Ruh-Roh, Cook Plans to Hold Out?

[J. Kapp 11]

I think it's evident the Vikings are a run-first team by the way Zimmer manages games. If this team is sitting on a 10-point lead, they're looking to run out the clock, not put the game away. We've seen this on many occasion.

Then there's Gary Kubiak, who has been very successful taking his zone blocking scheme and turning it into a highly successful rushing offense. As mentioned, very different from JDF who was canned after a crazy lopsided offense that simply didn't work.

You can also look at personnel. We utilize a lot of 2 TE sets. We are also one of the few teams that regularly uses a FB. We had Thielen, Diggs, and a bunch of no-names making up the rest of the WR corps. Meanwhile we kept 4 RB's on the roster. That's in addition to Ham.

I think if you asked Zimmer he would say he's looking for balance, which is probably true. But being a defensive minded coach, he's one that frequently relies on his defense and emphasizes both ball control and ball security. This team finished the year ranked 3rd in rushing. Passing? 17th.

I have to disagree here. I think Zimmer wants balance.

Rather than looking at one season under Zimmer, let's look at all six.

In 2019, the Vikings ranked 17th in passing and 3rd in rushing, as you mentioned.
In 2018, we were 13th in passing and 30th in rushing.
In 2017, Zimmer's best team, we were 11th in passing and 7th in rushing -- balanced.
In 2016, 18th in passing and 32nd in rushing.
In 2015, 31st in passing and 4th in rushing.
In 2014, 28th in passing and 14th in rushing.

It's all over the map, but when Zimmer's Vikings are at their best, they have both a competent (not amazing like KC passing or Baltimore on the ground) rushing AND passing attack. The 2017 team was 10th in total offense. Very solid, very balanced. Zimmer really hasn't had that in any other year, and a third of the time it's been the running game that has been abysmal.

Now when it comes to ball security ... I agree with you wholeheartedly. Zimmer wants that more than anything. And why not? In the NFL, teams that win the turnover battle win a minimum of 68% of the time ... and that 68% number is if you are +1 in turnovers. If it's +2, that number goes up to 82%, and more than 92% after that. I don't blame Mike Zimmer one bit for valuing ball security. Again, I go back to his best team in 2017. Only 11 fumbles (not sure how many lost) and 8 picks total for the season, for a +5 turnover differential (the only reason the differential wasn't higher was that we only forced 8 fumbles on defense). That team took care of the football and won.

[VikingLord]

Zimmer fired DeFlippio because he did not run the ball enough so that is evidence

There is a quote of Zimmer saying that?

I don't recall Zimmer going into details in public about his thinking in moving on from DeFlippio, but I can't refute what you're saying either.

[VikingLord]

Proof of zimmer love for running the ball was earlier this last season. Before AT and Diggs went wall. Many think they were talking about Cousins but if you listen to the comments, it was about the playcalling. Zimmer threw the ball 10 times in Atlanta. Case closed.

Didn't he also run it about 10 times in the playoff game against San Fran? Does that reopen the case?

The game against Atlanta last year was the game where the 2019 Vikings played once like the 2019 49ers played most of the year. They got up big early, the defense kept the clamps on the Falcon offense, and they literally didn't need to pass because the game situation didn't call for passing.

Anyone who wants to dig in on this "run-first" offensive philosophy needs to explain what happened against the 49ers. Let's just start there.

- Where was the dynamic, game-altering Cook's contribution when the Vikings most needed it?
- Why couldn't the team built around running do it against a well-balanced defense?

Does this single game, a playoff game, not clearly illustrate why run-first doesn't work in the modern NFL?

The 49ers were the closest thing to an actual run-oriented offensive philosophy that the league has seen in the last 10 years easy and maybe the last 20. A team that really was consistent and effective running the football on all downs and didn't rely much on it's passing game or QB for big plays. They got to the Superbowl and (wait for it...) lost. Lost to a team with a better overall offense that could put up points faster and more consistently than the 49ers run-first, but less explosive and less effective, offense.

The main difference between the Vikings and 49ers, of course, isn't that one has Dalvin Cook and one doesn't, but that one relied on a lot of singular, explosive superman plays by its star RB, while the other relied on steady, dominant blocking from it's OL and TEs along with a steady rotation of fresh legs from otherwise average RBs. The 49er running attack remained effective and consistent all season right up to the last game they played, while the Vikings whittled down as the star RB suffered injuries and the fresh legs behind him (with the exception of Mattison) couldn't perform the same heroics to overcome the deficiencies of the blockers in front of him.

