49ers Post Game

[Mothman]

It has been reported to be true, and I choose to believe it. I wouldn't say it was 100% fact though.

I think it is safe to assume Rick's coaches told him they liked him as a QB though. Whether they said we need to get this guy no matter what, or told Rick to take flyer on him in the later rounds? I don't think we will ever know that.

Probably not but I agree it's fair to assume the coaching staff shared their positive assessment of Wilson.

Thanks for the info.

[StumpHunter]

The trade didnt work out but I always said I understood why he made the move.

We all understood why he made the move for Bradford. That doesn't mean it was a smart move.

Every season fans rationalize all the ways in which the Vikes are close, in which Spielman's moves have been understandable, etc. and every season the Vikings come up short. We see similar shortcomings and unresolved issues year after year after year. We can always hope but at this point, it's a stretch to think they're going to win a Super Bowl with Cousins, Spielman and Zimmer. Sure, I could be wrong but the history of all 3 in the NFL says that's extremely unlikely to happen.

If the Vikes are smart, a year from now all 3 will be replaced.

Every trade, from Herschel Walker to Minkah Fitzpatrick has a good reason behind it. Some of those well meaning trades are doomed from the start though. Like the Walker one was. Like the Bradford trade was.

Trading a 1st for an oft injured 6 year vet with worse career stats than your current backup who was about to be benched by his current team anyway, was doomed from the start. If the Packers did that we would have laughed at them at the time of the trade, but because it was our team we pretend it was a good move even after it was proven to be a disaster. It helped the team that beat us in the NFC Championship game beat us in the NFCCG and win the SB and we still don't condemn that trade. Incredible.

[Fat Stupid Loser]

We all want that zebra. I get it. People are down on Cousins because he ain't the zebra. He can't run left and backwards and sideways and then diagonally throwing a fork ball underhanded to the right while looking left for 12 yards on 3rd and 9 like Mahomes. So he ain't worth the money and we can't build around him. Nonsense.

It's not nonsense. He's a solid player with obvious limitations, several of them in the "intangibles" department. He has strong character but he doesn't bring great confidence, leadership or intangibles to the position. He's not a player you sign to a big contract and build around precisely because he lacks those qualities. Fall behind 24-0 in the playoffs with a player like Mahomes at QB and the team keeps believing they can win and, in fact, may come back to win convincingly, as the Chiefs did in the divisional round. Fall behind like that with Cousins at QB and a team will almost certainly lose and lose big.

That's a very imprecise way to make the point but any experienced fan who's watched those two players for a while should be able to see the very real difference. Statistically, Cousins looks good and he IS a good player. He has solid fundamentals, a good arm, good accuracy (most of the time) and yet, he's not an elite QB. We all know that he's not a game-changer like Mahomes, Wilson, Rodgers, Brees, Jackson, Brady (maybe not anymore?). A team can win with him but he sure doesn't seem to me like the kind of QB to give a mega-contract and build around. His history seems to reinforce that.

So your general philosophy is that you don't pay a big contract to any QB? I ask because you have named some QBs that are considered elite or game changers, but all but one fails on a regular basis to take his team on his back and win SBs. Rodgers has 1 in 17 years. Brees 2 in 20 and lots of 7-9 records in there for both of them. So why pay them? They clearly aren't worth it either. I get that philosophy, I just don't think in today's game you are consistently successful without a really good QB. Doesn't have to be a game changer, has to be really good. And the really good ones get paid. I just don't buy that if you pay a QB or a D end or whatever you can't put a good team around him.

[Mothman]

So your general philosophy is that you don't pay a big contract to any QB?

No, that's not what I meant at all. I think some QBs are worthy of big contracts.

I ask because you have named some QBs that are considered elite or game changers, but all but one fails on a regular basis to take his team on his back and win SBs.

Personally, I don't believe that's possible. Football is too much of a team game for any single player, even a great QB, to take his team on his back and win SBs on a regular basis. However, a great QB can be a major difference-maker and significantly improve a team's chances. As you wrote below, it's hard to be consistently successful in today's NFL without a really good QB.

Rodgers has 1 in 17 years. Brees 2 in 20 and lots of 7-9 records in there for both of them. So why pay them? They clearly aren't worth it either. I get that philosophy, I just don't think in today's game you are consistently successful without a really good QB. Doesn't have to be a game changer, has to be really good. And the really good ones get paid. I just don't buy that if you pay a QB or a D end or whatever you can't put a good team around him.

I don't either and I wasn't advocating that point of view. I was saying, specifically, that Kirk Cousins isn't the kind of QB to give a big contract and build around. I see him more as a "piece of the puzzle" player than as the centerpiece/lynchpin of a team. It's not the size of his contract. It's that, in my view, he's not that centerpiece player.

