4th Quarter Cousins

[halfgiz]

You see it your way and me and most of the fan base see it differently. Even when he stands in there, takes the hits, wins, and gives his teammate the credit, you can’t find a way to give him even a little credit. You and a couple others have a patent on hate Cousins no matter what. It was ugly but it was a win no matter what you think

That's all the Viking do is win ugly. When's the last time they have had a really dominating win?
I blame a lot of that on Zimmer,he puts Cousins in a bad situation most games. Some games Cousins does ok...Other games he self destructs.
He has done better this year. BTW I'm not a Cousins or a Zimmer fan.

[J. Kapp 11]

You really like that ESPN QBR.

There are other stats out there. As brought up in this post, an important one is a QB's play in the 4th quarter. Wonder what his QBR is in that frame, since from what I understand QBR accounts for garbage time. My guess is that ESPN won't provide that because it doesn't support their never-ending narrative that Cousins is a choker.

EDIT: And for those of you who love PFF, Kirk Cousins is the 5th-rated QB in the entire NFL, according to them. So who's right. ESPN's nebulous formula, or PFF's "evaluators"?

It’s not ESPN’s QBR, it’s just a QBR. Someone posted the formula from the wiki in another thread. This thread, which I didn’t start, is about his QBR so why wouldn’t I bring it up?

I think there's some confusion as to what we're talking about.

Here's what I understand:

QBR, short for Total Quarterback Rating, is a metric developed by ESPN in 2011.
They say, "Unlike other measures of quarterback performance, it incorporates all of a quarterback’s contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. Also, since QBR is built from the play level, it accounts for a team’s level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."

In a rough sense, the Total QBR is supposed to measure QB efficiency, as opposed to statistical value. If a guy gets a 75, it supposedly means that he played well enough for his team to have a 75% chance of winning. Therefore, a perfect rating is obviously 100. An average rating is 50.

None of us has never seen a formula for Total QBR, and there's a good reason for that. It's proprietary. It belongs to ESPN, and they're not going to share it (and thus let somebody else copy it — or improve it). According to their website, they determine an Expected Points Added (EPA) by the quarterback for each play. That EPA can be positive or negative. They then add it all up to get the final rating for the game. How they derive EPA is also proprietary.

ESPN itself admits that the credit given to the quarterback on each play is subjective. So for example, on the 62-yard catch-and-run touchdown from Case Keenum to Adam Thielen against the Rams in 2017, ESPN likely wouldn't give Keenum as much credit for that play as they would if he'd thrown it farther downfield, or from a collapsing pocket under duress. They'd say it was mostly Thielen. The problem with that assertion is that after-the-game investigation revealed that Keenum audibled to that play, giving Thielen a chance to go to the house if he could break one tackle. In other words, it's subjective, and not always based in knowledge of what's actually going on.

Thus ESPN hedges: "Although QBR is not always a perfect reflection of a quarterback’s performance, it does solve most of the problems of traditional stats."

Passer Rating is the official statistic used by the NFL since 1973.
It is based on attempts, completions, yards, TDs and INTs. There is no subjectivity. Plug in the numbers and get the Passer Rating. A perfect score is a weird 158.3.

Obviously there are issues with Passer Rating. For example, it doesn't differentiate between stats earned during garbage time vs. clutch situations.

But there are plenty of issues with Total QBR. It's a system that is a) secret, and b) subjective. Why is it that we are skeptical about PFF's rating system, but somehow we're OK with ESPN's? They're both based on subjective decisions made by very few or one person for whom qualifications are unknown. At least with Passer Rating, I know how the score was determined. Meanwhile, I find it hard to believe that a subjective system isn't influenced by personal bias. Call up any game involving Aaron Rodgers, and you'll see what I mean. Recently they lost to Indianapolis, and ESPN gave Rodgers a significantly higher rating than Philip Rivers, who had nearly identical numbers.

EDIT: Perfect example. ESPN gave Cousins a 25.7 rating for yesterday's game. That's bias. ESPN says, "That means on completed passes, the EPA is divided among the quarterback, his receivers and the offensive line based on how far the ball travels in the air, what percentage of the yards were gained after the catch (compared to how many yards after catch are expected) and whether the quarterback was under pressure." Under pressure! Any of us who watched that game know that Cousins was getting buried out there, play after play. And some of the throws he made under that pressure were absolute dimes.

