine, and both have justification. Is it a "winning team" depending on what their record is when the game occurs or depending on how they finish the season. Neither one is some kind of absurd position.

The most absurd thing is to think that in and of itself its a measure of anything. It may correlate with something meaningful, but by itself it is not a measure of anything important.

[808vikingsfan]

I haven't been following this argument but the Cousins record (stat) against winning teams is calculated from a 16 game season. I can see the flaw in this stat as teams get hot/cold, injuries, favorable/unfavorable schedules. In the end, you are only as good as your 16 game record.

I thought the opportunity to make this a special season was lost vs SEA. But I think the way the season is ending is a good test to see what this team is made of, including Cousins. IMO, all three remaining are must win games.

[J. Kapp 11]

either standard seems fine, and both have justification. Is it a "winning team" depending on what their record is when the game occurs or depending on how they finish the season. Neither one is some kind of absurd position.

The most absurd thing is to think that in and of itself its a measure of anything. It may correlate with something meaningful, but by itself it is not a measure of anything important.

That's especially true for a single position, such as quarterback. I'll use Dak Prescott's game against us as an example. The guy played his butt off and threw for nearly 400 without an interception. His team lost. It seems ridiculous to say Prescott lost to a winning team. The Cowboys lost to a winning team.

This is exactly why I don't think this "statistic" should be used to evaluate Kirk Cousins. He's played exceedingly well since the Bears game. That's an opinion backed by lots of hard evidence ... far better evidence than the Vikings' record against whatever we're defining as a winning team. Unfortunately, the talking heads of this world will continue to use the narrative that Cousins can't win big games. My guess is he'll continue to live under that narrative until he wins a Super Bowl.

[StumpHunter]

either standard seems fine, and both have justification. Is it a "winning team" depending on what their record is when the game occurs or depending on how they finish the season. Neither one is some kind of absurd position.

The most absurd thing is to think that in and of itself its a measure of anything. It may correlate with something meaningful, but by itself it is not a measure of anything important.

That's especially true for a single position, such as quarterback. I'll use Dak Prescott's game against us as an example. The guy played his butt off and threw for nearly 400 without an interception. His team lost. It seems ridiculous to say Prescott lost to a winning team. The Cowboys lost to a winning team.

This is exactly why I don't think this "statistic" should be used to evaluate Kirk Cousins. He's played exceedingly well since the Bears game. That's an opinion backed by lots of hard evidence ... far better evidence than the Vikings' record against whatever we're defining as a winning team. Unfortunately, the talking heads of this world will continue to use the narrative that Cousins can't win big games. My guess is he'll continue to live under that narrative until he wins a Super Bowl.

I believe my original post was about the team and people took that as a shot at Cousins.

I agree the team needs to win games. We don't have a QB who is going to win the close ones for us against the better teams, and that means the defense can never allow a lead late and WRs and RBs need to make big plays.

[fiestavike]

either standard seems fine, and both have justification. Is it a "winning team" depending on what their record is when the game occurs or depending on how they finish the season. Neither one is some kind of absurd position.

The most absurd thing is to think that in and of itself its a measure of anything. It may correlate with something meaningful, but by itself it is not a measure of anything important.

That's especially true for a single position, such as quarterback. I'll use Dak Prescott's game against us as an example. The guy played his butt off and threw for nearly 400 without an interception. His team lost. It seems ridiculous to say Prescott lost to a winning team. The Cowboys lost to a winning team.

This is exactly why I don't think this "statistic" should be used to evaluate Kirk Cousins. He's played exceedingly well since the Bears game. That's an opinion backed by lots of hard evidence ... far better evidence than the Vikings' record against whatever we're defining as a winning team. Unfortunately, the talking heads of this world will continue to use the narrative that Cousins can't win big games. My guess is he'll continue to live under that narrative until he wins a Super Bowl.

I thought Cousins played perhaps his best game as a Viking against Seattle, and the game wound up being a loss. Whether its a game or a play or a season, or a career, its silly to think you are getting an accurate or meaningful analysis by pointing to an outcome rather than analyzing a process. Granted, that becomes more and more difficult with added variables and levels of complexity, and the shorthand of '4,000 yards' or '12 wins' or whatever becomes easier, and perhaps about as reliable as our analysis of all the multitude of processes that go into that result. That's why focusing on the play, or the particular block, or the particular route etc. (the smaller the thing we can analyze) the more useful and precise the information that we are likely to get from it.

[Tark]

Face it, this team is not a Super Bowl contender with its defense. It can't be trusted. Even if we make the POs we will go one and done or two and barbecue at best. I'd be happy with a blowout win over the Slackers at this point. I'm a fan watching since 1972, trust me.

I don't know. I've been a fan of this team for a while too and I remember the years when they were Superbowl contenders, the years they had Superbowl talent but didn't play up to that talent level, the years they were good and played above their talent level, and, of course, the years they weren't good.