[J. Kapp 11]

We all understood why he made the move for Bradford. That doesn't mean it was a smart move.

Every season fans rationalize all the ways in which the Vikes are close, in which Spielman's moves have been understandable, etc. and every season the Vikings come up short. We see similar shortcomings and unresolved issues year after year after year. We can always hope but at this point, it's a stretch to think they're going to win a Super Bowl with Cousins, Spielman and Zimmer. Sure, I could be wrong but the history of all 3 in the NFL says that's extremely unlikely to happen.

If the Vikes are smart, a year from now all 3 will be replaced.

Every trade, from Herschel Walker to Minkah Fitzpatrick has a good reason behind it. Some of those well meaning trades are doomed from the start though. Like the Walker one was. Like the Bradford trade was.

Trading a 1st for an oft injured 6 year vet with worse career stats than your current backup who was about to be benched by his current team anyway, was doomed from the start. If the Packers did that we would have laughed at them at the time of the trade, but because it was our team we pretend it was a good move even after it was proven to be a disaster. It helped the team that beat us in the NFC Championship game beat us in the NFCCG and win the SB and we still don't condemn that trade. Incredible.

I don't condemn that trade because, even though it didn't work out, I find it helpful to look at things in context.

In 2016, our defense was at its peak, and we had just come off a division championship. Adrian Peterson had just won a rushing title, and Teddy Bridgewater (it was felt) was threatening to have a breakout season. Management (and just about everyone else) felt the team had championship potential, and they did what they felt they needed to do in order to salvage an entire season of Shaun Hill. Nobody knew that AP would go down with a knee injury, Norv Turner would flake out, Zimmer would damn near pop an eyeball, or the team would fall apart after starting 5-0.

History no doubt shows that the Vikings missed on the Bradford trade, but at least the Wilfs gave Spielman the resources to make the attempt. Nobody can tell me that Red McCombs would have authorized any kind of extra spending under any circumstance. Yeah, I suppose that sounds like giving the Vikings "an A for Effort." Color me soft. But it's better than owners who say, "Tough luck ... try again in 10 years."

[Pondering Her Percy]

It's an opinion based on observation. I'm not in the locker room but I've watched enough football to know what leadership from that position looks like on the field, over time, and how teams respond to it. If you object to the word leadership than let's just stick with intangibles. Cousins clearly doesn't bring that extra X factor that elite QBs bring to the table.

Intangibles might be one thing, but questioning leadership is another. Unless you're in the locker room or you're seeing reports I'm not sure how you can make that call.

The pressure of a playoff game makes a difference so I'll stand by that opinion.

So you're telling me that the team will rally behind him in a regular season game when behind by a large deficit but quit on him if they are getting beat by a large margin in the playoffs? Again, that just doesnt add up. The playoffs are when guys jack their effort level up that much more. If anything, you'd see them quit on him during the regular season, not when you're entire season is on the line in the playoffs. Which resorts back to leadership and this is where I think you're drastically underestimated his leadership. You dont rally your team back from a 20-0 deficit if you arent a leader. You blame others, complain, get frustrated, etc.

And sure the pressure of a playoff game is a lot higher but did that pressure phase him in overtime vs. the Saints (on the road no less)??

They still are that type of team. Cousins is a journeyman. He's better than most players who fit that description but he's not an extraordinary or colorful player. He's a reliably skilled NFL starter.

They are not that type of team anymore. How can you be that type of team when you have a defense that's holding onto the word average by a thread? And now have Griffen, Joseph and Rhodes all in danger of being cut, Waynes, Alexander, Harris and Weatherly all set to be free agents, etc. Even if we resign some, we arent going back to being a top defense in the NFL. Rhodes and Joseph are no longer performing at a high level. Griff has maybe another year, 2 max at performing well.

Also, a journeyman is someone who bounces from team to team, primarily in a backup role and gets a starting shot here and there. Cousins in no way, shape or form is a journeyman. That's Case Keenum, Fitzpatrick, McCown, Matt Moore, etc.

One of the key points I've been trying to make here is that the "the right time to take a QB" is when the right QB is available. I don't care if the team already has a good starter or a greater need. If they think a young QB has the right stuff, grab him.

And I agree with you but I also dont think running to a guy like Tannehill is a smart idea either.

The trade didnt work out but I always said I understood why he made the move.

We all understood why he made the move for Bradford. That doesn't mean it was a smart move.