Run-first works great if you're in a contest against another team that can't move the ball or score on your defense and your run game can put up points against their defense.

It is a recipe for a blowout in virtually any other situation. Modern NFL teams have to be able to throw the ball down the field and put up points through the air.

Zimmer understands this, as does Kubiak as does Spielman.

[VikingLord]

I think it's evident the Vikings are a run-first team by the way Zimmer manages games. If this team is sitting on a 10-point lead, they're looking to run out the clock, not put the game away. We've seen this on many occasion.

The above doesn't support a claim that an offensive believes in a run-first philosophy, though. Most teams in the situation you describe would prefer to run out the clock. Heck, the Packers and Chiefs did exactly that against the Vikings just last year late in games, using runs to seal the deal. Would you agree either of those teams are run-first based on that?

A run-first philosophy means an offense is designed from the ground up to run. The OL it fields are no worse at run blocking than they are pass blocking. The TEs are notable not for their route running, hands, or ability to field jump balls, but for their run blocking. The WRs are tenacious run blockers, notable for seeking out DBs or even LBs on run plays. The playcalling emphasizes running as well, and teams built to run tend to run in down-distance situations where other teams would typically call pass plays.

None of the above describes the 2019 or 2020 Vikings.

Then there's Gary Kubiak, who has been very successful taking his zone blocking scheme and turning it into a highly successful rushing offense. As mentioned, very different from JDF who was canned after a crazy lopsided offense that simply didn't work.

Kubiak is also known for getting a lot of production out of average running backs. One could argue he's made stars out of the backs who have played under him rather than the other way around.

You can also look at personnel. We utilize a lot of 2 TE sets. We are also one of the few teams that regularly uses a FB. We had Thielen, Diggs, and a bunch of no-names making up the rest of the WR corps. Meanwhile we kept 4 RB's on the roster. That's in addition to Ham.

You leave out the elephant in the argument - Cousins and his monster contract. Why does a team need a $30 million QB to play situational football and mostly hand it off?

The answer seems obvious - they don't.

I think if you asked Zimmer he would say he's looking for balance, which is probably true. But being a defensive minded coach, he's one that frequently relies on his defense and emphasizes both ball control and ball security. This team finished the year ranked 3rd in rushing. Passing? 17th.

I don't buy the arguments that the stats from last year support the claim that the Vikings are built with running in mind. They are built with balance in mind, and when push comes to shove late in games and they need a late score they're going to be looking primarily to Cousins and the passing game to deliver that as they did in the playoff game against the Saints last year.

[S197]

I think it's evident the Vikings are a run-first team by the way Zimmer manages games. If this team is sitting on a 10-point lead, they're looking to run out the clock, not put the game away. We've seen this on many occasion.

Then there's Gary Kubiak, who has been very successful taking his zone blocking scheme and turning it into a highly successful rushing offense. As mentioned, very different from JDF who was canned after a crazy lopsided offense that simply didn't work.

You can also look at personnel. We utilize a lot of 2 TE sets. We are also one of the few teams that regularly uses a FB. We had Thielen, Diggs, and a bunch of no-names making up the rest of the WR corps. Meanwhile we kept 4 RB's on the roster. That's in addition to Ham.

I think if you asked Zimmer he would say he's looking for balance, which is probably true. But being a defensive minded coach, he's one that frequently relies on his defense and emphasizes both ball control and ball security. This team finished the year ranked 3rd in rushing. Passing? 17th.

I have to disagree here. I think Zimmer wants balance.

Rather than looking at one season under Zimmer, let's look at all six.

In 2019, the Vikings ranked 17th in passing and 3rd in rushing, as you mentioned.
In 2018, we were 13th in passing and 30th in rushing.
In 2017, Zimmer's best team, we were 11th in passing and 7th in rushing -- balanced.
In 2016, 18th in passing and 32nd in rushing.
In 2015, 31st in passing and 4th in rushing.
In 2014, 28th in passing and 14th in rushing.

It's all over the map, but when Zimmer's Vikings are at their best, they have both a competent (not amazing like KC passing or Baltimore on the ground) rushing AND passing attack. The 2017 team was 10th in total offense. Very solid, very balanced. Zimmer really hasn't had that in any other year, and a third of the time it's been the running game that has been abysmal.