I'd put the 2019 Vikings in the 2nd category - Superbowl talent that hasn't played up to that level. So while I agree with what you're saying (except I'd extend that to the entire team and not just the defense), the potential is there for this team to get hot.

The closest Vikings team the 2019 squad compares to for me is probably the 1987 team. That team's final record was affected by the strike and the replacement players, but even the regular players under-performed that year and they barely squeaked into the playoffs (IIRC, they actually backed in when another team lost). They ended up as the #6 seed and had to go on the road to face the two best teams in the NFC in back-to-back weeks, and somehow managed to dismantle both. They went from a team everyone thought would rapidly exit the playoffs to being favored on the road against the Redskins. Of course, once they felt the pressure of expectation, they wilted, but that team clearly had all the talent necessary to get to the Superbowl.

For me, this year's team is a lot like that year's team. Of course, if this year's team ends up winning out in dominant fashion, I'll end up comparing them more to the 2009 Vikings (which they also resemble). The good news is, both of those teams had Superbowl-level talent. This one does too. Hopefully they find a way to put it together when it counts.

Well stated, and I agree.

[Dames]

I'd put the 2019 Vikings in the 2nd category - Superbowl talent that hasn't played up to that level. So while I agree with what you're saying (except I'd extend that to the entire team and not just the defense), the potential is there for this team to get hot.

That's a fair assessment of this team. It's part of the reason I'm optimistic about them though. They have the talent for sure. Can they put it together at the right time to make a run? We have yet to see that, but we have seen flashes of it this year, and that's definitely not the case in a lot of years. I'm hoping for the best of course.

The closest Vikings team the 2019 squad compares to for me is probably the 1987 team. That team's final record was affected by the strike and the replacement players, but even the regular players under-performed that year and they barely squeaked into the playoffs (IIRC, they actually backed in when another team lost). They ended up as the #6 seed and had to go on the road to face the two best teams in the NFC in back-to-back weeks, and somehow managed to dismantle both. They went from a team everyone thought would rapidly exit the playoffs to being favored on the road against the Redskins. Of course, once they felt the pressure of expectation, they wilted, but that team clearly had all the talent necessary to get to the Superbowl.

For me, this year's team is a lot like that year's team. Of course, if this year's team ends up winning out in dominant fashion, I'll end up comparing them more to the 2009 Vikings (which they also resemble). The good news is, both of those teams had Superbowl-level talent. This one does too. Hopefully they find a way to put it together when it counts.

I hope we aren't like either 1987 or 2009. Both of them played kinda poorly in December and woke up in time for the playoffs. I hope that's not he case here, or we may be sitting home with how top-heavy the league is. Losing in the NFC championship again doesn't sound very nice either!

But, I think I understand where you were going with the comparison. In truth, there are some similarities. I'm hoping for a better result.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I have never mentioned Cousins in primetime,

You havent??? Hmmmm.....

but that is fine that people disagree with me on my takes that Cousins has exactly one comeback win in his career as a Viking

Way more to it than your typical "on the surface" arguments that I consistently call you out for and you continue to bring up. Sure he has "exactly 1 comeback win as a Viking". It also depends on what people consider a "comeback". He's lost 11 games as a Vikings. Had 1 tie. The tie was a definite comeback as he consistently put us in position to score but our kicker failed. Or the Rams game where our defense gives up 38 and were tooled on all game. Or the Seattle game where our defense gave up 37 and were also tooled on all game. Are we really going to "dog" Cousins for not "coming back" in those games? Sounds a little ridiculous if you ask me. Are there games he could have came back in but didnt? Sure. No denying that. But to say all 11 losses were on him and HE was unable to comeback isnt a fair assessment at all.

is an above average QB who struggles against good teams while domination bad ones (1-9 as a QB for the Vikings against winning teams, 16-2-1 against below .500 teams)

This one kills me Now granted, I'm not wasting my time looking into all these other games. Some games he played great in, some he played terrible in. Just like any other QB in the NFL.

But let me get this straight....for example, IF we LOST to the Eagles and Cowboys that would count against Cousins record vs. "winning teams" because they would both currently be 7-6 instead of 6-7. But since we WON those games, it counts towards his "below .500" record because they are both 6-7. How is that fair when trying to say "Cousins struggles against good teams but dominates bad ones" when you're the one sitting there making the call on who is "good" and who is "bad" Do you now understand why I'm saying "it only counts when Stump wants it to count"?? Do you realize how weak your argument is here? In all honesty, it's a stupid fricken argument. I've said time and time again, what matters is what he is doing right now. Not last year, not in Washington, not in college.....right now. And right now he is 9-4. I dont care if those 9 wins came from beating high school teams or beating the Patriots. They are wins.