Every season fans rationalize all the ways in which the Vikes are close, in which Spielman's moves have been understandable, etc. and every season the Vikings come up short. We see similar shortcomings and unresolved issues year after year after year. We can always hope but at this point, it's a stretch to think they're going to win a Super Bowl with Cousins, Spielman and Zimmer. Sure, I could be wrong but the history of all 3 in the NFL says that's extremely unlikely to happen.

If the Vikes are smart, a year from now all 3 will be replaced.

I guess we'll have to wait and see....

[Mothman]

I don't condemn that trade because, even though it didn't work out, I find it helpful to look at things in context.

In 2016, our defense was at its peak, and we had just come off a division championship. Adrian Peterson had just won a rushing title, and Teddy Bridgewater (it was felt) was threatening to have a breakout season. Management (and just about everyone else) felt the team had championship potential, and they did what they felt they needed to do in order to salvage an entire season of Shaun Hill. Nobody knew that AP would go down with a knee injury, Norv Turner would flake out, Zimmer would damn near pop an eyeball, or the team would fall apart after starting 5-0.

History no doubt shows that the Vikings missed on the Bradford trade, but at least the Wilfs gave Spielman the resources to make the attempt. Nobody can tell me that Red McCombs would have authorized any kind of extra spending under any circumstance. Yeah, I suppose that sounds like giving the Vikings "an A for Effort." Color me soft. But it's better than owners who say, "Tough luck ... try again in 10 years."

Then again, maybe it would have been beneficial to have owners who said:

"Wait a minute... our young starting QB was just lost for 2 seasons to an unexpected injury and your backup plan was so poor that now you want to trade first and fourth round picks for a QB who has suffered 2 ACL injuries and never made the playoffs? Maybe you should reconsider that strategy."

In reality, it's probably best for ownership not to meddle at all. I'm glad the Wilfs have been willing to give the team the financial resources necessary to pursue a championship. That's certainly better than what McCombs was doing but I also hope they see the problems with their current choices to lead the charge.

[Dames]

I don't condemn that trade because, even though it didn't work out, I find it helpful to look at things in context.

In 2016, our defense was at its peak, and we had just come off a division championship. Adrian Peterson had just won a rushing title, and Teddy Bridgewater (it was felt) was threatening to have a breakout season. Management (and just about everyone else) felt the team had championship potential, and they did what they felt they needed to do in order to salvage an entire season of Shaun Hill. Nobody knew that AP would go down with a knee injury, Norv Turner would flake out, Zimmer would damn near pop an eyeball, or the team would fall apart after starting 5-0.

History no doubt shows that the Vikings missed on the Bradford trade, but at least the Wilfs gave Spielman the resources to make the attempt. Nobody can tell me that Red McCombs would have authorized any kind of extra spending under any circumstance. Yeah, I suppose that sounds like giving the Vikings "an A for Effort." Color me soft. But it's better than owners who say, "Tough luck ... try again in 10 years."

I'll start by saying that I was in favor of the trade at the time, because it certainly appears we were ready to to take the next step. I didn't want the year wasted. Yes, they absolutely overpaid. In hindsight, it hurt us, and I wish it never happened, but I wasn't arguing against it at the time. I felt we were stuck.

But, it brings us to a deeper issue. The fact that they treat the backup QB as a glorified assistant instead of someone who they can actually trust to play QB is very frustrating. They overpaid because they weren't prepared for something to happen to the starter, and they still do this today. Keenum in 2017 was a surprise to them as much as to the fans. You can tell by the comments. I understand you can't always have 2 starters on your team, but you sure as hell can have some potential at least, and avoid a panic move when you lose the main guy. If Cousins went down, I highly doubt anyone on the staff would have been comfortable with Mannion running the show. So... what's the point of having him take up a spot? It would be way more prudent to have a young QB on the bench with some potential.

[Dames]

In reality, it's probably best for ownership not to meddle at all. I'm glad the Wilfs have been willing to give the team the financial resources necessary to pursue a championship. That's certainly better than what McCombs was doing but I also hope they see the problems with their current choices to lead the charge.

I like having the Wilfs as owners. I think they want to win. I hope they are starting to see reality with the current team also. I like that they are not flighty and reactionary, but I think there is enough evidence now. We'll see.

[Mothman]

Intangibles might be one thing, but questioning leadership is another

Leadership is an intangible quality.

So you're telling me that the team will rally behind him in a regular season game when behind by a large deficit but quit on him if they are getting beat by a large margin in the playoffs? Again, that just doesnt add up. The playoffs are when guys jack their effort level up that much more. If anything, you'd see them quit on him during the regular season, not when you're entire season is on the line in the playoffs. Which resorts back to leadership and this is where I think you're drastically underestimated his leadership. You dont rally your team back from a 20-0 deficit if you arent a leader. You blame others, complain, get frustrated, etc.