Now when it comes to ball security ... I agree with you wholeheartedly. Zimmer wants that more than anything. And why not? In the NFL, teams that win the turnover battle win a minimum of 68% of the time ... and that 68% number is if you are +1 in turnovers. If it's +2, that number goes up to 82%, and more than 92% after that. I don't blame Mike Zimmer one bit for valuing ball security. Again, I go back to his best team in 2017. Only 11 fumbles (not sure how many lost) and 8 picks total for the season, for a +5 turnover differential (the only reason the differential wasn't higher was that we only forced 8 fumbles on defense). That team took care of the football and won.

At the end of the day, no team can be one dimensional and very effective. I think the Titans were probably the most successful rushing dominant team last year.

What I mean by run first is more culture or philosophically related. Zimmer is a defensive minded, conservative coach. This is naturally going to favor the run game because it controls the clock, wears down defenses and typically leads to fewer turnovers. When run effectively. It also attempts to protect leads.

Even if you look at Cousins strengths, you cannot effectively utilize play action unless you can run the ball. The run sets up the pass with this team.

[S197]

SF sold out against the run and made Cousins beat them, which was a great strategy that other teams with lesser defenses (like the Bears) used with success.

An ex-NFL QB went on Twitter and highlighted 6 or 7 plays where Cousins missed wide open receivers. Almost always with good protection.

I don't recall anyone criticizing Cook for missing gaps or poor vision. We lost that game because the 49ers took away the run and we had no answer.

And yes, paying Cousins is the elephant in the room. And my contention is it makes no sense. You pay those contracts to QBs who thrive under pressure and in big games. Cousins record of wilting in big games says a lot. And the 49ers game was no different.

He wasn't the only problem in that game or the sole reason we lost, but he was a big part of it. As was the overall strategy, which was better executed by the 49ers.

If you want to prove your point, a better way to do it would be to find an example of a game where the running game struggled but the passing game was able to step up and carry the offense. But those are fewer and far between.

[RandyMoss84]

Zimmer fired DeFlippio because he did not run the ball enough so that is evidence

There is a quote of Zimmer saying that?

I don't recall Zimmer going into details in public about his thinking in moving on from DeFlippio, but I can't refute what you're saying either.

No quote but here is an article about it

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.si.com ... ta-vikings

[VikingsVictorious]

here is the bolded part again to try to help you.
VikingsVictorious wrote: ↑Thu Jul 02, 2020 7:38 pm

I'm going to do what I believe is most successful. Sometimes that will be similar to what somebody else did and other times it won't.
If I were running the Vikings I would do what is best for the Vikings NOT what is best for the Patriots.
Kapp you are too intelligent to be spouting this nonsense. I said in the bolded part I would use things similar to what was successful for another team which may or may not include the Patriots where I saw fit. I also said I would not use similar things to what was successful for them where I did not see fit. Since you did reply to my comment with the bolded part you were indeed referring to the bolded part. If you had any reading comprehension at all which I am sure you do it was plainly typed for all to see that I would utilize things that were successful from other franchises which may include the patriots where I saw fit to use them.
I am not going to do what any other organization happened to do where it is unlikely to be successful for the team I am running in this fictitious exercise. Why on Earth would I follow something any other team had been doing now or 20 years ago in a case where it was unlikely to be successful for our team.

Maybe this will help you. I am not going to copycat another teams successful maneuvers just for the sake of copying them. That would be idiotic. There is no guarantee those maneuvers would be successful now. There was a time the Wing T formation was successful in football. I'm not going to copycat that. I would incorporate ideas that are likely to be successful for us along with coming up with my/our own ideas that are likely to be successful for us or is that not allowed in your we must copy the Patriots rhetoric.

And I never used the word copycat. I used the word benchmark, which is completely different. You figure out the major principles that successful people employ, employ those, and adjust for your own situation. I’ve said that many times.

Let’s just quit arguing about this. It’s getting us nowhere.

And by the way, if I’m so intelligent, then why did you feel the need to throw in ad hominem insult like questioning my reading comprehension? I never did that to you.

I'm sorry, but you for some reason were claiming that I wouldn't use any good ideas that others came up with when in the bolded text I specifically said I would use good ideas that others came up with. Our disagreement came with your word Modeling. I'm not going to model my team after any other team. I'm going to come up with my own good new ideas that would work best for my/our team if I were running things.