The defense isn't the problem when they give up 13 points in a game

Not sure what game they gave up 13 points in? If you're talking about Chicago and giving up 16, yeah...go look at the time of possession. Chicago annihilated us. They couldnt get Chase Daniel off the field. As bad as our offense was that game (averaging 3.8 yards per play on offense), the Bears averaged 4.0 yards per play. But that's what Daniel did all game was check down and took what the defense gave him. And the defense couldnt figure out how to stop it. Hence why they had over 35 minutes of possession. I'm not letting neither the offense or defense off the hook that game, but just looking at a "final score" (another typical on the surface argument of yours) and saying the D played well because Chicago only scored 16, shows me you dont know football. Because a final score doesnt always tell the whole story. You should know this, because nobody can ever throw Kirk Cousins "numbers" out there with you ripping apart every aspect of his game. Pot meet kettle.

That Rhodes has not been targeted as much as, or given up as many yards or TDs per game as Waynes

and where are you seeing this stat? I'd like to see proof because I'm not finding it anywhere. And ever since you started defending Rhodes on here, he's made you look more and more foolish by the week. Similar to how Cousins has made you look.

or that an OL that has given up the least pressure over the past 4 games of ANY Oline in the NFL for the QB holding the ball longer than ANY QB in the NFL.

OMG you and this stupid stat. Comments like this is where you tend to become a troll in peoples books. Because you continue to bring it up when it's been proved to be faulty multiple times.

2016: 2.81 seconds 23 sacks taken
2017: 2.7 seconds 41 sacks taken
2018: 2.74 seconds 40 sacks taken
2019: 3.01 seconds 23 sacks taken

Yup I have eyes too. I can see that next gen stats says Kirk Cousins "holds the ball longer than any QB in the NFL". Dont you think it's a little odd that Cousins has never taken "this much time to throw" in his career? You dont think that has anything to do with the offense we are currently running where they are pulling him AWAY from that brutal pass blocking OL?? You dont find it odd that this is the best season of Kirk Cousins career?? Remember you claimed he held the ball too long, was a turn over machine, had a fumbling issue, etc? How's all that looking this year?? I will say it's made you look like you dont have a clue what you are talking about. All you've complained about all year with him is that "he holds the ball too long" yet he's only taken 23 sacks? Hmmm weird. And you complain about that because you have nothing left to complain about. I've said time and time again this is all you have left to hang onto and the funny thing is, it's not even helping your argument because he's currently playing like a top QB in the NFL.

In week 11 vs Denver, Cousins held the ball 2.66 seconds. It was the 6th "fastest" in the NFL that week. But he was sacked.....5 times. YET, last week he held the ball for 3.51 seconds. Longest in the NFL that week. But was sacked 1 time (later in the game no less). So again, what did you prove?? NOTHING. So stop with your bogus little argument that means nothing, proves nothing, shows nothing, etc. It's annoying and repetitive and to be honest, nobody cares about it, especially when we're 9-4 and our QB is playing lights out.

If people want to argue their opinions are more valuable than cold hard facts, good for them. Sometimes there is context around those facts, that make them less relevant. Sometimes people just get angry and start name calling when faced with reality like Kapp does. Or change the argument to one they can win that no one is arguing, like you do.

I'm pretty sure I just provided plenty of cold hard facts above. 95% of my posts have to do with analytics and stats which are FACTS. My posts have been like that since the day I joined. I dont bring bullshi# comments and opinions to the board. So keep tooting your own horn and telling yourself you are a QB guru and know everything there is to know. But I honestly think you're more embarrassed that you've been proved wrong so many times this year and have nowhere else to run other than continuing to find loop holes to support your opinion. I can tell you you're running out of options.

[fiestavike]

This one kills me Now granted, I'm not wasting my time looking into all these other games. Some games he played great in, some he played terrible in. Just like any other QB in the NFL.

But let me get this straight....for example, IF we LOST to the Eagles and Cowboys that would count against Cousins record vs. "winning teams" because they would both currently be 7-6 instead of 6-7. But since we WON those games, it counts towards his "below .500" record because they are both 6-7. How is that fair when trying to say "Cousins struggles against good teams but dominates bad ones" when you're the one sitting there making the call on who is "good" and who is "bad" Do you now understand why I'm saying "it only counts when Stump wants it to count"?? Do you realize how weak your argument is here? In all honesty, it's a stupid fricken argument. I've said time and time again, what matters is what he is doing right now. Not last year, not in Washington, not in college.....right now. And right now he is 9-4. I dont care if those 9 wins came from beating high school teams or beating the Patriots. They are wins.

No. Completely wrong and mischaracterizing the criticism of cousins from anyone I've seen on here. Please stop saying 'lol' in your responses. Its snarky and rude and in no way paints what you are about to say in an impressive light.