Next OC for the Vikings?

[CharVike]

I stated two years ago in the playoffs. I never posted anything about lifetime records. I also said the Rams have a great team but they looked to be worn out after the playoff push and second road playoff game in a row. They have a top D. They didn't get after Rodgers like I expected that game. That's all. The Packers have wasted Rodgers. Overall that team isn't very good without him. He carries that team. Without him they blow. When he didn't play we won the division with a stiff backup QB. If Rodgers gets hurt this year we will win that division. If he plays they will win it. I wish Rodgers would quite because he gives that team a huge advantage. But he has said he will play until age 45. He can be beat if you get after him. The 49ers and Bucs showed that. Teams that don't bring pressure will get beat. The Rams showed that. He's a HOF player. Wilson won a Super Bowl as a rookie and maybe that has never happened. But he was carried there by one of the best defenses ever. That's my opinion nothing more.

Wilson didn't win the SB as a rookie.

The difference in pressures per drop back between what the Rams did to Rodgers and the Bucs was a little over 1. 1 more pressure in that Rams game and they have almost the same pressure rate as the Bucs had on Rodgers and neither of those teams were able to consistently pressure Rodgers.

Without Wilson the Seahawks are a worse team than the Packers would be without Rodgers. He makes that team competitive in a tougher division than the one Rodgers plays in. If he comes to the Bears, and I think it is unlikely he does, the Vikings will be competing with Detroit for 3rd place for the next 2 or 3 seasons until Rodgers starts to show his age.

It was Wilson 3rd year. 5 sacks to 0 sacks is the only stat that matters. Sacks are like a completed pass. They happen or they don't. Some rate made up out of thin air means nothing. Some plays are designed to allow the DL to come in such as a screen. That is a play with tremendous pressure but no sack. I'm sure there are many others that I'm not aware of. Seattle isn't trading Wilson he puts people in the seats which puts money in the owners pocket. Wilson is looking for headlines and he did it by throwing his OL under the bus by pointing out what a bunch of stiffs they are. He threw his OC in the garbage when the OC told him to stop turning the ball over during that turn over period he went through. I won't get into the pressure driven pick 6 in the playoffs. Good for him and the Hawks can keep him.

[StumpHunter]

Wilson didn't win the SB as a rookie.

The difference in pressures per drop back between what the Rams did to Rodgers and the Bucs was a little over 1. 1 more pressure in that Rams game and they have almost the same pressure rate as the Bucs had on Rodgers and neither of those teams were able to consistently pressure Rodgers.

Without Wilson the Seahawks are a worse team than the Packers would be without Rodgers. He makes that team competitive in a tougher division than the one Rodgers plays in. If he comes to the Bears, and I think it is unlikely he does, the Vikings will be competing with Detroit for 3rd place for the next 2 or 3 seasons until Rodgers starts to show his age.

It was Wilson 3rd year. 5 sacks to 0 sacks is the only stat that matters. Sacks are like a completed pass. They happen or they don't. Some rate made up out of thin air means nothing. Some plays are designed to allow the DL to come in such as a screen. That is a play with tremendous pressure but no sack. I'm sure there are many others that I'm not aware of. Seattle isn't trading Wilson he puts people in the seats which puts money in the owners pocket. Wilson is looking for headlines and he did it by throwing his OL under the bus by pointing out what a bunch of stiffs they are. He threw his OC in the garbage when the OC told him to stop turning the ball over during that turn over period he went through. I won't get into the pressure driven pick 6 in the playoffs. Good for him and the Hawks can keep him.

You should say that sacks are the only stat that support your point, which is what you really mean. Arguing sacks are the only thing that matter in the same paragraph you talk about a "pressure driven pick 6" is kind of silly, don't you think? Clearly pressure does matter, since it can cause a pick six, interception, incomplete pass or a completed pass short of the sticks. It also happens far more frequently and affects more plays than sacks. Did 5 sacks really have a big impact when Rodgers dropped back 55 times? Of course not. It is also a nuanced stat that has almost as much to do with the coverage downfield and the quickness of the release of the QB as it does how good an oline blocks or how well a dline gets after the QB.