[VikingsVictorious]

Whether it is cap or draft capital, it is taking a valuable commodity that could have been used to fill another position, and spending it on a RB.

I assume if Cook walks, we will be spending a 1st or 2nd round pick on a RB next year (that has been Rick's M.O.). Is that worth 10 million in cap? There is a cost and risk associated with letting FAs walk and saving cap. For instance, Waynes and Mac was a 1st and 3rd and the risk that neither of the CBs drafted are ever any good. Even trading Diggs and saving his cap cost us a 1st and that same risk in the end.

There is cost and risk associated with paying players as well, with the obvious cost being cap and the risk being mostly related to age and injury.

I guess what I am trying to say is, with Cook, it isn't as cut and dry as we should never pay a RB more than 4 million, and it isn't as simple as always paying a RB who is playing great to avoid losing him. There is cost and risk associated with both.

Well, my hard-and-fast $4 million limit is probably one of about 10,000 reasons why I'm not an NFL GM

Seriously though, you make good points here.

This is simply my own personal philosophy, but it seems to be shared by plenty of GMs around the league. Teams just aren't investing big money in RBs these days, and to get what they need, GMs are simply drafting them, paying them rookie wage for 3-4 years, and cutting them loose. So while nothing is ever totally cut and dried, my stance is that the running back situation in the NFL is as close to cut and dried as you can get.

Specific to Dalvin Cook, I would never pay him close to $10 million a year, and I think I've made my case as to why. He's very talented, but he's never stayed healthy for a full season, and he was, statistically and otherwise, nowhere near the same back after the Dallas game as he was before it ... even in the playoffs. A half a season of high performance does not merit $10 million a year in my book, especially for an injury-prone running back. Obviously that's a minority opinion around here, and I'm fine with that. I made the $4 million limit mostly as a point of reference and a number to argue about. Most people think I'm insane. The Chiefs, 49ers, Ravens, Patriots, Saints and many other playoff teams might not, as none of them employ high-priced running backs.

EDIT: Aaron Jones in Green Bay has been making a lot of noise that he expects to be paid big-time. Good luck with that, Mr. Jones. Your team drafted a running back in the second round. Might want to have your agent start checking interest around the league.

As for CBs, this is a passing league. So I'm going to go out on a limb here (because I have no data to back it up) and say that the likelihood of "hitting" on a quality corner seems to be less than that of drafting a quality running back. Much more is expected of a corner. I wouldn't call Waynes a bust, but his reputation is definitely hurt by his No. 11 overall draft status. When you're picked that high, you're expected to be an impact player almost immediately, and he just wasn't ... ever. If he would have been drafted second round or later, we'd probably view him as a solid No. 2 corner. Mack Alexander played about as well as any reasonable person might have expected out of a third-round pick. He was in a great situation here in Minnesota, but apparently he believes he should be an outside corner, so if someone's willing to do that for him (and pay him like a starting outside corner), then good for him.

That really was a brilliant post by Stump Hunter.
Mac was a 2nd round pick
The Minnesota Vikings selected Alexander in the second round (54th overall) of the 2016 NFL Draft. Alexander was the seventh cornerback drafted in 2016.

[VikingLord]

I don't recall anyone criticizing Cook for missing gaps or poor vision. We lost that game because the 49ers took away the run and we had no answer.

How do we know the 49ers took the running game away? The Vikings only tried to run it like 10 times the entire game, and I think the majority of those 10 attempts came in the 1st half.

I guess the larger question is, how can a run-first team like you claim the Vikings are be so easily made one-dimensional?

The 49ers were run-first, and nobody (including the Chiefs) were able to take that away from them.

And yes, paying Cousins is the elephant in the room. And my contention is it makes no sense. You pay those contracts to QBs who thrive under pressure and in big games. Cousins record of wilting in big games says a lot. And the 49ers game was no different.

OK, but you're arguing the sky isn't blue.

The Vikings paid Cousins bigtime. They extended him even and paid him more. There was no hesitation.

So if Cousins is clearly deficient, why would the head coach of the team who you claim wants to be run-first support those moves in the first place? Why not tell Spielman to go get another Case Keenum and then invest those saved dollars into positions that buttress the offense's ability to run?

Basically, you're claiming Zimmer is insane. On the one hand, he wants his team to pound the rock and rely on the running game, while on the other hand he thinks he needs a franchise QB to hand it off.