Yes, his pick-six probably hurt his rating in a big way. But even that wasn't totally his fault. Dalvin Cook never looked for the ball. I could see his rating ending up 50 or 60. But 25.7?

Meanwhile, they gave Mike Glennon a 38.3. Think about this. Mike Glennon, who threw a red-zone pick, a pick in overtime, lost a fumble, and took a sack for a safety (ESPN says "taking sacks" hurts QBR ... how about taking a safety?) ended up with a better QBR than Kirk Cousins. It's ridiculous on its face.

[VikeFanInEagleLand]

You really like that ESPN QBR.

There are other stats out there. As brought up in this post, an important one is a QB's play in the 4th quarter. Wonder what his QBR is in that frame, since from what I understand QBR accounts for garbage time. My guess is that ESPN won't provide that because it doesn't support their never-ending narrative that Cousins is a choker.

EDIT: And for those of you who love PFF, Kirk Cousins is the 5th-rated QB in the entire NFL, according to them. So who's right. ESPN's nebulous formula, or PFF's "evaluators"?

It’s not ESPN’s QBR, it’s just a QBR. Someone posted the formula from the wiki in another thread. This thread, which I didn’t start, is about his QBR so why wouldn’t I bring it up?

For the record, the Quarterback Rating that I referenced when opening this thread is NOT the "Total Quarterback Rating" that is a proprietary rating system that ESPN created, and that you reference in that link. It is the QBR (or passing rating) that the NFL started using in 1973. Maybe I should have said "Passer Rating" instead so as not to confuse.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Cousins QB Rating is 17th in the league. If he really is that good in the 4th quarter then he’s flat out awful in the other 3. It’s statistically impossible not to be otherwise.

You see it your way and me and most of the fan base see it differently. Even when he stands in there, takes the hits, wins, and gives his teammate the credit, you can’t find a way to give him even a little credit. You and a couple others have a patent on hate Cousins no matter what. It was ugly but it was a win no matter what you think

lol trust me buddy, I've had this same battle on here for a longgggg time. I have a buddy that is arguably the biggest Cousins hater ever. In the sense that literally everything is his fault. I cant even talk with him on gamedays because it drives me insane

[Pondering Her Percy]

It’s not ESPN’s QBR, it’s just a QBR. Someone posted the formula from the wiki in another thread. This thread, which I didn’t start, is about his QBR so why wouldn’t I bring it up?

I think there's some confusion as to what we're talking about.

Here's what I understand:

QBR, short for Total Quarterback Rating, is a metric developed by ESPN in 2011.
They say, "Unlike other measures of quarterback performance, it incorporates all of a quarterback’s contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. Also, since QBR is built from the play level, it accounts for a team’s level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."

In a rough sense, the Total QBR is supposed to measure QB efficiency, as opposed to statistical value. If a guy gets a 75, it supposedly means that he played well enough for his team to have a 75% chance of winning. Therefore, a perfect rating is obviously 100. An average rating is 50.

None of us has never seen a formula for Total QBR, and there's a good reason for that. It's proprietary. It belongs to ESPN, and they're not going to share it (and thus let somebody else copy it — or improve it). According to their website, they determine an Expected Points Added (EPA) by the quarterback for each play. That EPA can be positive or negative. They then add it all up to get the final rating for the game. How they derive EPA is also proprietary.

ESPN itself admits that the credit given to the quarterback on each play is subjective. So for example, on the 62-yard catch-and-run touchdown from Case Keenum to Adam Thielen against the Rams in 2017, ESPN likely wouldn't give Keenum as much credit for that play as they would if he'd thrown it farther downfield, or from a collapsing pocket under duress. They'd say it was mostly Thielen. The problem with that assertion is that after-the-game investigation revealed that Keenum audibled to that play, giving Thielen a chance to go to the house if he could break one tackle. In other words, it's subjective, and not always based in knowledge of what's actually going on.

Thus ESPN hedges: "Although QBR is not always a perfect reflection of a quarterback’s performance, it does solve most of the problems of traditional stats."

Passer Rating is the official statistic used by the NFL since 1973.
It is based on attempts, completions, yards, TDs and INTs. There is no subjectivity. Plug in the numbers and get the Passer Rating. A perfect score is a weird 158.3.

Obviously there are issues with Passer Rating. For example, it doesn't differentiate between stats earned during garbage time vs. clutch situations.

