Cousins is actually better under the bright lights

[StumpHunter]

100% agree. It is tough for a GM to move on from a guy who is safe to take a chance on greatness when it could mean your job.

Its almost always a mistake if you make those kind of trades. And one that will set your franchise back years.

You do it if your QB is Fitzmagic or Case or if your stud QB is 38 and the rest of your team is so solid that you believe you won't miss all the first and second rounders you'll have to give up to get him. AND you're really sure this is the guy. Can't miss.

Is it?

The Eagles did it when they had Bradford and the Chiefs did it when they had Smith, and it worked out alright for them.

Where are the examples of it not working out?

[Cliff]

Didn't work out for the Vikings either. The Vikings and Denver both missed the post-season in 2018. So worst case scenario we keep the cheap QB and *still* don't make the playoffs. Best case, the Vikings *are* able to somewhat repeat their 2017 success with a QB that proved he was capable.

Cliff, based on the fact the Vikings clearly weren't sold on Case as a long term solution, don't you think that if they had signed him to a similar deal as the Broncos did (probably for less since players tend to get more in FAs than when they re-sign with their current team), is it safe to assume the Vikings would have been looking for a QBOTF in the 2018 draft? A draft that had a dynamic Louisville QB fall to where they were picking in the 1st, and where the Vikings made a luxury pick of a CB they didn't really need at the time?

Isn't the best case the Vikings extend Case during the 2017 season and draft Jackson?

Exactly. I actually pointed that out above. I meant best case for the teams record in 2018.

[StumpHunter]

Denver made him the starter and paid him half of what Cousins is making. So, more like 15 million savings per year. More than Danielle Hunter's salary. Roughly what J.J. Watt makes per year.

Well, that didn't work out so well for Denver. Or Washington. He had one good year on a really good team. His track record suggests he would not have reproduced that. That's what you get with 15M a year guys. But yeah, you can pay JJ with that extra cash. Its a valid approach. There just aren't many examples of consistently competitive teams with JAG QBs. Perhaps it was the right thing to do for that particular team to keep Case for the next year at that particular time. Don't know. I would have upgraded like Rick did. I think most GMs would also. I'm an internet GM though, so, you know.

I think if you polled Denver fans 99 out of 100 would prefer their QB situation to ours. That doesn't mean they are right, but at least they have hope, something I miss having for my team.

Washington refused to pay Cousins, but then paid an older more mobile version of him almost the same money. When Smith was healthy for them they were a pretty good team, but with him hurt and owed 20+ million each of the past two years, that contract has turned into a disaster. Because overpaying for average QB play never works.

[StumpHunter]

I said something similar to someone else but there is "overpaid" for what the QB market is and then there is "overpaid" for the team he is on. As a Vikings, considering the team and what a QB needs to do on it, he's overpaid. Similar results could have been had with a lesser QB so paying one that much is worthless and it means others on the team can't be paid as much either and so you lose out on talent.

Lets say I have a Master's degree in computer science and my market value is $100,000 a year. That doesn't mean McDonald's should hire me as a manager for that much. It doesn't make sense. They could get other people that would likely do a similar job as me for less money.

Check the stats and results. The lesser paid QBs not on Rookie contracts are not producing the stats or results that Cousins is. Don't say Keenum because if Cousins had the 2017 Vikings defense we would already be holding the Lombardi.

There is 0 correlation between winning and overpaying your QB:

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/02/nfl-qu ... ree-agency

Rookies and journeyman backup QBs forced into starting roles are just as likely to get you wins as the highly paid "proven" QBs who earn a big second contract. Not because they are as good of QBs, but because management can afford to put a better team around those guys.

BTW, the difference between that 2017 defense and the 2018 one is pretty insignificant when you break it down by drive.

2018 per drive stats:
1.68 points (3rd)
28 yards (4th)
.107 turnovers (19th)
.249 3 and outs (4th)
.449 tds per redzone trip (2nd)

2017 per drive stats
1.39 points (2nd)
25.91 yards (4th)
.103 turnovers (22nd)
.293 3 and outs (3rd)
.410 tds per redzone trip (3rd)


Every team saw an increase in yards and points given up due to the Rodgers rule change that year, but even with that there was only a slight decrease in play by the defense from 2017 to 2018 compared to the other defenses in those years.

The problem was not a drop in defensive play, it was a massive drop off in offensive production (8th in scoring to 22nd) and a large increase increase in turnovers by the offense (3rd to 12th).

[Fat Stupid Loser]

Its almost always a mistake if you make those kind of trades. And one that will set your franchise back years.

You do it if your QB is Fitzmagic or Case or if your stud QB is 38 and the rest of your team is so solid that you believe you won't miss all the first and second rounders you'll have to give up to get him. AND you're really sure this is the guy. Can't miss.