If you want to prove your point, a better way to do it would be to find an example of a game where the running game struggled but the passing game was able to step up and carry the offense. But those are fewer and far between.

I think I've made my case. Whether it proves a point is beyond me as I don't think this is something that is provable. If two people look at the same cloud formation or piece of burnt toast, just because one sees the face of Jesus doesn't mean both (or, for that matter, either) are looking at the face of Jesus.

But I will concede that your point is proved if the Vikings blow a big chunk of cap on Cook. I'd consider a big chunk of cap to be a contract that pays Cook among the top 5 salaries at his position. I don't care when they do it - it could be before this season, an extension during the season, or even in free agency next offseason, but if the Vikings truly do place the value on running and on Dalvin Cook that some here seem to believe, they'll put their money where their mouths are.

The only way it could happen is if Cook stays healthy and consistently puts up big numbers again. I personally don't see that happening.

[VikingLord]

There is a quote of Zimmer saying that?

I don't recall Zimmer going into details in public about his thinking in moving on from DeFlippio, but I can't refute what you're saying either.

No quote but here is an article about it

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.si.com ... ta-vikings

Good article.

It brings up the question (not to you, but in my mind as I read it): If Zimmer wants to emphasize the run, why hire someone who wants to emphasize the pass?

I'm not even sure that is a fair characterization of DeFlippio, either. I would say, especially after reading the article, that DeFlippio simply recognized the flaws in the interior of the offensive line and realized that dog wasn't going to hunt. To work around that problem, he simply avoided it. So either Zimmer didn't agree the interior OL was deficient, or he understood it was and expected DeFlippio to ignore that fact and plow ahead anyway.

Is it possible that Zimmer is like that? That he just doesn't accept that his players might not be able to get a particular job done? Some leaders are like that. They think the next guy up or the guy in there should be able to do whatever is asked of him regardless of his ability to actually do it. But that is a recipe for disaster in my opinion. Maybe that explains why Norv Turner bowed out mid-season. DeFlippio catches a lot of grief, but I wouldn't want to work with Zimmer (and certainly not for him) if he was going to tell me to do something I knew wouldn't work.

[S197]

I don't recall anyone criticizing Cook for missing gaps or poor vision. We lost that game because the 49ers took away the run and we had no answer.

How do we know the 49ers took the running game away? The Vikings only tried to run it like 10 times the entire game, and I think the majority of those 10 attempts came in the 1st half.

I guess the larger question is, how can a run-first team like you claim the Vikings are be so easily made one-dimensional?

The 49ers were run-first, and nobody (including the Chiefs) were able to take that away from them.

And yes, paying Cousins is the elephant in the room. And my contention is it makes no sense. You pay those contracts to QBs who thrive under pressure and in big games. Cousins record of wilting in big games says a lot. And the 49ers game was no different.

OK, but you're arguing the sky isn't blue.

The Vikings paid Cousins bigtime. They extended him even and paid him more. There was no hesitation.

So if Cousins is clearly deficient, why would the head coach of the team who you claim wants to be run-first support those moves in the first place? Why not tell Spielman to go get another Case Keenum and then invest those saved dollars into positions that buttress the offense's ability to run?

Basically, you're claiming Zimmer is insane. On the one hand, he wants his team to pound the rock and rely on the running game, while on the other hand he thinks he needs a franchise QB to hand it off.

If you want to prove your point, a better way to do it would be to find an example of a game where the running game struggled but the passing game was able to step up and carry the offense. But those are fewer and far between.

I think I've made my case. Whether it proves a point is beyond me as I don't think this is something that is provable. If two people look at the same cloud formation or piece of burnt toast, just because one sees the face of Jesus doesn't mean both (or, for that matter, either) are looking at the face of Jesus.

But I will concede that your point is proved if the Vikings blow a big chunk of cap on Cook. I'd consider a big chunk of cap to be a contract that pays Cook among the top 5 salaries at his position. I don't care when they do it - it could be before this season, an extension during the season, or even in free agency next offseason, but if the Vikings truly do place the value on running and on Dalvin Cook that some here seem to believe, they'll put their money where their mouths are.

The only way it could happen is if Cook stays healthy and consistently puts up big numbers again. I personally don't see that happening.

You have to look beyond the stats and look at the context. The Vikings ran on almost every 1st down for 2.5 quarters. They ran on 2nd and long. And 3rd and long. Not only that, in the pass game who led the team in receptions? Cook. Targets? Cook.