Wilson will not get traded because he is an elite QB who has had his team in the playoffs every year he has been on the team. He is a future HOF who is arguably the 2nd best QB in the NFL right now. Not because he puts people in the seats, that is an absurd argument.

[CharVike]

It was Wilson 3rd year. 5 sacks to 0 sacks is the only stat that matters. Sacks are like a completed pass. They happen or they don't. Some rate made up out of thin air means nothing. Some plays are designed to allow the DL to come in such as a screen. That is a play with tremendous pressure but no sack. I'm sure there are many others that I'm not aware of. Seattle isn't trading Wilson he puts people in the seats which puts money in the owners pocket. Wilson is looking for headlines and he did it by throwing his OL under the bus by pointing out what a bunch of stiffs they are. He threw his OC in the garbage when the OC told him to stop turning the ball over during that turn over period he went through. I won't get into the pressure driven pick 6 in the playoffs. Good for him and the Hawks can keep him.

You should say that sacks are the only stat that support your point, which is what you really mean. Arguing sacks are the only thing that matter in the same paragraph you talk about a "pressure driven pick 6" is kind of silly, don't you think? Clearly pressure does matter, since it can cause a pick six, interception, incomplete pass or a completed pass short of the sticks. It also happens far more frequently and affects more plays than sacks. Did 5 sacks really have a big impact when Rodgers dropped back 55 times? Of course not. It is also a nuanced stat that has almost as much to do with the coverage downfield and the quickness of the release of the QB as it does how good an oline blocks or how well a dline gets after the QB.

Wilson will not get traded because he is an elite QB who has had his team in the playoffs every year he has been on the team. He is a future HOF who is arguably the 2nd best QB in the NFL right now. Not because he puts people in the seats, that is an absurd argument.

I said pressure driven because that what Wilson would call it. There was no pressure. He threw up a lollipop. I'm ok with your opinion that Wilson is the No 2 QB in the NFL right now. It's an opinion. It's certainly not mine and it's not worth wasting time on. I hope Wilson's OL remembers his comments about their crap play and they let him get sacked a few times. Let him take a beating. But they are pros and most have respect for their teammates so I doubt that happens. We also have different opinions about sacks. I'll take as many as we can get. Every QB plays differently when getting sacked. Getting sacked is more painful than getting pressure. It's remembered. 5 sacks had a big impact on that game. It's very hard to win when getting sacked like that. 1 or 2 sacks is no big deal unless you knock the QB out then it's a big deal. Pressure won't knock a QB out. It will cause timing issues for sure. Yes Wilson has that team in the playoffs every year. I'm not looking it up but I don't recall him facing a HOF QB in that division he has dominated. He's not beating out a Rothlesbeger or Brady or Rodgers every year. But I could be missing a guy.

[YikesVikes]

How is this even a discussion. Wilson is a top 3 QB. Mahommes, Rogers, Wilson. That's it. Brees and Brady have fallen out of the top 3. Brady may still win it all but game in and game out, he isn't on Wiilson's level. What's our record vs. Wilson? It's not good.

[CharVike]

How is this even a discussion. Wilson is a top 3 QB. Mahommes, Rogers, Wilson. That's it. Brees and Brady have fallen out of the top 3. Brady may still win it all but game in and game out, he isn't on Wiilson's level. What's our record vs. Wilson? It's not good.

It became a discussion when some pointed out that we should trade a bunch of 1st round picks + much more because Wilson is far superior than Cousins and our team would be much better. I posted that he's not at Rodgers level so it would be a waste. I want pass rushers. But I'm done with this topic we have all made our opinions known. This coming season will shake out the same and the old man will probably win it all again.

