As long as Kirk Cousins is a Viking, they will never draft a quarterback!!!

[Maelstrom88]

Unless Cousins gets hurt or his production drops off a cliff I think he will be the QB for 5 to 6 years.

I'm new here, what's the general consensus on the Cousins era so far?

There are some who question if he can ever win the big one but I'd say most realize he is overall pretty good and would be difficult to improve upon.

Personally, I think as long as the offensive line does their part he's about to have a career year.

[fiestavike]

Unless Cousins gets hurt or his production drops off a cliff I think he will be the QB for 5 to 6 years.

I'm new here, what's the general consensus on the Cousins era so far?

polarizing.

I personally think Kirk does some things very well, and that he also has glaring weaknesses, which might be more temperamental and psychological than anything else.

I rather like summing it up by saying that, Kirk is not the guy I want behind the wheel when the 18wheeler in front of us loses a tire. We'll probably wind up in the ditch.

[Maelstrom88]

Was Manning ever that immobile? Bledsoe?

Rivers...Eli wasn't too swift a foot either. Carson Palmer. Bradford. There have been a large number who were at least NFL calibur, and some who were very good within the last couple decades.

I think you need to be mobile enough to roll out and change the launch point every once in awhile and have pocket awareness but that's about it. I prefer pocket passers to runners who get hurt. A lot of time the growth of guys who rely on their legs is stunted imo.

[Maelstrom88]

I'm new here, what's the general consensus on the Cousins era so far?

polarizing.

I personally think Kirk does some things very well, and that he also has glaring weaknesses, which might be more temperamental and psychological than anything else.

I rather like summing it up by saying that, Kirk is not the guy I want behind the wheel when the 18wheeler in front of us loses a tire. We'll probably wind up in the ditch.

But would you be alive in the ditch?

[fiestavike]

Rivers...Eli wasn't too swift a foot either. Carson Palmer. Bradford. There have been a large number who were at least NFL calibur, and some who were very good within the last couple decades.

I think you need to be mobile enough to roll out and change the launch point every once in awhile and have pocket awareness but that's about it. I prefer pocket passers to runners who get hurt. A lot of time the growth of guys who rely on their legs in stunted imo.

I don't even mind a guy who is very conservative and very athletically limited. He's going to climb the pocket, and if that doesn't buy him enough time, he'll take the sack and punt. But of course, that depends on how your running game and defense are. If you are giving up 30 points a game that approach is not going to be good complimentary football. If you are holding teams down at 19 or 20 points a game, you can play that way and win a lot.

I'm looking forward to watching a bit of game film from Stanley.

[VikingLord]

I fail to believe it was some sort of coincidence we saw no value at the QB position over the last decade. The more logical conclusion is his strategy is to simply ignore or discount any sort of potential or contingency plan drafting strategy at the position. Despite our tremendous lack of continuity at QB.

OK, so let's assume your view is correct and Spielman's strategy is to ignore the QB position altogether if he feels he has a legit starter at the position.

So he follows that strategy and then, when Bridgewater went down, what did he have to do as a result of it? He had to send a 1st round pick to the Eagles to acquire Sam Bradford.

I don't know about you but if I am Rick Spielman and my draft strategy has been along the lines of what you said, my experience with the Bridgewater situation cures me of that ill-informed outlook real quick.

That was a true disaster. It forced Spielman to pay a heavy price (essentially 2 first round picks for QBs), and *neither* of them still plays for the Vikings.

Now could Spielman be so obstinate that after his experience with those two QBs he's still of the opinion that his current starter at QB is forever and he doesn't need to worry about stocking up in the draft if good value at the position presents itself? I guess he could, but that would kind of defy explanation. Assuming the conclusion you drew is accurate, if Spielman's hard lessons haven't taught him the error of his ways I doubt anything will.

I personally don't believe Spielman ignores the position. I believe the position is really hard to draft successfully, and for competitive teams like the Vikings that are not finishing near or at the bottom of the barrel in the standings very often, by the time their draft picks roll around the big "QB" fish in the barrel that are easy to see and shoot are already gone. It's easier to shoot the big "other positions" fish at those points in the draft that you have a higher degree of confidence will make the overall team better than to reach for guys solely because they played a given position in college.

And one other thing that probably taught Spielman a good lesson too is Christian Ponder, a QB he knows he reached for with another 1st round pick and who had no business as a starter in the pros. I'd say Spielman has had a solid "3 wasted 1st rounders" lesson in drafting QBs.

