Lamar Jackson

[StumpHunter]

Yeah, it makes no sense that KOC would be stuck on a pocket passer. First of all, KOC himself was a mobile QB. Second, look at what they've done in free agency. They took a tight end known for his blocking and re-signed Alexander Mattison. I think KOC sees what the Chiefs are doing — running a lot of heavy personnel, keeping the opposition defense in base, and taking advantage of mismatches against receivers and especially a talented receiving tight end (Kelce ... Hockenson) — and wants some of it for himself. Be very surprised if the Vikings don't run a lot of two-tight-end looks this year. I think KOC would like to be able to run RPOs, but he has a QB who is no threat to keep the ball.

Don't know if $50 million a year for Lamar Jackson is what he wants (or what I want) but if you gave him some truth serum, I think he'd like some options other than a stand-still QB.

I also agree with the take that KOC was brought in here to find the NEXT Vikings quarterback. He's got an offensive mind, and he's a former QB himself. I believe Kwesi chose him because he believes KOC can identify the right guy.

And now with the report that Kirk Cousins actually offered the Vikings a discounted contract and they turned him down — it seems apparent that KOC doesn't think Kirk is the guy.

Once Cousins threw that 4th down check down pass to end the playoff game KOC and the rest of the NFL have no use for him.

Interesting stat about that. Since 1994 (as far back as this has been tracked) no QB has ever completed a pass for 5 yards or more less than the line to gain in the fourth quarter of a playoff game when down a score or less on 4th down. Andy Dalton is the only other QB to have ever completed a pass with 3 minutes to go in that situation and not picked up a first, and his 8 yard completion would have been enough for a first in our situation.

Kirk sure is special.

Bumping that time up to 6 minutes or less and there is another MN QB who did it. Warren Moon completed a 4 yard pass on 4th and 5 to Amp Lee, who fumbled reaching for the first, only to have the fumble returned for a TD back in 1995. I can't find a replay of that to see if it actually had a chance at a first if not for the fumble, and I don't remember the play, but maybe one of you all can remember that play?

[allday1991]

Yeah that's a talking point I think is overlooked. If you are gonna a send two first for Jackson (and the contract), you can spend those same first to move up and draft a prospect if you can find a trade partner. And be on a rookie contract.

Well first the rookie you have to pick has to be good. On average 4-5 QBs get taken a year in the first round and maybe one or two of them are ok to good. That tells me two first for a qb you already know is good to great is a no brainer. I’ve seen two QBs drafted by this team in the first round since I’ve been a fan and they both were far from being that guy. If Kirk goes and we miss on the next qb I’d assume jj will be shortly behind.

[allday1991]

Once Cousins threw that 4th down check down pass to end the playoff game KOC and the rest of the NFL have no use for him.

Interesting stat about that. Since 1994 (as far back as this has been tracked) no QB has ever completed a pass for 5 yards or more less than the line to gain in the fourth quarter of a playoff game when down a score or less on 4th down. Andy Dalton is the only other QB to have ever completed a pass with 3 minutes to go in that situation and not picked up a first, and his 8 yard completion would have been enough for a first in our situation.

Kirk sure is special.

Bumping that time up to 6 minutes or less and there is another MN QB who did it. Warren Moon completed a 4 yard pass on 4th and 5 to Amp Lee, who fumbled reaching for the first, only to have the fumble returned for a TD back in 1995. I can't find a replay of that to see if it actually had a chance at a first if not for the fumble, and I don't remember the play, but maybe one of you all can remember that play?

How about 4th down plays were they didn’t get the pass off at all and take a sack? Just as bad, in fact even worse.

[StumpHunter]

Interesting stat about that. Since 1994 (as far back as this has been tracked) no QB has ever completed a pass for 5 yards or more less than the line to gain in the fourth quarter of a playoff game when down a score or less on 4th down. Andy Dalton is the only other QB to have ever completed a pass with 3 minutes to go in that situation and not picked up a first, and his 8 yard completion would have been enough for a first in our situation.

Kirk sure is special.

Bumping that time up to 6 minutes or less and there is another MN QB who did it. Warren Moon completed a 4 yard pass on 4th and 5 to Amp Lee, who fumbled reaching for the first, only to have the fumble returned for a TD back in 1995. I can't find a replay of that to see if it actually had a chance at a first if not for the fumble, and I don't remember the play, but maybe one of you all can remember that play?

How about 4th down plays were they didn’t get the pass off at all and take a sack? Just as bad, in fact even worse.