But there are plenty of issues with Total QBR. It's a system that is a) secret, and b) subjective. Why is it that we are skeptical about PFF's rating system, but somehow we're OK with ESPN's? They're both based on subjective decisions made by very few or one person for whom qualifications are unknown. At least with Passer Rating, I know how the score was determined. Meanwhile, I find it hard to believe that a subjective system isn't influenced by personal bias. Call up any game involving Aaron Rodgers, and you'll see what I mean. Recently they lost to Indianapolis, and ESPN gave Rodgers a significantly higher rating than Philip Rivers, who had nearly identical numbers.

EDIT: Perfect example. ESPN gave Cousins a 25.7 rating for yesterday's game. That's bias. ESPN says, "That means on completed passes, the EPA is divided among the quarterback, his receivers and the offensive line based on how far the ball travels in the air, what percentage of the yards were gained after the catch (compared to how many yards after catch are expected) and whether the quarterback was under pressure." Under pressure! Any of us who watched that game know that Cousins was getting buried out there, play after play. And some of the throws he made under that pressure were absolute dimes.

Yes, his pick-six probably hurt his rating in a big way. But even that wasn't totally his fault. Dalvin Cook never looked for the ball. I could see his rating ending up 50 or 60. But 25.7?

Good post Kapp. Yeah I've watched that pick 6 play over a few times. There was definitely some confusion there. Watching Cousins and Bradbury, it looked like they were trying to run a screen. Watching Dalvin, he looked like he was simply going out for a route on a pass play. The reason Cousins got nailed when he threw that ball was because Bradbury bailed for the screen. Dalvin just wasnt looking. Even though Dalvin ran for 120 yards, I think this was one of his worst games this year. He just made a lot of boneheaded plays.

[J. Kapp 11]

It’s not ESPN’s QBR, it’s just a QBR. Someone posted the formula from the wiki in another thread. This thread, which I didn’t start, is about his QBR so why wouldn’t I bring it up?

For the record, the Quarterback Rating that I referenced when opening this thread is NOT the "Total Quarterback Rating" that is a proprietary rating system that ESPN created, and that you reference in that link. It is the QBR (or passing rating) that the NFL started using in 1973. Maybe I should have said "Passer Rating" instead so as not to confuse.

No worries, brother.

That's why I said that I think there's some confusion. You are correct, Passer Rating is the NFL's term for the mathematical formula.

As for Cousins being 17th in QBR (not your assertion), all we need to do is look at yesterday's game to see what a joke ESPN's Total QBR is. Somehow, ESPN rated Mike Glennon about 50% better than Kirk Cousins. Yes, the same Mike Glennon who threw a red-zone interception, threw another pick in overtime, had a third go right through Kris Boyd's hands, lost a fumble, and took a safety.

[J. Kapp 11]

I think there's some confusion as to what we're talking about.

Here's what I understand:

QBR, short for Total Quarterback Rating, is a metric developed by ESPN in 2011.
They say, "Unlike other measures of quarterback performance, it incorporates all of a quarterback’s contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers and penalties. Also, since QBR is built from the play level, it accounts for a team’s level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context and then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammate to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency."

In a rough sense, the Total QBR is supposed to measure QB efficiency, as opposed to statistical value. If a guy gets a 75, it supposedly means that he played well enough for his team to have a 75% chance of winning. Therefore, a perfect rating is obviously 100. An average rating is 50.

None of us has never seen a formula for Total QBR, and there's a good reason for that. It's proprietary. It belongs to ESPN, and they're not going to share it (and thus let somebody else copy it — or improve it). According to their website, they determine an Expected Points Added (EPA) by the quarterback for each play. That EPA can be positive or negative. They then add it all up to get the final rating for the game. How they derive EPA is also proprietary.

ESPN itself admits that the credit given to the quarterback on each play is subjective. So for example, on the 62-yard catch-and-run touchdown from Case Keenum to Adam Thielen against the Rams in 2017, ESPN likely wouldn't give Keenum as much credit for that play as they would if he'd thrown it farther downfield, or from a collapsing pocket under duress. They'd say it was mostly Thielen. The problem with that assertion is that after-the-game investigation revealed that Keenum audibled to that play, giving Thielen a chance to go to the house if he could break one tackle. In other words, it's subjective, and not always based in knowledge of what's actually going on.

Thus ESPN hedges: "Although QBR is not always a perfect reflection of a quarterback’s performance, it does solve most of the problems of traditional stats."