Obviously when you’re down big in the 4th you’re going to abandon the run but up until that point, the game plan was to run the football. Outside of the Diggs TD where he made a great play on the ball and the corner missed the tackle, there wasn’t much of a passing game. In fact, Diggs only had 2 receptions all game. Even when Kendricks gave them great field position with an interception, the offense didn’t do anything.

The stats without watching the game erroneously indicate the Vikings weren’t running much. In actuality they were running, it’s just the offense as a whole wasn’t doing much. And credit to SF for some of that, there’s no denying they are an elite defense. But plays were there, they were just missed. Like I said, go look at Rosenfels breaking down tape on Twitter. That deep cross was open multiple times and Cousins flat out missed it. That’s not me armchairing, that’s a former NFL QB publicly saying you can’t miss plays like that in the playoffs. And he’s absolutely right.

So yeah, I guess I am saying the strategy is a little insane. I don’t know why we need to pay a QB $30M to hand the ball off on 1st down, miss reads, and check down so much your RB is your #1 target. It’s a huge misallocation of capital. And why I’m a firm believer that we need a change in leadership if we want to get to the next level.

[StumpHunter]

OK, but you're arguing the sky isn't blue.

The Vikings paid Cousins bigtime. They extended him even and paid him more. There was no hesitation.

So if Cousins is clearly deficient, why would the head coach of the team who you claim wants to be run-first support those moves in the first place? Why not tell Spielman to go get another Case Keenum and then invest those saved dollars into positions that buttress the offense's ability to run?

Basically, you're claiming Zimmer is insane. On the one hand, he wants his team to pound the rock and rely on the running game, while on the other hand he thinks he needs a franchise QB to hand it off.

Did you know that the only reason Matt Kahlil moved on to Carolina was because they offered him more than we did? He was a clearly deficient LT, but Spielman didn't hesitate to offer him an extension. Why would he do that knowing Kahlil was at best an average LT?

Ponder was a clearly deficient QB when Rick gave up a 1st for him in the draft, and then later was clearly deficient going into 2012 when Vikings coaches pounded the table for Russel Wilson, but Rick passed because he already had his guy.

Bradford was the worst statistical QB to start 60+ games going into the 2016 season, and had a massive injury history. That didn't stop Rick from giving up a 1st for that clearly deficient garbage.

Why did Rick make those three moves, despite all indications prior to making them pointing to failure? Ponder was just poor evaluation of talent, but for Bradford and Kahlil it was a fear of not having at least mediocrity at an important position on the offense.

I think the same goes for Cousins. He wasn't extended to win it all, he was extended because he is a solid QB who stays healthy. There is a good chance in the immediate future he is a better option than the alternative, and Rick is willing to sacrifice any hope of winning it all for the stability that Cousins brings. Zimmer too probably fears another season with his starting QB going through rookie growth pains or losing his QB to injury.

Cook is different as he doesn't necessarily bring that stability with his injury history. He makes them better if he is healthy, but there is a good chance he won't be. Extending him is a risk, and Rick and Zimmer are adverse to taking risks.

[StumpHunter]

Does Covid give Cook some leverage?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpCaR88XppI
If players are given the option to opt out similar to baseball, this could force the Viking's hand.

[VikingLord]

I think the same goes for Cousins. He wasn't extended to win it all, he was extended because he is a solid QB who stays healthy. There is a good chance in the immediate future he is a better option than the alternative, and Rick is willing to sacrifice any hope of winning it all for the stability that Cousins brings. Zimmer too probably fears another season with his starting QB going through rookie growth pains or losing his QB to injury.

Cook is different as he doesn't necessarily bring that stability with his injury history. He makes them better if he is healthy, but there is a good chance he won't be. Extending him is a risk, and Rick and Zimmer are adverse to taking risks.

Why sign Cousins in the first place when Case Keenum would have more than sufficed? You claim that Spielman over-valued average over the years. I can accept that premise, but if you just keep drawing the line along those dots you laid out, why didn't he continue that trend and just keep Keenum? That would have given him more money to then pay someone like Cook and make sure the run game was jacked up, both at RB and along the OL.

I get where S197 and you are coming from, but every time I try to agree with you guys I keep running smack dab into this brick wall of what the Vikings are actually *doing* in terms of team building and allocation of resources among the various positions and position groups.