For the record, I've come to terms with the fact that Kirk Cousins is our quarterback for the foreseeable future. And I'll root hard for him, just as I have since the day he arrived.VikingLord wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:52 amWilson is reportedly not happy in Seattle.J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:25 amThat, more than anything, is why I'd choose Russell Wilson over Kirk Cousins at twice the price (not literally ... figure of speech). But don't be offended, Cousins fans. I'd choose Russell Wilson over all but maybe two QBs in the NFL right now, and even those would be touch choices. The guy flat-out wins. We're talking 98 regular-season wins in 9 seasons, the most by any QB in NFL history. He's added 9 playoff wins, which means he's averaged just shy of 12 total wins per season since he entered the league. I've been at this Vikings fan thing for 52 years. I'd like to see us win the trophy ONCE in my freaking lifetime.
Should the Vikings trade the farm for him?
Assuming they are trading the farm then, trade it for him or for Watson?
All the stats Stump lists don't matter to the argument. I never claimed Cousins was as good as either Wilson or Watson (or probably another QB who's name starts with a 'W' for that matter as pretty much every QB seems to be better than Cousins).
My argument is, you don't need a 'W' QB to win a Superbowl. You need a good team. You need a complete team.
The following isn't directed specifically at you, but is more an observation.
In Minnesota, the coming of the Pro Football Messiah is still awaited by many fans. It's like a prophecy. We're only that *one* magical player away and then we win. Sure, Mike Lynn already tested that prophecy and found it false way back in the late '80's. Spielman tried it again with Favre (well, maybe not just Spielman, but he was involved) in 2009. Didn't work then either.
And now it's just Watson of the what, 4 win Texans? Or maybe it's Wilson. Or maybe it's someone else. But there is just that *one* guy who makes it all better, damn the state of the rest of the team. This savior overcomes obvious defensive flaws. He can make an average offensive line look awesome. Bad coaching? No sweat. Poor officiating? Not a problem for the Messiah. Key injuries late in a season? Forgeddaaboutit.
The Player Messiah will overcome all that. We just have to find him, and once we do, key up the Superbowl wins.
As it stands, the only player in the NFL who even approaches such a status, the only one I would buy the arguments being bandied about here and respect the record and the stats without much question, is Tom Brady. That doesn't mean I don't think Watson is a good and potentially great QB, or that I discount what Russell Wilson has accomplished or may still accomplish in his career. It just means that I don't buy the singular savior player argument. Teams have, can, and will win Superbowls without more than largely average QBs. The Vikings can be one of them. They can win with Kirk Cousins and probably win with someone even less talented and effective than Cousins. I just doubt that they can or will do it if they have the best QB in the league, but don't fix the team around the guy. Even Tom Brady can't overcome fundamental flaws/misfortunes.
Anyway, I seem to be in the minority on this so I'll probably leave it here. But suffice it to say, I will be less excited about next season if Spielman trades away significant draft capital to acquire either Watson or Wilson while the existing areas of need on the team languish than I will if he hits on key acquisitions in areas of need on the team and they stick with Cousins. That's just the way I see it, and I strongly suspect Spielman and Zimmer agree with my perspective more than with those who yearn for the Player Messiah.
My point was that Russell Wilson is better, period. I didn't say the Vikings should trade for him. He's simply better, and he HAS lifted a mediocre roster. But trade for him? It puts the Vikings in the same financial position they'd be in with Cousins (maybe worse ... I'm tired today and not looking up contracts) and we'd be giving up at least as many draft choices as we would with Deshaun Watson. It's simply not do-able unless Cousins is worth a first to somebody, which he apparently isn't.
No, I wouldn't give up the farm for Russell Wilson. In 2016 or 2017? Absolutely. Our roster was full of studs, top to bottom. Adding a truly electric quarterback, a winner, might have put us over the top. But with our roster now? No way. We have skill positions and little else.
However, straight-up, based simply on their play, I'd take Wilson over Kirk Cousins every day of the week and not give it a second thought. Unless I was reading you incorrectly, you were comparing stats and trying to make the case that Kirk Cousins' play is somehow on par with Wilson's. I don't care how you compare them. Wilson is miles better.
And it does piss me off that Russell Wilson's cap hit to Seattle over the next two years is $7 million LESS than Kirk Cousins'. (OK, I looked it up.) But there's not much anybody can do about that.