Is it?

The Eagles did it when they had Bradford and the Chiefs did it when they had Smith, and it worked out alright for them.

Where are the examples of it not working out?

Without putting in any thought at all, RG3, Ricky Williams, Hershel Walker. Yeah, they aren't QBs. Eagles? They gave up a lot for a guy that looks (outside of a great start) massively pedestrian. So much so, that they already drafting QBs. Wentz wasn't worth that kind of capital. Chiefs got it right. I forget what they gave up to move up, but my memory was that it wasn't astronomical. But maybe it was, I don't remember. Smith was getting older and made sense to plan. Bradford, has he ever completed a season?

Its all about risk/reward. I get it. My belief is that when you have a top 10 QB in his prime, you don't blow that kind of capital and risk losing it for a guy that most likely won't be better than who you have. If you have a legitimate shot at getting the next big guy without blowing all that capital, sure, do it. Everybody can be upgraded and you should look to do so.

[VikingsVictorious]

I was in the keep Keenum camp. It is obvious I was ridiculously wrong. So glad the Vikings didn't listen to me.

If we had kept Case we could have drafted Lamar Jackson. In hindsight that would have been the best move hands down.

We could have drafted Jackson whether we kept Case or not. The best move would have been letting Case go, not signing Cousins, Signing Teddy and drafting Jackson.

[StumpHunter]

Is it?

The Eagles did it when they had Bradford and the Chiefs did it when they had Smith, and it worked out alright for them.

Where are the examples of it not working out?

Without putting in any thought at all, RG3, Ricky Williams, Hershel Walker. Yeah, they aren't QBs. Eagles? They gave up a lot for a guy that looks (outside of a great start) massively pedestrian. So much so, that they already drafting QBs. Wentz wasn't worth that kind of capital. Chiefs got it right. I forget what they gave up to move up, but my memory was that it wasn't astronomical. But maybe it was, I don't remember. Smith was getting older and made sense to plan. Bradford, has he ever completed a season?

Its all about risk/reward. I get it. My belief is that when you have a top 10 QB in his prime, you don't blow that kind of capital and risk losing it for a guy that most likely won't be better than who you have. If you have a legitimate shot at getting the next big guy without blowing all that capital, sure, do it. Everybody can be upgraded and you should look to do so.

RG3, a guy who looked to be the next elite QB until injuries made him a below average backup, was a bust. I don't think it is ever smart to give up a ton of picks for a RB, but that isn't what we are talking about.

The last 3 teams to give up multiple firsts to move up to get their QB are KC, LA and Philly. 2 of those 3 won SBs within three years of making those trades, the 3rd went to a SB.

That is 3 for 4 in my book, whether Goff never achieves anything more than Cousins level play or Wentz throws for more TDs and yards than Cousins but is somehow pedestrian while Cousins is top 10, those trades worked out for 3 of the last 4 teams that have attempted to trade up for their franchise QB.

[Cliff]

If we had kept Case we could have drafted Lamar Jackson. In hindsight that would have been the best move hands down.

We could have drafted Jackson whether we kept Case or not. The best move would have been letting Case go, not signing Cousins, Signing Teddy and drafting Jackson.

Not really ... when we got Cousins it didn't make any sense at all if we did that. 84 million for a FA and a 1st round pick for a QB probably isn't any better of a long term strategy.

What we're talking about is all hindsight. Obviously at this point we're locked into Cousins and nothing we say can change that. In the end, the team did *not* take the best path when they signed Cousins. He's not the "answer", his contract is huge, and because we went with him we missed out on a young QB that could actually be great.

[Fat Stupid Loser]

Without putting in any thought at all, RG3, Ricky Williams, Hershel Walker. Yeah, they aren't QBs. Eagles? They gave up a lot for a guy that looks (outside of a great start) massively pedestrian. So much so, that they already drafting QBs. Wentz wasn't worth that kind of capital. Chiefs got it right. I forget what they gave up to move up, but my memory was that it wasn't astronomical. But maybe it was, I don't remember. Smith was getting older and made sense to plan. Bradford, has he ever completed a season?

Its all about risk/reward. I get it. My belief is that when you have a top 10 QB in his prime, you don't blow that kind of capital and risk losing it for a guy that most likely won't be better than who you have. If you have a legitimate shot at getting the next big guy without blowing all that capital, sure, do it. Everybody can be upgraded and you should look to do so.

RG3, a guy who looked to be the next elite QB until injuries made him a below average backup, was a bust. I don't think it is ever smart to give up a ton of picks for a RB, but that isn't what we are talking about.