Passer Rating is the official statistic used by the NFL since 1973.
It is based on attempts, completions, yards, TDs and INTs. There is no subjectivity. Plug in the numbers and get the Passer Rating. A perfect score is a weird 158.3.

Obviously there are issues with Passer Rating. For example, it doesn't differentiate between stats earned during garbage time vs. clutch situations.

But there are plenty of issues with Total QBR. It's a system that is a) secret, and b) subjective. Why is it that we are skeptical about PFF's rating system, but somehow we're OK with ESPN's? They're both based on subjective decisions made by very few or one person for whom qualifications are unknown. At least with Passer Rating, I know how the score was determined. Meanwhile, I find it hard to believe that a subjective system isn't influenced by personal bias. Call up any game involving Aaron Rodgers, and you'll see what I mean. Recently they lost to Indianapolis, and ESPN gave Rodgers a significantly higher rating than Philip Rivers, who had nearly identical numbers.

EDIT: Perfect example. ESPN gave Cousins a 25.7 rating for yesterday's game. That's bias. ESPN says, "That means on completed passes, the EPA is divided among the quarterback, his receivers and the offensive line based on how far the ball travels in the air, what percentage of the yards were gained after the catch (compared to how many yards after catch are expected) and whether the quarterback was under pressure." Under pressure! Any of us who watched that game know that Cousins was getting buried out there, play after play. And some of the throws he made under that pressure were absolute dimes.

Yes, his pick-six probably hurt his rating in a big way. But even that wasn't totally his fault. Dalvin Cook never looked for the ball. I could see his rating ending up 50 or 60. But 25.7?

Good post Kapp. Yeah I've watched that pick 6 play over a few times. There was definitely some confusion there. Watching Cousins and Bradbury, it looked like they were trying to run a screen. Watching Dalvin, he looked like he was simply going out for a route on a pass play. The reason Cousins got nailed when he threw that ball was because Bradbury bailed for the screen. Dalvin just wasnt looking. Even though Dalvin ran for 120 yards, I think this was one of his worst games this year. He just made a lot of boneheaded plays.

OK, at the risk of sounding anti-Cook, I'm going to share this. I also apologize in advance ... this is supposed to be about Cousins in the 4th. But in an indirect way, this contributes to Kirk's play.

Yesterday on the game chat, some of you will remember that I was questioning whether Cook was off. Whether he was worn down. Something was wrong. Many of you agreed ... he's being run into the ground.

Ben Leber, who was ON THE SIDELINE yesterday, said Cook's demeanor was "off." Leber said he didn't like Cook's body language. He lacked fire and intensity. I mean, Ben Leber was right there, walking amongst the team.

Well, what a surprise. Over the past six weeks, he's averaging 30.3 touches per game. Yesterday — 32 carries, 6 receptions. That's 38 touches!

Here's the deal. When you give a running back nearly $13 million per season, there's the natural temptation to use him to death. But it's unstutainable. We're talking about a 210-pound running back. Let's compare Cook to Earl Campbell. In his heaviest-use season, Campbell averaged 24 touches per game. The man can now barely walk. He's had both knees replaced, had half a dozen back surgeries, and battled substance abuse to control the pain. And he weighed 237 pounds, playing against linemen and linebackers who were smaller and slower than today's players. Cook is getting hammered out there. And the Vikings just keep calling his number.

This isn't a knock on Dalvin Cook. Not at all. It's a knock on the Vikings using him to death. We've seen Cook's energy level and explosiveness take a hit the past four weeks, and it's no wonder.

It's fairly obvious that we can move the ball through the air. And our other running backs, while not Cook, are not slouches. The Vikings have GOT to reduce Cook's exposure, or they won't even get through this season with him, let alone 5 years.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Good post Kapp. Yeah I've watched that pick 6 play over a few times. There was definitely some confusion there. Watching Cousins and Bradbury, it looked like they were trying to run a screen. Watching Dalvin, he looked like he was simply going out for a route on a pass play. The reason Cousins got nailed when he threw that ball was because Bradbury bailed for the screen. Dalvin just wasnt looking. Even though Dalvin ran for 120 yards, I think this was one of his worst games this year. He just made a lot of boneheaded plays.

OK, at the risk of sounding anti-Cook, I'm going to share this. I also apologize in advance ... this is supposed to be about Cousins in the 4th. But in an indirect way, this contributes to Kirk's play.