The QB isn't choosing to take a sack in that spot which is what Cousins is being ripped for, choosing to throw a pass with no real shot at picking up a first. It is much better for a QB to try to extend a play and possibly get sacked or just throwing up a pass to a triple covered JJ that is intercepted than checkdown to Hock. Breaking down the film on that play, KJ was the best option but a difficult one if Cousins decides to throw as soon as he realizes Cleveland is beat. The BEST play was for him to escape to his right and either buy time for KJ to get more open or force Hockenson's defender to account for Cousins running for a first. He does that, and it is an easy first and a new set of downs to try to score a TD.

Joe Burrow has actually talked about how not all sacks are "bad" sacks:

Here’s the thing about sacks. So there’s good sacks and bad sacks. You look at the stats, yeah I got sacked a lot. But you look at when they happened: Third-down sacks? Who cares about third-down sacks? I’m going to try to extend the play as long as I can to get the first down on third down, unless I’m in field-goal range, then I’ll throw the ball away and get some points,

[Cliff]

Yeah that's a talking point I think is overlooked. If you are gonna a send two first for Jackson (and the contract), you can spend those same first to move up and draft a prospect if you can find a trade partner. And be on a rookie contract.

Well first the rookie you have to pick has to be good. On average 4-5 QBs get taken a year in the first round and maybe one or two of them are ok to good. That tells me two first for a qb you already know is good to great is a no brainer. I’ve seen two QBs drafted by this team in the first round since I’ve been a fan and they both were far from being that guy. If Kirk goes and we miss on the next qb I’d assume jj will be shortly behind.

In recent history, with the exception of Mahomes last season, teams with higher paid QBs aren't making the super bowl. Mostly it's good QBs still on their rookie deals or QBs with middle of the pack salaries ... specifically Tom Brady who seemed to realize if you want the team you're on to win you can't spend too much at any one position and took team friendly deal over the years. That's what caring about your "legacy" looks like, by the way.

2022
Mahomes (highest paid QB)
Hurts (rookie deal)

2021
Stafford (15th that season)
Burrow (rookie deal)

2020
Tom Brady (16th highest paid)
Mahomes (rookie deal)

2019
Mahomes (rookie deal)
Jimmy Garoppolo (8th highest paid)

2018
Tom Brady (17th highest paid)
Jared Goff (rookie deal)

2017
Nick Foles (backup money, Wentz rookie deal)
Tom Brady (20th highest paid)

Getting a good rookie QB and being able to pay him a low salary while you build the team around him seems to be the key to winning in right now.

[VikingLord]

How about 4th down plays were they didn’t get the pass off at all and take a sack? Just as bad, in fact even worse.

The QB isn't choosing to take a sack in that spot which is what Cousins is being ripped for, choosing to throw a pass with no real shot at picking up a first. It is much better for a QB to try to extend a play and possibly get sacked or just throwing up a pass to a triple covered JJ that is intercepted than checkdown to Hock. Breaking down the film on that play, KJ was the best option but a difficult one if Cousins decides to throw as soon as he realizes Cleveland is beat. The BEST play was for him to escape to his right and either buy time for KJ to get more open or force Hockenson's defender to account for Cousins running for a first. He does that, and it is an easy first and a new set of downs to try to score a TD.

Joe Burrow has actually talked about how not all sacks are "bad" sacks:

Here’s the thing about sacks. So there’s good sacks and bad sacks. You look at the stats, yeah I got sacked a lot. But you look at when they happened: Third-down sacks? Who cares about third-down sacks? I’m going to try to extend the play as long as I can to get the first down on third down, unless I’m in field-goal range, then I’ll throw the ball away and get some points,

Totally agree with both Burrow and you on this. Cousins' stated logic in that situation makes zero sense. The defense in that situation is designed to encourage the QB to throw short of the sticks because a short throw and a quick tackle ends the game. They intentionally make that the easy and obvious choice, so a veteran QB like Cousins should know better than to take the bait and, in fact, has to make the more risky throw even if it isn't completed or he takes a sack.

What frustrates me the most about that situation is that for most of the year Cousins was making the harder throw in similar situations, with that 4th down completion to JJ being the best example. I just do not understand why Cousins made the choice he made in the game and situation that mattered the most.

