Browns @ Vikings post game

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
VikingLord
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7256
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
x 538

Re: Browns @ Vikings post game

Post by VikingLord » Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:52 pm

StumpHunter wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:37 am
This team does lack talent to compete for the trophy, but giving up 180 yards on the ground is irrelevant when you are only giving up 14 points.
I think the Vikings were very fortunate to have only given up 14 points in that game. The points against doesn't really reflect the inability of the defense to get off the field. Also, if the Browns had better QB play in that game, the Vikings would have conceded a lot more than 14 points.
0 x

StumpHunter
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 429

Re: Browns @ Vikings post game

Post by StumpHunter » Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:58 pm

CharVike wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:09 pm
StumpHunter wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 10:37 am


Why do you think the only options at QB are Cousins or a QB like Joe Webb?

Why are the Panthers at 3-1 worse off than the Vikings at 1-3? Same with the Broncos who are 3-1?

This team does lack talent to compete for the trophy, but giving up 180 yards on the ground is irrelevant when you are only giving up 14 points.
You act like QBs grow on trees. Who is out there right now that is great and is available. I'll tell you. Nobody. Even getting a guy of Cousins level is difficult to find. Getting torched for 180 is relevant. Stuff the ground attack and make Mayfield beat you when he's not playing well. They knew they had our OL a$$ess kicked which meant zero ground game and a passing game that was going to struggle. We weren't going to light that Browns D up. They'er not the Bengals. They play hard football.
Kevin Patra
Around the NFL Writer
The Browns ability to pound out 184 rushing yards saved the offense on Sunday. The defense shutting down a heretofore potent Vikings offense was key for Cleveland to get a win on a day its QB struggled.
"[They were] good enough for us to win when I'm playing quarterback like that," Mayfield said. "Thankfully they played like that. ... There's a lot of easy throws there that I think I missed."
“That piss-poor performance by me isn’t going to cut it,” Mayfield said. “I’ve got to be better. It’s just that simple.”
Our D was lucky that he sucked. If he was hitting his WRs it would have been a blow out.
I never said the Panthers or Broncos were worse off. They have each played crappy teams and beat them. They both played 1 game each against good teams and couldn't get the win. They can't beat good teams. Having junk at QB hurts them. Many were shocked that the panthers didn't trade up for a guy. Instead they went for a bust from the Jets. It will cost them.
Panthers and Broncos lose to 1 good team and they can't beat good teams? Even if true, how is that different than what we have had for 3 seasons with the current QB?

There have been better options than Cousins hit free agency, available via trade or at a spot that was draft-able every year since he has been here. The argument that it is just too hard to get a QB who is better is incredibly weak and needs to be put to bed.
0 x

CharVike
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1811
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 313

Re: Browns @ Vikings post game

Post by CharVike » Wed Oct 06, 2021 1:24 pm

StumpHunter wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:58 pm
CharVike wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:09 pm

You act like QBs grow on trees. Who is out there right now that is great and is available. I'll tell you. Nobody. Even getting a guy of Cousins level is difficult to find. Getting torched for 180 is relevant. Stuff the ground attack and make Mayfield beat you when he's not playing well. They knew they had our OL a$$ess kicked which meant zero ground game and a passing game that was going to struggle. We weren't going to light that Browns D up. They'er not the Bengals. They play hard football.
Kevin Patra
Around the NFL Writer
The Browns ability to pound out 184 rushing yards saved the offense on Sunday. The defense shutting down a heretofore potent Vikings offense was key for Cleveland to get a win on a day its QB struggled.
"[They were] good enough for us to win when I'm playing quarterback like that," Mayfield said. "Thankfully they played like that. ... There's a lot of easy throws there that I think I missed."
“That piss-poor performance by me isn’t going to cut it,” Mayfield said. “I’ve got to be better. It’s just that simple.”
Our D was lucky that he sucked. If he was hitting his WRs it would have been a blow out.
I never said the Panthers or Broncos were worse off. They have each played crappy teams and beat them. They both played 1 game each against good teams and couldn't get the win. They can't beat good teams. Having junk at QB hurts them. Many were shocked that the panthers didn't trade up for a guy. Instead they went for a bust from the Jets. It will cost them.
Panthers and Broncos lose to 1 good team and they can't beat good teams? Even if true, how is that different than what we have had for 3 seasons with the current QB?