And sure the pressure of a playoff game is a lot higher but did that pressure phase him in overtime vs. the Saints (on the road no less)??

Different scenario.

We could go around and around on this point but it's not worth it. It was just a hypothetical example intended to illustrate the point that Cousins isn't the kind of special QB Mahomes clearly is and (based on my observations anyway) doesn't appear to inspire his team in the same way. We can reasonably differ on the outcome of the hypothetical scenario but it can't be proven either way so there's no sense in continuing to debate it.

They are not that type of team anymore. How can you be that type of team when you have a defense that's holding onto the word average by a thread? And now have Griffen, Joseph and Rhodes all in danger of being cut, Waynes, Alexander, Harris and Weatherly all set to be free agents, etc. Even if we resign some, we arent going back to being a top defense in the NFL. Rhodes and Joseph are no longer performing at a high level. Griff has maybe another year, 2 max at performing well.

Also, a journeyman is someone who bounces from team to team, primarily in a backup role and gets a starting shot here and there. Cousins in no way, shape or form is a journeyman. That's Case Keenum, Fitzpatrick, McCown, Matt Moore, etc.

A journeyman is, by definition, a reliable but not outstanding or exceptional player.

It's worth noting that Cousins is on his second team and it won't be surprising if he's on a third in 2021.

As for the defense: I see your point. I was focusing more on the QB and what I was saying is the Vikes are still built like that kind of team. Maybe that will change this offseason but I'm guessing they will direct their efforts primarily to the defensive side of the roster and their overall philosophy will change little. That said, there's a good chance you're right that next year's defense won't be good enough to carry them anywhere.

And I agree with you but I also dont think running to a guy like Tannehill is a smart idea either.

I don't either but even though he was on that list of playoff QBs, I don't think anybody is actually suggesting he would solve the Vikes QB problems.

[Mothman]

But, it brings us to a deeper issue. The fact that they treat the backup QB as a glorified assistant instead of someone who they can actually trust to play QB is very frustrating. They overpaid because they weren't prepared for something to happen to the starter, and they still do this today. Keenum in 2017 was a surprise to them as much as to the fans. You can tell by the comments. I understand you can't always have 2 starters on your team, but you sure as hell can have some potential at least, and avoid a panic move when you lose the main guy. If Cousins went down, I highly doubt anyone on the staff would have been comfortable with Mannion running the show. So... what's the point of having him take up a spot? It would be way more prudent to have a young QB on the bench with some potential.

Well said. It's a problem that's been repeated too many times.

[StumpHunter]

Every trade, from Herschel Walker to Minkah Fitzpatrick has a good reason behind it. Some of those well meaning trades are doomed from the start though. Like the Walker one was. Like the Bradford trade was.

Trading a 1st for an oft injured 6 year vet with worse career stats than your current backup who was about to be benched by his current team anyway, was doomed from the start. If the Packers did that we would have laughed at them at the time of the trade, but because it was our team we pretend it was a good move even after it was proven to be a disaster. It helped the team that beat us in the NFC Championship game beat us in the NFCCG and win the SB and we still don't condemn that trade. Incredible.

I don't condemn that trade because, even though it didn't work out, I find it helpful to look at things in context.

In 2016, our defense was at its peak, and we had just come off a division championship. Adrian Peterson had just won a rushing title, and Teddy Bridgewater (it was felt) was threatening to have a breakout season. Management (and just about everyone else) felt the team had championship potential, and they did what they felt they needed to do in order to salvage an entire season of Shaun Hill. Nobody knew that AP would go down with a knee injury, Norv Turner would flake out, Zimmer would damn near pop an eyeball, or the team would fall apart after starting 5-0.

History no doubt shows that the Vikings missed on the Bradford trade, but at least the Wilfs gave Spielman the resources to make the attempt. Nobody can tell me that Red McCombs would have authorized any kind of extra spending under any circumstance. Yeah, I suppose that sounds like giving the Vikings "an A for Effort." Color me soft. But it's better than owners who say, "Tough luck ... try again in 10 years."

Let me ask you something. If Trubisky went down before the 2019 season with a possible career ending injury, the Bears had a 1st round pick next season and they decided to give it up to LA for Blake Bortles, would you consider that a good trade, or one born out of desperation that was destined to fail?

That is pretty much the context of the trade we made, and when you look at it as an outsider instead of a fan of the team that made the trade, it looks pretty bad in that context.

[fiestavike]

I don't condemn that trade because, even though it didn't work out, I find it helpful to look at things in context.