There are "money" players and there are the rest. There are the guys who step up in the most pressure-packed and difficult situations and deliver. Yeah, they blow it a lot too and their willingness to take risks doesn't always pay off, but sometimes it does, and when it does that's when special things can happen. That is why the best players get paid what they do (or, at least, should be why). While his contract suggests otherwise, Cousins is not a money guy. He teased us during the regular season and made us believe maybe he could be that QB, but then reverted back to his classic play style and corresponding end result. I am so glad that KAM did not extend him and the Vikings seem willing to move on. There are no guarantees a new QB will get a better end result but I'd rather them take that chance than sit pat with a guy who clearly isn't going to get them anywhere near a Superbowl, much less win one.

[CharVike]

The QB isn't choosing to take a sack in that spot which is what Cousins is being ripped for, choosing to throw a pass with no real shot at picking up a first. It is much better for a QB to try to extend a play and possibly get sacked or just throwing up a pass to a triple covered JJ that is intercepted than checkdown to Hock. Breaking down the film on that play, KJ was the best option but a difficult one if Cousins decides to throw as soon as he realizes Cleveland is beat. The BEST play was for him to escape to his right and either buy time for KJ to get more open or force Hockenson's defender to account for Cousins running for a first. He does that, and it is an easy first and a new set of downs to try to score a TD.

Joe Burrow has actually talked about how not all sacks are "bad" sacks:

Totally agree with both Burrow and you on this. Cousins' stated logic in that situation makes zero sense. The defense in that situation is designed to encourage the QB to throw short of the sticks because a short throw and a quick tackle ends the game. They intentionally make that the easy and obvious choice, so a veteran QB like Cousins should know better than to take the bait and, in fact, has to make the more risky throw even if it isn't completed or he takes a sack.

What frustrates me the most about that situation is that for most of the year Cousins was making the harder throw in similar situations, with that 4th down completion to JJ being the best example. I just do not understand why Cousins made the choice he made in the game and situation that mattered the most.

There are "money" players and there are the rest. There are the guys who step up in the most pressure-packed and difficult situations and deliver. Yeah, they blow it a lot too and their willingness to take risks doesn't always pay off, but sometimes it does, and when it does that's when special things can happen. That is why the best players get paid what they do (or, at least, should be why). While his contract suggests otherwise, Cousins is not a money guy. He teased us during the regular season and made us believe maybe he could be that QB, but then reverted back to his classic play style and corresponding end result. I am so glad that KAM did not extend him and the Vikings seem willing to move on. There are no guarantees a new QB will get a better end result but I'd rather them take that chance than sit pat with a guy who clearly isn't going to get them anywhere near a Superbowl, much less win one.

Joe Burrow was sacked 9 times in a playoff game. His team won the game only because his D played great and gave up 16 points. So sure those sacks were all good sacks. He only put up 1 TD. That sucks. He did nothing to help. Didn't even throw a TD pass. So sure Burrow can brag about that all he wants. His team just signed a great LT in FA. I wonder why? Just take good sacks. You don't need blocking. If Hock could break a tackle he would have ran forever. Maybe that's why the Lions dumped him. I'm not blaming Hock but what if he did break it and take off. That's been done before in football. I've seen it. But what Cousins did was inexcusable. Don't be stupid. Heave it to JJ. He can get it with 3 around him.

[allday1991]

The QB isn't choosing to take a sack in that spot which is what Cousins is being ripped for, choosing to throw a pass with no real shot at picking up a first. It is much better for a QB to try to extend a play and possibly get sacked or just throwing up a pass to a triple covered JJ that is intercepted than checkdown to Hock. Breaking down the film on that play, KJ was the best option but a difficult one if Cousins decides to throw as soon as he realizes Cleveland is beat. The BEST play was for him to escape to his right and either buy time for KJ to get more open or force Hockenson's defender to account for Cousins running for a first. He does that, and it is an easy first and a new set of downs to try to score a TD.

Joe Burrow has actually talked about how not all sacks are "bad" sacks:

Totally agree with both Burrow and you on this. Cousins' stated logic in that situation makes zero sense. The defense in that situation is designed to encourage the QB to throw short of the sticks because a short throw and a quick tackle ends the game. They intentionally make that the easy and obvious choice, so a veteran QB like Cousins should know better than to take the bait and, in fact, has to make the more risky throw even if it isn't completed or he takes a sack.

What frustrates me the most about that situation is that for most of the year Cousins was making the harder throw in similar situations, with that 4th down completion to JJ being the best example. I just do not understand why Cousins made the choice he made in the game and situation that mattered the most.