[StumpHunter]

How is this even a discussion. Wilson is a top 3 QB. Mahommes, Rogers, Wilson. That's it. Brees and Brady have fallen out of the top 3. Brady may still win it all but game in and game out, he isn't on Wiilson's level. What's our record vs. Wilson? It's not good.

It became a discussion when some pointed out that we should trade a bunch of 1st round picks + much more because Wilson is far superior than Cousins and our team would be much better. I posted that he's not at Rodgers level so it would be a waste. I want pass rushers. But I'm done with this topic we have all made our opinions known. This coming season will shake out the same and the old man will probably win it all again.

Everything you knock Wilson for, you can also rip Rodgers for.

Rodgers has 1 SB win and never been back which is actually worse than Wilson. He rips his teammates and his HC. He plays in a division without another great QB, just like Brady, Manning, Big Ben and Brees.

Statistically they could not be more similar with Rodgers producing a little more volume but Wilson being more clutch at the end of games. We also know that Wilson can still play at an elite level with a bad Oline, while Rodgers has had great Oline play for most of his career.

In the end, if Rodgers is on the Seahawks and Wilson on the Packers and both teams have the same season they did in 2020.

Your take on Wilson is completely baseless and a 1st + much more for a QB who has proven he can win with a bad Oline and less than ideal defense is a steal.

[VikingLord]

In the end, if Rodgers is on the Seahawks and Wilson on the Packers and both teams have the same season they did in 2020.

In the end, it comes back to the whole of the team and not the individual QB. There is only so much a QB can do to take a team over the top. Even the best QB needs that complete team around him.

Your take on Wilson is completely baseless and a 1st + much more for a QB who has proven he can win with a bad Oline and less than ideal defense is a steal.

I don't know about CharVike's take on Wilson being baseless, but I do know that his take on needing impact players on the lines is right on the money. You swap out Cousins for Wilson, maybe you win one more game. You give up a 1st in addition to that, now you might win that one more game next year but lose it the following year because you missed the contribution that impact player would have provided and you needed.

You give up "much more" and you might well be taking two steps back for your one step forward.

It just comes back down to relative contribution and you acknowledged how far that goes right here. So Cousins is what, 10% less effective than guys like Wilson and Rodgers? That's not a problem as long as the rest of the team around Cousins is 11%+ better than the teams around Wilson and Rodgers.

Heck, Brady proves this point better than anything. Tom Brady today isn't as physically good as Tom Brady of 10 years ago, but he just won another Superbowl. He didn't win that because he's better than he was. Heck, he's probably not even as good as Wilson or Rodgers are right now. But the team around him was better, so much so that they fairly easily won the Superbowl and pretty soundly beat both Rodgers' Packers and Mahomes' Chiefs.

If Spielman and Zimmer want to take the team to the next level they've got to focus on fixing the problems they have so the team around Cousins is better. If they want to make a play at QB, the play to be made is in the draft. Don't give up lots of draft capital for what would amount to a marginal overall improvement at one position while tying their hands at improving all the other positions they could address with the draft capital they'd have to give up.

[StumpHunter]

I don't know about CharVike's take on Wilson being baseless, but I do know that his take on needing impact players on the lines is right on the money.

You need impact players on the defensive line no doubt, but that isn't his take. His take is that you need to have the best pass rush to win it all, when that frequently has not been the case. In fact, half of the SB winners have been bottom 5 pass rush teams over the past 4 seasons.

You swap out Cousins for Wilson, maybe you win one more game. You give up a 1st in addition to that, now you might win that one more game next year but lose it the following year because you missed the contribution that impact player would have provided and you needed.

Interesting, because Wilson has literally never won fewer than 9 games, and has only won 9 games once. But you are saying he would win 8 if he was on the Vikings? That is statistically improbable.

How many wins would we miss out on if we didn't have Gladney next season?

You give up "much more" and you might well be taking two steps back for your one step forward.

You give up "much more" and you are you taking two steps back and taking 1 giant leap into SB contention.