In 2016, our defense was at its peak, and we had just come off a division championship. Adrian Peterson had just won a rushing title, and Teddy Bridgewater (it was felt) was threatening to have a breakout season. Management (and just about everyone else) felt the team had championship potential, and they did what they felt they needed to do in order to salvage an entire season of Shaun Hill. Nobody knew that AP would go down with a knee injury, Norv Turner would flake out, Zimmer would damn near pop an eyeball, or the team would fall apart after starting 5-0.

History no doubt shows that the Vikings missed on the Bradford trade, but at least the Wilfs gave Spielman the resources to make the attempt. Nobody can tell me that Red McCombs would have authorized any kind of extra spending under any circumstance. Yeah, I suppose that sounds like giving the Vikings "an A for Effort." Color me soft. But it's better than owners who say, "Tough luck ... try again in 10 years."

Let me ask you something. If Trubisky went down before the 2019 season with a possible career ending injury, the Bears had a 1st round pick next season and they decided to give it up to LA for Blake Bortles, would you consider that a good trade, or one born out of desperation that was destined to fail?

That is pretty much the context of the trade we made, and when you look at it as an outsider instead of a fan of the team that made the trade, it looks pretty bad in that context.

Except Bortles is better than Sam bradford... worst pocket presence I've ever seen in my life.

[J. Kapp 11]

I don't condemn that trade because, even though it didn't work out, I find it helpful to look at things in context.

In 2016, our defense was at its peak, and we had just come off a division championship. Adrian Peterson had just won a rushing title, and Teddy Bridgewater (it was felt) was threatening to have a breakout season. Management (and just about everyone else) felt the team had championship potential, and they did what they felt they needed to do in order to salvage an entire season of Shaun Hill. Nobody knew that AP would go down with a knee injury, Norv Turner would flake out, Zimmer would damn near pop an eyeball, or the team would fall apart after starting 5-0.

History no doubt shows that the Vikings missed on the Bradford trade, but at least the Wilfs gave Spielman the resources to make the attempt. Nobody can tell me that Red McCombs would have authorized any kind of extra spending under any circumstance. Yeah, I suppose that sounds like giving the Vikings "an A for Effort." Color me soft. But it's better than owners who say, "Tough luck ... try again in 10 years."

Let me ask you something. If Trubisky went down before the 2019 season with a possible career ending injury, the Bears had a 1st round pick next season and they decided to give it up to LA for Blake Bortles, would you consider that a good trade, or one born out of desperation that was destined to fail?

That is pretty much the context of the trade we made, and when you look at it as an outsider instead of a fan of the team that made the trade, it looks pretty bad in that context.

Look, I never said it was a good trade. History has shown us that it wasn't, but not because Bradford played poorly. I still remember Sean McDonough's "Bradford can't miss" call in the third quarter of our season-opening rout of the Saints in 2017. It was one of the most amazing displays of spinning a football I can remember. I also remember Dalvin Cook rushing for 127 yards and wondering who in the world was going to stop our offense. Unfortunately, that's when Bradford reverted to his alter ego, Sam Glassford.

All I'm saying is that I understood the trade at the time. It was a gamble that didn't pay off. And hey, if you were singing that "impending disaster" tune when the Vikings were 5-0, or when Bradford was racking up 346 yards and a 143 passer rating against the Saints, then congratulations ... you're far more of a Nostradamus than I am. Still, I'll politely disagree with your position that any reasonable person could see from the beginning that it was a certain disaster.

And for the record, I'm not sure Mitchell Trubisky is an upgrade over Blake Bortles. And neither would be mistaken for a healthy Sam Bradford (a rare occurrence, I'll admit), who had as much arm talent as anyone in the game. Bradford, it could be argued, was an upgrade over Teddy Bridgewater.

[J. Kapp 11]

Let me ask you something. If Trubisky went down before the 2019 season with a possible career ending injury, the Bears had a 1st round pick next season and they decided to give it up to LA for Blake Bortles, would you consider that a good trade, or one born out of desperation that was destined to fail?

That is pretty much the context of the trade we made, and when you look at it as an outsider instead of a fan of the team that made the trade, it looks pretty bad in that context.

Except Bortles is better than Sam bradford... worst pocket presence I've ever seen in my life.

And now we're throwing out hyperbole just to win an argument. Sam Bradford was one of the most gifted throwers of the football who has played in the last 25 years. He just couldn't stay healthy.

Plus, nobody was worse than Blake Bortles. Not Spurgon Wynn, not Akili Smith, not Ryan Leaf. Nobody.

See, I can sling it, too.