There are "money" players and there are the rest. There are the guys who step up in the most pressure-packed and difficult situations and deliver. Yeah, they blow it a lot too and their willingness to take risks doesn't always pay off, but sometimes it does, and when it does that's when special things can happen. That is why the best players get paid what they do (or, at least, should be why). While his contract suggests otherwise, Cousins is not a money guy. He teased us during the regular season and made us believe maybe he could be that QB, but then reverted back to his classic play style and corresponding end result. I am so glad that KAM did not extend him and the Vikings seem willing to move on. There are no guarantees a new QB will get a better end result but I'd rather them take that chance than sit pat with a guy who clearly isn't going to get them anywhere near a Superbowl, much less win one.

I don't fully agree. As Char mentioned with Kirk at least getting the ball off to Hockenson allowed for the chance that he may break a tackle and get a first down. Taking a sack leaves no chance, so if in that play Cousins only chance was to get the ball off to Hockenson he made the right choice. Sure its easy when you go back and watch it at 1/4 the speed and pause to read the defense. Sure Burrow is right, why take the check down if you still have time to extend sure, but if you dont have time you take the check down and hope someone breaks a tackle. Kirk would be equally ripped on if he rolled right and got chased down before making a throw. I dunno what to say out of 12 one score games he won 11 of them, everyone knew at some point that had to give.

[VikingLord]

As Char mentioned with Kirk at least getting the ball off to Hockenson allowed for the chance that he may break a tackle and get a first down. Taking a sack leaves no chance, so if in that play Cousins only chance was to get the ball off to Hockenson he made the right choice.

But that wasn't his only chance. He could have also fired it to Osborn coming out of his break past the sticks. Granted, harder throw, but not impossible and one Kirk has the arm to make. He could also have tried to buy time by moving away from the rush to his right.

Throwing the ball to Hockenson was better than taking a bad sack (which I define by sitting in the pocket and not feeling or reacting to the pressure), but not the best option for a chance to pick up the first down that the Vikings needed there for any chance to win that game.

Kirk would be equally ripped on if he rolled right and got chased down before making a throw. I dunno what to say out of 12 one score games he won 11 of them, everyone knew at some point that had to give.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Kirk would be ripped if he rolled right and held the ball and not attempted to make a throw he could have made, but had he rolled right and been chased down and sacked because nobody was open, I at least would be far less critical of him.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that at least some of those 11 out of 12 one score games were won because Cousins attempted the more risky throws in similar situations. What he did against the Giants in the playoff loss was actually a regression for him based on the season he'd just had, which makes it all that much more disappointing.

[CharVike]

As Char mentioned with Kirk at least getting the ball off to Hockenson allowed for the chance that he may break a tackle and get a first down. Taking a sack leaves no chance, so if in that play Cousins only chance was to get the ball off to Hockenson he made the right choice.

But that wasn't his only chance. He could have also fired it to Osborn coming out of his break past the sticks. Granted, harder throw, but not impossible and one Kirk has the arm to make. He could also have tried to buy time by moving away from the rush to his right.

Throwing the ball to Hockenson was better than taking a bad sack (which I define by sitting in the pocket and not feeling or reacting to the pressure), but not the best option for a chance to pick up the first down that the Vikings needed there for any chance to win that game.

Kirk would be equally ripped on if he rolled right and got chased down before making a throw. I dunno what to say out of 12 one score games he won 11 of them, everyone knew at some point that had to give.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Kirk would be ripped if he rolled right and held the ball and not attempted to make a throw he could have made, but had he rolled right and been chased down and sacked because nobody was open, I at least would be far less critical of him.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that at least some of those 11 out of 12 one score games were won because Cousins attempted the more risky throws in similar situations. What he did against the Giants in the playoff loss was actually a regression for him based on the season he'd just had, which makes it all that much more disappointing.

Do you actually think players play the same everyday? Mahomes is the only QB in NFL history not to have an offensive TD in the Super Bowl. How's that for a bad day. Re-watching is very easy. Maybe Cousins didn't even see that LBer running towards Hock. Matter of fact why was there even a check down on that play? Every route should have been beyond the maker. This was the last play. Perhaps Hock was a decoy. Maybe JJ was the decoy and Hoch ran too short a route or the LBer saw what we were doing. None of us will ever know the ins and outs of the play. Perhaps Kirk went through the progression tree and Hock was the last man. But that throw to Hock was as risky as it gets. The chance of him making a 1st down from that catch point isn't very good. Basically one in the hundreds. That's a huge risk.

[StumpHunter]

But that wasn't his only chance. He could have also fired it to Osborn coming out of his break past the sticks. Granted, harder throw, but not impossible and one Kirk has the arm to make. He could also have tried to buy time by moving away from the rush to his right.