There have been better options than Cousins hit free agency, available via trade or at a spot that was draft-able every year since he has been here. The argument that it is just too hard to get a QB who is better is incredibly weak and needs to be put to bed.
Yes Teddy was available he's always available. We have been in rebuild for how long? Last year was a rebuild #### show. Rookie CBs are never the best move. Rookie T converted to G is never a good move until they get some size and a base. That takes years. You blame everything on the QB. There is more to this game than the QB. Yes we could have traded for Case. He couldn't make it with the best D in football because he wasn't a very good passer. We could have grabbed the guy Washington cut. He can't beat out old man Rothlisberger. I wanted Jones in the draft when he fell to us. He's a rookie starter and has struggled. All rookies struggle and he might be a bust. The light might go on also. Panthers and Broncos and the Saints will get there chances. I don't think they have a QB that can beat a good team. Teddy might lead the Broncos to the Super Bowl. Might as in won't. Once the Bronco fans start getting POed and don't show up they will put the kid they have in. You blaming the QB on every lose needs to be put to bed. It never should have been taken out of the bed. This game goes way beyond one position. Goff took the Rams to the Super Bowl. I don't see the Lions making it with him this year. They are too weak.
1 x

Frozen Rope
Backup
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:27 am
x 79

Re: Browns @ Vikings post game

Post by Frozen Rope » Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:09 pm

CharVike wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 1:24 pm
StumpHunter wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:58 pm

Panthers and Broncos lose to 1 good team and they can't beat good teams? Even if true, how is that different than what we have had for 3 seasons with the current QB?

There have been better options than Cousins hit free agency, available via trade or at a spot that was draft-able every year since he has been here. The argument that it is just too hard to get a QB who is better is incredibly weak and needs to be put to bed.
Yes Teddy was available he's always available. We have been in rebuild for how long? Last year was a rebuild #### show. Rookie CBs are never the best move. Rookie T converted to G is never a good move until they get some size and a base. That takes years. You blame everything on the QB. There is more to this game than the QB. Yes we could have traded for Case. He couldn't make it with the best D in football because he wasn't a very good passer. We could have grabbed the guy Washington cut. He can't beat out old man Rothlisberger. I wanted Jones in the draft when he fell to us. He's a rookie starter and has struggled. All rookies struggle and he might be a bust. The light might go on also. Panthers and Broncos and the Saints will get there chances. I don't think they have a QB that can beat a good team. Teddy might lead the Broncos to the Super Bowl. Might as in won't. Once the Bronco fans start getting POed and don't show up they will put the kid they have in. You blaming the QB on every lose needs to be put to bed. It never should have been taken out of the bed. This game goes way beyond one position. Goff took the Rams to the Super Bowl. I don't see the Lions making it with him this year. They are too weak.
CharVike, don’t ever leave this board. You understand the game and don’t try and drown us in stats. I enjoy your posts in particular along with a few other veterans. It’s tough to have an intelligent dialogue with Stump. He is so jaded and obsessed with Cousins that he can’t concede the truth that we aren’t going anywhere with this Oline. I really feel sorry for him. His life mission is to convince everyone what a garbage QB Cousins is, and come hell or high water, he concedes absolutely nothing. He never once has ever conceded anything.when Cousins does get time and has a really good game, not a peep out of him. I can see why PHP left the board. Too bad, I enjoyed his posts. But then things got personal and I can see why. Do a little self reflection Stump. Just absorb a little of what I’m saying. This is supposed to be fun. On another note, Cousins arm is fine and physically he’s in the best shape of his career.
C’mon back PHP, I’ll have a good dialogue with ya. And FSL, where you been? I used to really enjoy your posts on the Washington Stadium thread.
1 x

StumpHunter
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 429

Re: Browns @ Vikings post game

Post by StumpHunter » Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:18 pm

CharVike wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 1:24 pm
StumpHunter wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:58 pm

Panthers and Broncos lose to 1 good team and they can't beat good teams? Even if true, how is that different than what we have had for 3 seasons with the current QB?

There have been better options than Cousins hit free agency, available via trade or at a spot that was draft-able every year since he has been here. The argument that it is just too hard to get a QB who is better is incredibly weak and needs to be put to bed.
Yes Teddy was available he's always available. We have been in rebuild for how long? Last year was a rebuild #### show. Rookie CBs are never the best move. Rookie T converted to G is never a good move until they get some size and a base. That takes years. You blame everything on the QB. There is more to this game than the QB. Yes we could have traded for Case. He couldn't make it with the best D in football because he wasn't a very good passer. We could have grabbed the guy Washington cut. He can't beat out old man Rothlisberger. I wanted Jones in the draft when he fell to us. He's a rookie starter and has struggled. All rookies struggle and he might be a bust. The light might go on also. Panthers and Broncos and the Saints will get there chances. I don't think they have a QB that can beat a good team. Teddy might lead the Broncos to the Super Bowl. Might as in won't. Once the Bronco fans start getting POed and don't show up they will put the kid they have in.
Teddy and Case would have us at worst winning one fewer playoff game over that past 3 seasons, but that is not who I was referring too. In 2018 a future MVP was available and all it would have cost us was Mike Hughes. Ryan Tannehill was available in 2019, and all that it took to get him was a 6th round pick. Tom Brady was available in 2020, and all he did was win the SB.