[Maelstrom88]

I fail to believe it was some sort of coincidence we saw no value at the QB position over the last decade. The more logical conclusion is his strategy is to simply ignore or discount any sort of potential or contingency plan drafting strategy at the position. Despite our tremendous lack of continuity at QB.

OK, so let's assume your view is correct and Spielman's strategy is to ignore the QB position altogether if he feels he has a legit starter at the position.

So he follows that strategy and then, when Bridgewater went down, what did he have to do as a result of it? He had to send a 1st round pick to the Eagles to acquire Sam Bradford.

I don't know about you but if I am Rick Spielman and my draft strategy has been along the lines of what you said, my experience with the Bridgewater situation cures me of that ill-informed outlook real quick.

That was a true disaster. It forced Spielman to pay a heavy price (essentially 2 first round picks for QBs), and *neither* of them still plays for the Vikings.

Now could Spielman be so obstinate that after his experience with those two QBs he's still of the opinion that his current starter at QB is forever and he doesn't need to worry about stocking up in the draft if good value at the position presents itself? I guess he could, but that would kind of defy explanation. Assuming the conclusion you drew is accurate, if Spielman's hard lessons haven't taught him the error of his ways I doubt anything will.

I personally don't believe Spielman ignores the position. I believe the position is really hard to draft successfully, and for competitive teams like the Vikings that are not finishing near or at the bottom of the barrel in the standings very often, by the time their draft picks roll around the big "QB" fish in the barrel that are easy to see and shoot are already gone. It's easier to shoot the big "other positions" fish at those points in the draft that you have a higher degree of confidence will make the overall team better than to reach for guys solely because they played a given position in college.

And one other thing that probably taught Spielman a good lesson too is Christian Ponder, a QB he knows he reached for with another 1st round pick and who had no business as a starter in the pros. I'd say Spielman has had a solid "3 wasted 1st rounders" lesson in drafting QBs.

Obviously with hindsight we see Rick should have saved the 1st he dealt for Sam, tanked, and drafted Mahomes. Mannion is like the current Shaun Hill. A guy you know won't win or impress if he has to play so why waste a roster spot on him? I don't get it but I also wouldn't draft a QB every year.

[Maelstrom88]

Unless Cousins gets hurt or his production drops off a cliff I think he will be the QB for 5 to 6 years.

I'm new here, what's the general consensus on the Cousins era so far?

Nice screen name btw and welcome to the forum.

[Pep2Moss]

I'm new here, what's the general consensus on the Cousins era so far?

Nice screen name btw and welcome to the forum.

Thank you! I used to be TEDBROWN23 and TeddyB on the old Mouthoff/kffl forums. I miss talking Vikings

[Pep2Moss]

I'm new here, what's the general consensus on the Cousins era so far?

polarizing.

I personally think Kirk does some things very well, and that he also has glaring weaknesses, which might be more temperamental and psychological than anything else.

I rather like summing it up by saying that, Kirk is not the guy I want behind the wheel when the 18wheeler in front of us loses a tire. We'll probably wind up in the ditch.

Hahahaha holy crap that is perfect...well done. That's how I feel as well.

[StumpHunter]

Was Manning ever that immobile? Bledsoe?

Rivers...Eli wasn't too swift a foot either. Carson Palmer. Bradford. There have been a large number who were at least NFL calibur, and some who were very good within the last couple decades.

Manning, Rivers, Eli, and Palmer were good athletes who could move when they came into the NFL. Not scramblers like Wilson or Rodgers, but fleet of foot enough they could roll out or move the pocket when needed. Bradford was an okay passer who was a bad QB and is a great example of how a statue at QB doesn't work, but even he was a better athlete than Stanley.

[StumpHunter]

I fail to believe it was some sort of coincidence we saw no value at the QB position over the last decade. The more logical conclusion is his strategy is to simply ignore or discount any sort of potential or contingency plan drafting strategy at the position. Despite our tremendous lack of continuity at QB.

OK, so let's assume your view is correct and Spielman's strategy is to ignore the QB position altogether if he feels he has a legit starter at the position.

So he follows that strategy and then, when Bridgewater went down, what did he have to do as a result of it? He had to send a 1st round pick to the Eagles to acquire Sam Bradford.

I don't know about you but if I am Rick Spielman and my draft strategy has been along the lines of what you said, my experience with the Bridgewater situation cures me of that ill-informed outlook real quick.