Throwing the ball to Hockenson was better than taking a bad sack (which I define by sitting in the pocket and not feeling or reacting to the pressure), but not the best option for a chance to pick up the first down that the Vikings needed there for any chance to win that game.



I'm not sure I agree with that. Kirk would be ripped if he rolled right and held the ball and not attempted to make a throw he could have made, but had he rolled right and been chased down and sacked because nobody was open, I at least would be far less critical of him.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that at least some of those 11 out of 12 one score games were won because Cousins attempted the more risky throws in similar situations. What he did against the Giants in the playoff loss was actually a regression for him based on the season he'd just had, which makes it all that much more disappointing.

Do you actually think players play the same everyday? Mahomes is the only QB in NFL history not to have an offensive TD in the Super Bowl. How's that for a bad day. Re-watching is very easy. Maybe Cousins didn't even see that LBer running towards Hock. Matter of fact why was there even a check down on that play? Every route should have been beyond the maker. This was the last play. Perhaps Hock was a decoy. Maybe JJ was the decoy and Hoch ran too short a route or the LBer saw what we were doing. None of us will ever know the ins and outs of the play. Perhaps Kirk went through the progression tree and Hock was the last man. But that throw to Hock was as risky as it gets. The chance of him making a 1st down from that catch point isn't very good. Basically one in the hundreds. That's a huge risk.

Hock and Cook both had to account for the blitz on the play to help the Oline, that is why they were both short of the sticks. With how the Giants defended the play, if Kirk had rolled to his left or right both Cook and Hock easily pick up a first on those routes. since the defender wouldn't have been able to stop Kirk from picking up the first and cover their guy. That is another reason those routes existed.

Unfortunately for the Vikings, Kirk doesn't even see throwing it up to JJ or KJ, or escaping the pocket as an option. He has said his options were to take a sack or throw to Hock. That is it. If that isn't the definition of a limited QB, I don't know what is.

[J. Kapp 11]

The QB isn't choosing to take a sack in that spot which is what Cousins is being ripped for, choosing to throw a pass with no real shot at picking up a first. It is much better for a QB to try to extend a play and possibly get sacked or just throwing up a pass to a triple covered JJ that is intercepted than checkdown to Hock. Breaking down the film on that play, KJ was the best option but a difficult one if Cousins decides to throw as soon as he realizes Cleveland is beat. The BEST play was for him to escape to his right and either buy time for KJ to get more open or force Hockenson's defender to account for Cousins running for a first. He does that, and it is an easy first and a new set of downs to try to score a TD.

Joe Burrow has actually talked about how not all sacks are "bad" sacks:

Totally agree with both Burrow and you on this. Cousins' stated logic in that situation makes zero sense. The defense in that situation is designed to encourage the QB to throw short of the sticks because a short throw and a quick tackle ends the game. They intentionally make that the easy and obvious choice, so a veteran QB like Cousins should know better than to take the bait and, in fact, has to make the more risky throw even if it isn't completed or he takes a sack.

What frustrates me the most about that situation is that for most of the year Cousins was making the harder throw in similar situations, with that 4th down completion to JJ being the best example. I just do not understand why Cousins made the choice he made in the game and situation that mattered the most.

There are "money" players and there are the rest. There are the guys who step up in the most pressure-packed and difficult situations and deliver. Yeah, they blow it a lot too and their willingness to take risks doesn't always pay off, but sometimes it does, and when it does that's when special things can happen. That is why the best players get paid what they do (or, at least, should be why). While his contract suggests otherwise, Cousins is not a money guy. He teased us during the regular season and made us believe maybe he could be that QB, but then reverted back to his classic play style and corresponding end result. I am so glad that KAM did not extend him and the Vikings seem willing to move on. There are no guarantees a new QB will get a better end result but I'd rather them take that chance than sit pat with a guy who clearly isn't going to get them anywhere near a Superbowl, much less win one.

100% this.

Look, I have tried so hard to like Cousins. I’ve rooted hard for him and been a big advocate when he plays well. He seems like a fine man, and he’s a good NFL quarterback. If he’s wearing purple, I’m cheering for him.

The problem is exactly as you’ve stated VL. When the chips are down, when the Vikings need him to put the team on his back, he just can’t do it. When you need him to rip off his shirt and reveal the big “S” on his undershirt, you discover instead that he’s wearing a pressed white button-down from Kohl’s.