Yesterday on the game chat, some of you will remember that I was questioning whether Cook was off. Whether he was worn down. Something was wrong. Many of you agreed ... he's being run into the ground.

Ben Leber, who was ON THE SIDELINE yesterday, said Cook's demeanor was "off." Leber said he didn't like Cook's body language. He lacked fire and intensity. I mean, Ben Leber was right there, walking amongst the team.

Well, what a surprise. Over the past six weeks, he's averaging 30.3 touches per game. Yesterday — 32 carries, 6 receptions. That's 38 touches!

Here's the deal. When you give a running back nearly $13 million per season, there's the natural temptation to use him to death. But it's unstutainable. We're talking about a 210-pound running back. Let's compare Cook to Earl Campbell. In his heaviest-use season, Campbell averaged 24 touches per game. The man can now barely walk. He's had both knees replaced, had half a dozen back surgeries, and battled substance abuse to control the pain. And he weighed 237 pounds, playing against linemen and linebackers who were smaller and slower than today's players. Cook is getting hammered out there. And the Vikings just keep calling his number.

This isn't a knock on Dalvin Cook. Not at all. It's a knock on the Vikings using him to death. We've seen Cook's energy level and explosiveness take a hit the past four weeks, and it's no wonder.

It's fairly obvious that we can move the ball through the air. And our other running backs, while not Cook, are not slouches. The Vikings have GOT to reduce Cook's exposure, or they won't even get through this season with him, let alone 5 years.

Completely agree Kapp. I've noticed this the last few weeks as well. He just doesnt look excited to be out there right now. And seems to get quickly frustrated when he gets stuffed a few times. I know Tomasson (who I cant stand) asked him if he was getting worn down and Cook took offense to that. Which I get. But yes they really need to use Mattison and Boone more. They arent Dalvin Cook but they can definitely get the job done when called upon. No less Mattison is built like a brick shi* house and can take a pounding. I know he was out this week but they just havent used him enough this year in general .

[chicagopurple]

Cousins, our coach, our entire team barely beat one of the worst teams in the NFL, requiring overtime to do it. Most good college teams could beat the Jags and the Jags QB wouldnt be a starter on any big NCAA program at this point.......lipstick on a pig this week.

[VikingLord]

Cousins, our coach, our entire team barely beat one of the worst teams in the NFL, requiring overtime to do it. Most good college teams could beat the Jags and the Jags QB wouldnt be a starter on any big NCAA program at this point.......lipstick on a pig this week.

If you just look at the score it appears the game was very close.

If you look at what happened it wasn't as close.

Take away two big miscues by the Vikings (INT for TD to start the second half and fumble near the goal line on 1st-and-goal to start the 4th quarter) and the game isn't that close at the end. It certainly doesn't go to OT even with the late heroics by the Jags.

Second thing to point out is that the Jags aren't as bad as their record indicates. Yes, they have only one win, but they lost at Tennesse by 3, at Green Bay by 4, and at home versus the Browns by 2. That doesn't mean they're a good team, but it also doesn't mean they're an automatic pushover. They've given some good teams a run for their money, and while I wouldn't say the Vikings are a good team, it shouldn't surprise anyone that they gave the Vikings a run for their money yesterday.

Final point I wanted to make was the final team stats. They show the game really wasn't all that close, especially when you consider the Vikings were well behind in those stats at the end of the first half.

The Vikings ended up with 30 total first downs to 20 by the Jags, were 7-16 on 3rd downs versus 4-13 for the Jags, wracked up 420 yards of total offense to 390 for the Jags, and possessed the ball for 37:33 to the Jags 30:38. So those stats indicate the Vikings got the better of the game even in a game where I think the Vikings overall came out flat and committed some egregious errors to boot.

[VikingLord]

Completely agree Kapp. I've noticed this the last few weeks as well. He just doesnt look excited to be out there right now. And seems to get quickly frustrated when he gets stuffed a few times. I know Tomasson (who I cant stand) asked him if he was getting worn down and Cook took offense to that. Which I get. But yes they really need to use Mattison and Boone more. They arent Dalvin Cook but they can definitely get the job done when called upon. No less Mattison is built like a brick shi* house and can take a pounding. I know he was out this week but they just havent used him enough this year in general .