It just comes back down to relative contribution and you acknowledged how far that goes right here. So Cousins is what, 10% less effective than guys like Wilson and Rodgers? That's not a problem as long as the rest of the team around Cousins is 11%+ better than the teams around Wilson and Rodgers.

Cousins isn't 10% worse than Wilson or Rodgers. Maybe against the worst defenses in the NFL he is, but against top 10 pass defenses he 0-11 as a QB for the Vikings and the offense has averaged scoring 15 points in those games. Wilson is 4-5 in 2018 and 2019, with his offenses averaging 22 points, and Rodgers is 7-5-1 averaging 20 points. That is why Wilson and Rodgers are consistently in the playoffs while Cousins is consistently .500.

Heck, Brady proves this point better than anything. Tom Brady today isn't as physically good as Tom Brady of 10 years ago, but he just won another Superbowl. He didn't win that because he's better than he was. Heck, he's probably not even as good as Wilson or Rodgers are right now. But the team around him was better, so much so that they fairly easily won the Superbowl and pretty soundly beat both Rodgers' Packers and Mahomes' Chiefs.

Brady proves the difference between what a great QB can do and what a lesser QB who puts up big numbers can do.

If Spielman and Zimmer want to take the team to the next level they've got to focus on fixing the problems they have so the team around Cousins is better. If they want to make a play at QB, the play to be made is in the draft. Don't give up lots of draft capital for what would amount to a marginal overall improvement at one position while tying their hands at improving all the other positions they could address with the draft capital they'd have to give up.

When saddled with a QB who gives you a significant disadvantage in the playoffs compared to most other teams in the playoffs, yes, you absolutely need to make the rest of the team that much better. The problem is that the QB's contract makes getting that team to the point where you are so much better at every position that it doesn't matter you are at a disadvantage at most important one almost impossible.

[808vikingsfan]

How is this even a discussion. Wilson is a top 3 QB. Mahommes, Rogers, Wilson. That's it. Brees and Brady have fallen out of the top 3. Brady may still win it all but game in and game out, he isn't on Wiilson's level. What's our record vs. Wilson? It's not good.

Like I said in another thread, this discussion only happens on a Vikings board.

[vikeinmontana]

How is this even a discussion. Wilson is a top 3 QB. Mahommes, Rogers, Wilson. That's it. Brees and Brady have fallen out of the top 3. Brady may still win it all but game in and game out, he isn't on Wiilson's level. What's our record vs. Wilson? It's not good.

Like I said in another thread, this discussion only happens on a Vikings board.

I said the same thing. It's kind of amazing actually. I'm beginning to think the Vikings fanbase may be the only in the country that doesn't think Wilson is a top 5 QB. Or that he's not better than Cousins.

[J. Kapp 11]

Like I said in another thread, this discussion only happens on a Vikings board.

I said the same thing. It's kind of amazing actually. I'm beginning to think the Vikings fanbase may be the only in the country that doesn't think Wilson is a top 5 QB. Or that he's not better than Cousins.

This is what happens when you have a quarterback with shiny stats but whose won-loss record has about as much shimmer as a turd.

[RandyMoss84]

I said the same thing. It's kind of amazing actually. I'm beginning to think the Vikings fanbase may be the only in the country that doesn't think Wilson is a top 5 QB. Or that he's not better than Cousins.

This is what happens when you have a quarterback with shiny stats but whose won-loss record has about as much shimmer as a turd.

That is not Cousins’ fault that the Redskins suck

[StumpHunter]

This is what happens when you have a quarterback with shiny stats but whose won-loss record has about as much shimmer as a turd.

That is not Cousins’ fault that the Redskins suck

He is 1 game better in his 3 seasons here.

[CharVike]

I said the same thing. It's kind of amazing actually. I'm beginning to think the Vikings fanbase may be the only in the country that doesn't think Wilson is a top 5 QB. Or that he's not better than Cousins.

This is what happens when you have a quarterback with shiny stats but whose won-loss record has about as much shimmer as a turd.

Like the guy for the Texans.