The last 3 teams to give up multiple firsts to move up to get their QB are KC, LA and Philly. 2 of those 3 won SBs within three years of making those trades, the 3rd went to a SB.

That is 3 for 4 in my book, whether Goff never achieves anything more than Cousins level play or Wentz throws for more TDs and yards than Cousins but is somehow pedestrian while Cousins is top 10, those trades worked out for 3 of the last 4 teams that have attempted to trade up for their franchise QB.

LA didn't have a QB, makes more sense. Philly didn't have a QB that could stay on the field, makes more sense. KC had a solid QB that was aging, makes some sense. If Smith was 28, they don't do it.

[VikingsVictorious]

We could have drafted Jackson whether we kept Case or not. The best move would have been letting Case go, not signing Cousins, Signing Teddy and drafting Jackson.

Not really ... when we got Cousins it didn't make any sense at all if we did that. 84 million for a FA and a 1st round pick for a QB probably isn't any better of a long term strategy.

What we're talking about is all hindsight. Obviously at this point we're locked into Cousins and nothing we say can change that. In the end, the team did *not* take the best path when they signed Cousins. He's not the "answer", his contract is huge, and because we went with him we missed out on a young QB that could actually be great.

We absolutely could have drafted Jackson whether we signed Cousins or not, But I said not to sign Cousins in this post you replied to. However since this is all about hindsight my suggestion of letting Case go and not signing Cousins, signing Teddy and Drafting Jackson was best. I really doubt we would have drafted Jackson under any circumstance so signing Cousins probably had nothing to do with not drafting Jackson. Cousins is the answer and we are lucky to have him. Watch how good we get over the next few years.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Come on cliff. There were massive differences. The biggest is what I mentioned before being the coordinator. Do you really think Keenum would have any sort of success with a pass happy coordinator like Flip? Not a chance.

And the 2017 defense was about as elite as they come. 2018 was not at that level, griffen missed time, Rhodes was tailing off, etc. It wasn’t even close IMO. You can pull up numbers if you want, but the 2017 defense was a truly special defense.

Cousins did NOT have the 2017 defense and he did NOT have pat Shurmur. Those two alone right there say it all. Having flip as an OC is worse than losing someone like Diggs. We all see how good Dalvin Cook is and look how much flip utilized him. That alone shows how bad he really was.

Flip was a big change, that's true.

Still, all it sounds like you're saying to me is the window was firmly shut after 2017 and spending a bunch of money on a good but not elite QB wasn't a good idea.

Right now the defense is more or less in rebuilding mode. The offense lost a major weapon. Will Kirk help the offense overcome those things? Probably not. Whether or not it's his fault is irrelevant, really. By the time this team is ready to compete for a superbowl again we'll be on the hunt for a QB again. Probably a new coaching staff too.

That's not at all what I was saying. Nobody expected a dip in our defense come 2018. But nobody knew Griffen would go off the deep end, Rhodes would go from shutdown to horrendous, nobody expected Elflein to fall off a cliff, nobody expected Berger to retire, nobody expected Cook to go down again, nobody expected Flip to be that horrendous of a play caller and game manager, etc. Luck was not on our sides by any means in 2018. That team was nowhere near the same and a lot of that was unexpected.

As for right now, I dont think you'll see near the dropoff from Diggs to Jefferson as much as some think. And I dont think the defense is rebuilding. The CBs did but outside of that, I can still see us resigning Griff. Pierce is a younger version of Linval. Safeties are still the same. We still have plenty of good foundational pieces there, Hunter, Pierce, Barr, Kendricks, Smith and Harris. A defensive rebuild is when you gut your core and start from scratch. I would say we reloaded on defense, not rebuild.

[VikingsVictorious]

Flip was a big change, that's true.

Still, all it sounds like you're saying to me is the window was firmly shut after 2017 and spending a bunch of money on a good but not elite QB wasn't a good idea.

Right now the defense is more or less in rebuilding mode. The offense lost a major weapon. Will Kirk help the offense overcome those things? Probably not. Whether or not it's his fault is irrelevant, really. By the time this team is ready to compete for a superbowl again we'll be on the hunt for a QB again. Probably a new coaching staff too.

That's not at all what I was saying. Nobody expected a dip in our defense come 2018. But nobody knew Griffen would go off the deep end, Rhodes would go from shutdown to horrendous, nobody expected Elflein to fall off a cliff, nobody expected Berger to retire, nobody expected Cook to go down again, nobody expected Flip to be that horrendous of a play caller and game manager, etc. Luck was not on our sides by any means in 2018. That team was nowhere near the same and a lot of that was unexpected.