Here's a theory - Cook is getting frustrated by the fact that defenses are focusing on stopping him and he's not getting the favorable running looks he got earlier in the year. It's natural to attribute the struggles to some change in Cook's attitude, but I think it's more likely he's just seeing defenses selling out to stop him and as a result he's taking a lot of contact with not a lot to show for it.

I was a little surprised at how conservative the Vikings were on offense in the first half yesterday. I thought they played into what the Jags wanted to do on defense and it showed. There was no room to run because the Jags were selling out to stop it and getting a lot of penetration as a result. Kubiak seemed to wise up a bit in the 2nd half and had Cousins take more shots, and then Cook did get some room to roam.

And when he did, I saw his effort. On that play to end the 3rd where he nearly scored I don't see how anyone can doubt his attitude or effort. Even on the play before that where he got tripped up he pounded the ball because he knew if he stayed on his feet there he could have scored.

So I'm not really seeing a general change in his attitude as much as some frustration/resignation that as long as the Vikings can't or won't alter how defenses play against Cook when he's out there, the running is going to be tough going.

Think of it like you're in your Ferrari and you know how fast it can go, but you're stuck in the left lane of the highway behind granny and have a slow 18 wheeler next to you in the right lane. You know you can go faster. You want to go faster. But you're just going to have to be patient.

But as soon as granny gets out of the way,

ZOOM

Yeah, Cook will be fine as soon as Vikings start hitting teams over the top more when they cheat to play the run.

[J. Kapp 11]

Completely agree Kapp. I've noticed this the last few weeks as well. He just doesnt look excited to be out there right now. And seems to get quickly frustrated when he gets stuffed a few times. I know Tomasson (who I cant stand) asked him if he was getting worn down and Cook took offense to that. Which I get. But yes they really need to use Mattison and Boone more. They arent Dalvin Cook but they can definitely get the job done when called upon. No less Mattison is built like a brick shi* house and can take a pounding. I know he was out this week but they just havent used him enough this year in general .

Here's a theory - Cook is getting frustrated by the fact that defenses are focusing on stopping him and he's not getting the favorable running looks he got earlier in the year. It's natural to attribute the struggles to some change in Cook's attitude, but I think it's more likely he's just seeing defenses selling out to stop him and as a result he's taking a lot of contact with not a lot to show for it.

I was a little surprised at how conservative the Vikings were on offense in the first half yesterday. I thought they played into what the Jags wanted to do on defense and it showed. There was no room to run because the Jags were selling out to stop it and getting a lot of penetration as a result. Kubiak seemed to wise up a bit in the 2nd half and had Cousins take more shots, and then Cook did get some room to roam.

And when he did, I saw his effort. On that play to end the 3rd where he nearly scored I don't see how anyone can doubt his attitude or effort. Even on the play before that where he got tripped up he pounded the ball because he knew if he stayed on his feet there he could have scored.

So I'm not really seeing a general change in his attitude as much as some frustration/resignation that as long as the Vikings can't or won't alter how defenses play against Cook when he's out there, the running is going to be tough going.

Think of it like you're in your Ferrari and you know how fast it can go, but you're stuck in the left lane of the highway behind granny and have a slow 18 wheeler next to you in the right lane. You know you can go faster. You want to go faster. But you're just going to have to be patient.

But as soon as granny gets out of the way,

ZOOM

Yeah, Cook will be fine as soon as Vikings start hitting teams over the top more when they cheat to play the run.

I agree with you here.

But come on. We're talking 38 touches. That's overuse no matter how you look at it. Cook is at 30.2 touches per game since the bye. He's not going to hold up. I'd be frustrated, too!

Also, it's not just us noticing these things. Ben Leber was on the sidelines. He commented on it after the game. Again, not knocking Cook. He's getting the hell beat out of him.

You are correct about the play calling yesterday, especially in the first half. The Vikings were running Cook right into the teeth of a Jags defense that was selling out to stop him. Then when they did drop back to throw, it was all short routes and check-down Charlies. One way the Vikings could have reduced Cook's usage yesterday would have been to simply throw down the field more, especially off play action. When they did that in the second half, you correctly stated that the offense suddenly started to click.

The Vikings need to find a way to reduce this man's workload, or he's going to get hurt.

[VikingLord]

Here's a theory - Cook is getting frustrated by the fact that defenses are focusing on stopping him and he's not getting the favorable running looks he got earlier in the year. It's natural to attribute the struggles to some change in Cook's attitude, but I think it's more likely he's just seeing defenses selling out to stop him and as a result he's taking a lot of contact with not a lot to show for it.