That was a true disaster. It forced Spielman to pay a heavy price (essentially 2 first round picks for QBs), and *neither* of them still plays for the Vikings.

Now could Spielman be so obstinate that after his experience with those two QBs he's still of the opinion that his current starter at QB is forever and he doesn't need to worry about stocking up in the draft if good value at the position presents itself? I guess he could, but that would kind of defy explanation. Assuming the conclusion you drew is accurate, if Spielman's hard lessons haven't taught him the error of his ways I doubt anything will.

I personally don't believe Spielman ignores the position. I believe the position is really hard to draft successfully, and for competitive teams like the Vikings that are not finishing near or at the bottom of the barrel in the standings very often, by the time their draft picks roll around the big "QB" fish in the barrel that are easy to see and shoot are already gone. It's easier to shoot the big "other positions" fish at those points in the draft that you have a higher degree of confidence will make the overall team better than to reach for guys solely because they played a given position in college.

And one other thing that probably taught Spielman a good lesson too is Christian Ponder, a QB he knows he reached for with another 1st round pick and who had no business as a starter in the pros. I'd say Spielman has had a solid "3 wasted 1st rounders" lesson in drafting QBs.

He wasn't forced to do anything when Teddy went down, but I see your point.

[VikingsVictorious]

I'm new here, what's the general consensus on the Cousins era so far?

There are some who question if he can ever win the big one but I'd say most realize he is overall pretty good and would be difficult to improve upon.

Personally, I think as long as the offensive line does their part he's about to have a career year.

There is no such thing as a player who can never win the big one. Every player doesn't until they do. Any player in the NFL if placed in the right circumstances can win the big one. Nate Stanley, Cousins, Trubiski, Mike Boone, Dan Bailey, whoever.

[Maelstrom88]

There are some who question if he can ever win the big one but I'd say most realize he is overall pretty good and would be difficult to improve upon.

Personally, I think as long as the offensive line does their part he's about to have a career year.

There is no such thing as a player who can never win the big one. Every player doesn't until they do. Any player in the NFL if placed in the right circumstances can win the big one. Nate Stanley, Cousins, Trubiski, Mike Boone, Dan Bailey, whoever.

I agree. There are many QBs who have won a Super Bowl who were not as good as Cousins. He's not the issue.

[J. Kapp 11]

Unless Cousins gets hurt or his production drops off a cliff I think he will be the QB for 5 to 6 years.

I'm new here, what's the general consensus on the Cousins era so far?

Welcome!

The general consensus on Cousins (no surprise) depends on whom you ask.

Some see him as a capable quarterback with a few limitations, such as the ability to improvise at anything more than a read through his progressions. The belief in these circles is that he can win a Super Bowl with the right supporting cast and a solid scheme.

Others see him as a quarterback who can pile up stats but can't be counted on to put the team on his back and win big games.

Still others (such as the OP) would rather eat a poop sandwich than see Kirk Cousins take another snap as the Vikings' quarterback.

I don't believe anyone has dubbed him the second coming of Tom Brady, but I could be wrong.

Seriously, opinions are all over the map.

Mine is much like the first on listed above. To break it down further, I think he's smart. I think he has above average arm talent -- he's accurate, including the deep ball, but his spin rate is average, which makes his fastball about average. I think he prepares very well, perhaps too well (leading to a need for the play to develop as planned). I think he's the best quarterback in the league on play-action and planned rollouts. Very accurate, very savvy on those. I think he has a difficult time understanding where his escape routes are when the pocket breaks down; consequently, his eyes move away from downfield. In these situations, he tends to "see the rush" instead of "feeling the rush," and 9 times out of 10, we end up with some sort of negative play. I think he could stand to throw the ball away in certain situations. I think he's gotten a LOT better at taking care of the football since he first reported to the Vikings. For a long time, I thought there was some merit to the "can't make big plays in big moments" analysis, but I believe he did some things in the Denver, Seattle and New Orleans games that indicate he MIGHT be turning that corner. I think his teammates respect him and his leadership. Finally, I think he's Zimmer's type of quarterback ... gunslinger enough to make big plays when they're there, but conservative enough to take care of the football.

Can he lead us to the Super Bowl? I think so, but he's going to need a line that can keep him upright on obvious passing downs. And he needs a running game so that the Vikings can take advantage of his excellent play-action skills.

That's my take.