[CharVike]

I don't know about CharVike's take on Wilson being baseless, but I do know that his take on needing impact players on the lines is right on the money.

You need impact players on the defensive line no doubt, but that isn't his take. His take is that you need to have the best pass rush to win it all, when that frequently has not been the case. In fact, half of the SB winners have been bottom 5 pass rush teams over the past 4 seasons.

You swap out Cousins for Wilson, maybe you win one more game. You give up a 1st in addition to that, now you might win that one more game next year but lose it the following year because you missed the contribution that impact player would have provided and you needed.

Interesting, because Wilson has literally never won fewer than 9 games, and has only won 9 games once. But you are saying he would win 8 if he was on the Vikings? That is statistically improbable.

How many wins would we miss out on if we didn't have Gladney next season?

You give up "much more" and you might well be taking two steps back for your one step forward.

You give up "much more" and you are you taking two steps back and taking 1 giant leap into SB contention.

It just comes back down to relative contribution and you acknowledged how far that goes right here. So Cousins is what, 10% less effective than guys like Wilson and Rodgers? That's not a problem as long as the rest of the team around Cousins is 11%+ better than the teams around Wilson and Rodgers.

Cousins isn't 10% worse than Wilson or Rodgers. Maybe against the worst defenses in the NFL he is, but against top 10 pass defenses he 0-11 as a QB for the Vikings and the offense has averaged scoring 15 points in those games. Wilson is 4-5 in 2018 and 2019, with his offenses averaging 22 points, and Rodgers is 7-5-1 averaging 20 points. That is why Wilson and Rodgers are consistently in the playoffs while Cousins is consistently .500.

Heck, Brady proves this point better than anything. Tom Brady today isn't as physically good as Tom Brady of 10 years ago, but he just won another Superbowl. He didn't win that because he's better than he was. Heck, he's probably not even as good as Wilson or Rodgers are right now. But the team around him was better, so much so that they fairly easily won the Superbowl and pretty soundly beat both Rodgers' Packers and Mahomes' Chiefs.

Brady proves the difference between what a great QB can do and what a lesser QB who puts up big numbers can do.

If Spielman and Zimmer want to take the team to the next level they've got to focus on fixing the problems they have so the team around Cousins is better. If they want to make a play at QB, the play to be made is in the draft. Don't give up lots of draft capital for what would amount to a marginal overall improvement at one position while tying their hands at improving all the other positions they could address with the draft capital they'd have to give up.

When saddled with a QB who gives you a significant disadvantage in the playoffs compared to most other teams in the playoffs, yes, you absolutely need to make the rest of the team that much better. The problem is that the QB's contract makes getting that team to the point where you are so much better at every position that it doesn't matter you are at a disadvantage at most important one almost impossible.

At the end of the day a Super Bowl can be or will be won in many different ways. Trent Dilfer is a Super Bowl winning QB. So you can win a Super Bowl with a less than average QB. I would not recommend going into the season with a QB like that because your chances lesson dramatically. Maybe it has already happened but someday the worst defense in the NFL will win a Super Bowl. Again I wouldn't recommend trying it that way. Marino and Fouts are the best example of that. I never thought a 43 year old QB could win a Super Bowl. This wasn't a one game fill in either. Eventually a 50 year old QB will win one. IMO you better be able to play decent defense. I prefer a D that puts tremendous pressure on the opposing QB which means sacks. You better have a QB that can play at a decent level. Our team wasted our two best defenses in our history 70 and 71 because we had less than zero at QB. It also helps if your in a division that is weak. Currently the NFC east is weak. I'd rather be there than were we are. It gives you a better chance of making the playoffs and getting home field. Our team faces the same problem that all teams have with a QB that takes up much CAP space. Prescott for Dallas is the highest paid player. The guy threw 30 TDs once. They play in a weak division. The Super Bowl should be a given. But it won't be. IMO the best way to get to the Super Bowl is to be red hot when you hit the playoffs. If your not hot say bye bye.