I think of the 4th-and-18 against Buffalo. Primo play. He trusted JJ. He made the big-time throw. Beautiful. But you know what was MISSING from that play? Pressure. Kirk had a clean pocket, plenty of time to let the receiver get downfield, and plenty of space to step into the throw.

But put pressure on Cousins in a big moment, and you get 4th-and-8.

I had a bad feeling back in 2018 when I read that Cousins mapped out his entire day in 10-minute increments on an Excel spreadsheet. That was a pretty good clue that he wasn’t going to be very good at improvising. When he said he saw himself as the CEO on the field, that honestly just made it worse.

Kirk is a guy who needs a plan. There’s nothing wrong with that. My wife is the same way. But she’s not a NFL quarterback. People who need a plan don’t typically know what to do in chaotic situations. When you’re an NFL quarterback, that’s going to hurt you in the long run.

It’s time for new blood.

[VikingLord]

But that throw to Hock was as risky as it gets. The chance of him making a 1st down from that catch point isn't very good. Basically one in the hundreds. That's a huge risk.

Maybe I'm not reading what you wrote correctly, but are you suggesting that the throw to Hockenson on 4th down that ended the game was an example of Cousins taking a big risk?

[CharVike]

But that throw to Hock was as risky as it gets. The chance of him making a 1st down from that catch point isn't very good. Basically one in the hundreds. That's a huge risk.

Maybe I'm not reading what you wrote correctly, but are you suggesting that the throw to Hockenson on 4th down that ended the game was an example of Cousins taking a big risk?

Yes. A dumb risk but a risk. One broken tackle and it's a great play and risk. My point is why even have that stupid route on that play. Whoever came up with that design should never design another play again. Let JJ run a short route and suck 3 people in. Now the deep part of the field has gaps for others to find one on one. Cousins should have just thrown it to JJ right off the bat. Intercepted or incomplete who gives a sh!t at that point. You can even get a PI call. But I don't know what he saw to do a check down for nothing. Not a very bright play for a long time vet.

[VikingLord]

Maybe I'm not reading what you wrote correctly, but are you suggesting that the throw to Hockenson on 4th down that ended the game was an example of Cousins taking a big risk?

Yes. A dumb risk but a risk. One broken tackle and it's a great play and risk. My point is why even have that stupid route on that play. Whoever came up with that design should never design another play again. Let JJ run a short route and suck 3 people in. Now the deep part of the field has gaps for others to find one on one. Cousins should have just thrown it to JJ right off the bat. Intercepted or incomplete who gives a sh!t at that point. You can even get a PI call. But I don't know what he saw to do a check down for nothing. Not a very bright play for a long time vet.

I think Stump hit the nail on the head with his explanation. Both Cook and Hockenson were kept in to block first and then release, presumably if the Giants didn't blitz. The defensive design allowed both to release. All 3 of the available short and medium routes on the play could have picked up a 1st down if (and that is the key word) all three had time to develop. None of them did because Cleveland got beaten cleanly inside and Cousins was under duress quickly. The only way any of those routes have more time to develop is if Cousins created the time by using his legs, which he didn't do. Cousins other choice was to pull the trigger on one of the routes early and hope for the target to make a play, which is what he did. Given that is the decision he made, the riskiest choice was to go for the route past the sticks which was the most difficult throw and the least clearly open of the 3 receivers. The much safer route was to throw it short to receivers left intentionally wide open and basically hope the covering defender blew it ala what Keenum managed to pull off with the Miracle.

I don't see what Cousins did as dumb necessarily. It was safe, and it was forced because he didn't buy himself extra time with movement.

For the record, I don't fault him for the loss against the Giants. That was a team effort that required the usual failures and lack of adjustment on the part of the defense and serious lapses on the part of the offense to pull off. I also don't believe that even if the Vikings played well against the Giants and Cousins managed to get them in the endzone to win that game they would have gone any further. Regardless of who they faced after the first round that Vikings team was probably going to get whacked. So I'm not bashing Cousins just to lay all the blame at his feet for that loss. There is plenty to go around.

But what I will say about Cousins is that for most of last season he was able and willing to take the bigger risks. The football gods rewarded him time and again for that. Despite that, despite an entire year of a lot of gutsy plays and improbable comebacks, when the moment came to put his faith to the test, he faltered. He was punished for it, and justly. I don't know what the future holds for Cousins, but I hope whatever it is the Vikings won't be a part of it. I've seen more than enough. He's a good, serviceable QB. The Vikings need to find themselves a great, exceptional QB. The time to begin that search is now, and I think KAM and KOC have created their search plan and will implement it either this offseason or next.