I was a little surprised at how conservative the Vikings were on offense in the first half yesterday. I thought they played into what the Jags wanted to do on defense and it showed. There was no room to run because the Jags were selling out to stop it and getting a lot of penetration as a result. Kubiak seemed to wise up a bit in the 2nd half and had Cousins take more shots, and then Cook did get some room to roam.

And when he did, I saw his effort. On that play to end the 3rd where he nearly scored I don't see how anyone can doubt his attitude or effort. Even on the play before that where he got tripped up he pounded the ball because he knew if he stayed on his feet there he could have scored.

So I'm not really seeing a general change in his attitude as much as some frustration/resignation that as long as the Vikings can't or won't alter how defenses play against Cook when he's out there, the running is going to be tough going.

Think of it like you're in your Ferrari and you know how fast it can go, but you're stuck in the left lane of the highway behind granny and have a slow 18 wheeler next to you in the right lane. You know you can go faster. You want to go faster. But you're just going to have to be patient.

But as soon as granny gets out of the way,

ZOOM

Yeah, Cook will be fine as soon as Vikings start hitting teams over the top more when they cheat to play the run.

I agree with you here.

But come on. We're talking 38 touches. That's overuse no matter how you look at it. Cook is at 30.2 touches per game since the bye. He's not going to hold up. I'd be frustrated, too!

Also, it's not just us noticing these things. Ben Leber was on the sidelines. He commented on it after the game. Again, not knocking Cook. He's getting the hell beat out of him.

You are correct about the play calling yesterday, especially in the first half. The Vikings were running Cook right into the teeth of a Jags defense that was selling out to stop him. Then when they did drop back to throw, it was all short routes and check-down Charlies. One way the Vikings could have reduced Cook's usage yesterday would have been to simply throw down the field more, especially off play action. When they did that in the second half, you correctly stated that the offense suddenly started to click.

The Vikings need to find a way to reduce this man's workload, or he's going to get hurt.

Yeah, I agree with that.

But here's my theory on the first half gameplan.

The Jags have struggled all year to stop opposing running games. They are 3rd worst in the league at stopping the run, so it was reasonable that the Vikings felt they could run on them and play more conservatively.

I don't know if the Jags took that personally, but they also came in with a lot of pep in their step. They played like a defense that wanted to change a narrative and prove something more than a team resigned to its flaws and its fate.

The combination of those two things resulted in what we saw in the first half yesterday - a Vikings offense that essentially played right into the strategy of the opposing defense. Cook's production suffered as a result. Vikings wake up and stop banging their heads into a wall, and the offense moves and Cook starts to break off some longer runs.

If I put the lack of production in the first half on anyone, it's Kubiak and his failure to adjust earlier to what he was seeing happening on the field.

I'll say one last thing about Dalvin Cook. I don't think he'd be getting the workload he's getting if he didn't want it. I think the Vikings coaches are very cognizant of what they're asking Cook to do, and I believe Cook is telling them he wants that load. If he needs to come out, he comes out. If he's banged up, he comes out. I think Cook wants the workload because he wants to win and he feels he can take it on.

Now whether that is a good idea overall or realistic, I don't know. Like you, I'm concerned about his health and ability to remain effective. It's something the Vikings need to consider as the season wears on.

[Frozen Rope]

You see it your way and me and most of the fan base see it differently. Even when he stands in there, takes the hits, wins, and gives his teammate the credit, you can’t find a way to give him even a little credit. You and a couple others have a patent on hate Cousins no matter what. It was ugly but it was a win no matter what you think

That's all the Viking do is win ugly. When's the last time they have had a really dominating win?
I blame a lot of that on Zimmer,he puts Cousins in a bad situation most games. Some games Cousins does ok...Other games he self destructs.
He has done better this year. BTW I'm not a Cousins or a Zimmer fan.

That’s ok. It doesn’t make you or me a bad person just because we see things differently.

[VikingsVictorious]

Cousins, our coach, our entire team barely beat one of the worst teams in the NFL, requiring overtime to do it. Most good college teams could beat the Jags and the Jags QB wouldnt be a starter on any big NCAA program at this point.......lipstick on a pig this week.

Who gives a ####. A win is a win. We won. I'm celebrating and putting lipstick on all my pigs. Go Vikings.