As for right now, I dont think you'll see near the dropoff from Diggs to Jefferson as much as some think. And I dont think the defense is rebuilding. The CBs did but outside of that, I can still see us resigning Griff. Pierce is a younger version of Linval. Safeties are still the same. We still have plenty of good foundational pieces there, Hunter, Pierce, Barr, Kendricks, Smith and Harris. A defensive rebuild is when you gut your core and start from scratch. I would say we reloaded on defense, not rebuild.

You got to figure that with all the picks this year and next that 2-3 years down the road will be better than this one. I'm optimistic, but we need to temper that a little.

[S197]

If the Vikings miss the playoffs this year, does that change the Cousins sentiment or does he get yet another pass?

[StumpHunter]

Flip was a big change, that's true.

Still, all it sounds like you're saying to me is the window was firmly shut after 2017 and spending a bunch of money on a good but not elite QB wasn't a good idea.

Right now the defense is more or less in rebuilding mode. The offense lost a major weapon. Will Kirk help the offense overcome those things? Probably not. Whether or not it's his fault is irrelevant, really. By the time this team is ready to compete for a superbowl again we'll be on the hunt for a QB again. Probably a new coaching staff too.

That's not at all what I was saying. Nobody expected a dip in our defense come 2018. But nobody knew Griffen would go off the deep end, Rhodes would go from shutdown to horrendous, nobody expected Elflein to fall off a cliff, nobody expected Berger to retire, nobody expected Cook to go down again, nobody expected Flip to be that horrendous of a play caller and game manager, etc. Luck was not on our sides by any means in 2018. That team was nowhere near the same and a lot of that was unexpected.

As for right now, I dont think you'll see near the dropoff from Diggs to Jefferson as much as some think. And I dont think the defense is rebuilding. The CBs did but outside of that, I can still see us resigning Griff. Pierce is a younger version of Linval. Safeties are still the same. We still have plenty of good foundational pieces there, Hunter, Pierce, Barr, Kendricks, Smith and Harris. A defensive rebuild is when you gut your core and start from scratch. I would say we reloaded on defense, not rebuild.

Hold on a second here.

The passing defense was #3 in yards, #1 in TDs given up in 2018. Identical in yards per game given up to 2017, 2 more passing TDs, but still under 1 per game, and 2 fewer ints. It wasn't quite the pass defense we had in 2017, but it was still really good despite the "horrendous" play of its number 1 CB.

Cook started 7 more games in 2018 versus 2017. He was pretty much a non-factor in 2018, but that is more true in 2017.

The defense had 7 more sacks in 2018 versus 2017. Griffen not being there for a few games hurt the D, especially against LA and Buffalo, but Hunter was a much better pass rusher in 2018 verus 2017 and more than made up for it.

On the flip side, where you are correct :
The OC was worse
The interior Oline was worse

And...

The QB played worse in 2018 than 2017

[Pondering Her Percy]

Check the stats and results. The lesser paid QBs not on Rookie contracts are not producing the stats or results that Cousins is. Don't say Keenum because if Cousins had the 2017 Vikings defense we would already be holding the Lombardi.

There is 0 correlation between winning and overpaying your QB:

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/02/nfl-qu ... ree-agency

Rookies and journeyman backup QBs forced into starting roles are just as likely to get you wins as the highly paid "proven" QBs who earn a big second contract. Not because they are as good of QBs, but because management can afford to put a better team around those guys.

BTW, the difference between that 2017 defense and the 2018 one is pretty insignificant when you break it down by drive.

2018 per drive stats:
1.68 points (3rd)
28 yards (4th)
.107 turnovers (19th)
.249 3 and outs (4th)
.449 tds per redzone trip (2nd)

2017 per drive stats
1.39 points (2nd)
25.91 yards (4th)
.103 turnovers (22nd)
.293 3 and outs (3rd)
.410 tds per redzone trip (3rd)


Every team saw an increase in yards and points given up due to the Rodgers rule change that year, but even with that there was only a slight decrease in play by the defense from 2017 to 2018 compared to the other defenses in those years.

The problem was not a drop in defensive play, it was a massive drop off in offensive production (8th in scoring to 22nd) and a large increase increase in turnovers by the offense (3rd to 12th).

Well of course the 2018 defense wasn’t a big drop off.... you found a “per drive” stat that applies to your argument. How long did it take you to find that?

And yeah there was a dip in offense production and I can tell you it wasn’t because of Kirk cousins. That was flip. When you force the pass and stray away from your QBs strengths and then flat out ignore the run game, I could’ve told you the offensive production was going to take a hit. I can just about guarantee you that it Shurmur was the OC, we wouldn’t be sitting at 22nd in scoring. Not even close. Do you know how bad you have to be to get fired mid season? If it was cousins you would’ve seen similar results this year with Stefanski/Kubiak as well. That wasn’t the case