There is no guarantee the best of those three, Brady, would have come here, but Tannehill and Jackson were there for the taking. Two guys who 32 out of 32 GMs would want over Cousins, especially considering Jackson pretty much cost nothing compared to Cousins these past few seasons and Tannehill will average 18.6 million against the cap for TN from 2019-2022. Better QB for significantly less.
You blaming the QB on every lose needs to be put to bed. It never should have been taken out of the bed. This game goes way beyond one position. Goff took the Rams to the Super Bowl. I don't see the Lions making it with him this year. They are too weak.
Well which is it? Is the QB really important and we don't dare risk getting worse at the position in an attempt to get better or is the QB not that important and even QBs like Goff can win the SB?

Make up your mind.
0 x

User avatar
chicagopurple
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:45 am
x 56

Re: Browns @ Vikings post game

Post by chicagopurple » Wed Oct 06, 2021 3:21 pm

The sign of a bad team…..always blaming the refs….winners dominate and dont let things fall in the hand of officials.
1 x

User avatar
VikingLord
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7256
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
x 538

Re: Browns @ Vikings post game

Post by VikingLord » Wed Oct 06, 2021 3:45 pm

Frozen Rope wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:09 pm
He never once has ever conceded anything.when Cousins does get time and has a really good game, not a peep out of him.
If anything, Stump's argument around Cousins is similar to the climate change "debate". There are those who point to an unusually cold day or even series of days in December or January in one part of the country and use that point example to claim that climate change isn't happening because look, it's unusually cold for this time of year.

But on larger scales of time and over many more data points, the underlying warming trend is clear and undeniable. There is a baseline that underpins things even if there are points of data that buck the trend.

As it relates to Cousins, he performs well against weaker defenses and teams that don't defend the pass well. There are plenty of data points that show that. Against the stronger defenses he faces, his results are basically the opposite.

If I had to summarize what I understand Stump's position to be on Cousins it is that yes, the Vikings can win with Cousins, but they will only do so with a very strong supporting cast, and with Cousins earning the money he's earning, assembling and maintaining a supporting cast of that level will be nearly impossible compared to their competition. If the argument is that the team around Cousins needs to be stronger if the QB's level of play against better competition is consistently weaker, then does it make sense to pay that QB in the first place? Why not just relieve the team of that QB's exceptional compensation and use that freed up money to make the rest of the team stronger, and then get a QB whose pay can be justified for whatever level of performance the Vikings can expect out of him? Pay what you need to pay at a given position to get the performance you need to get out of that position. That is what good, winning teams do at more positions than not. Weak teams and teams that struggle overpay for the production they're getting at certain positions, which in turn hurts their overall competitiveness.

It's not an unreasonable argument.

The main point of contention with the argument is whether Cousins is a great QB worthy of his top-level compensation or he's an average or even below-average QB who is not worth what he's being paid. If that debate has no context, I think it can be argued that Cousins' stats put him around top 10 consideration and certainly top 15 in the league.

But if you look at the games that really matter, be those playoff games or games against rivals for divisional titles or playoff teams (in other words, the better teams in the league), Cousins falls woefully short there. It's not up for debate any more than the long-term temperature trends in the climate change debate. Cousins struggles greatly to win the games against the types of teams that you need to be able to beat to have any chance of sniffing the Superbowl, much less winning one. And I think we saw another example of that this last Sunday against the Browns. While he's not the reason the Vikings lost, neither did he do much of anything to improve their chances or rally them.

I'm with Stump on this. I spent a decent amount of time and energy arguing the "Cousins just needs a better team around him" angle, but I've seen enough. Cousins isn't going to change this team's playoff fortunes, and if they're going to shell out top bank to a QB, that QB needs to be able to change the team's playoff fortunes ala what Brett Favre did in 2009 with an otherwise similar Vikings team under an otherwise similar Vikings head coach and (I can't believe I'm writing this) the same GM. Cousins hasn't done that and he's had more than enough time to show he can do it.
2 x

psjordan
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 8:01 am
x 85

Re: Browns @ Vikings post game

Post by psjordan » Wed Oct 06, 2021 3:49 pm

StumpHunter wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:18 pm
Teddy and Case would have us at worst winning one fewer playoff game over that past 3 seasons, but that is not who I was referring too. In 2018 a future MVP was available and all it would have cost us was Mike Hughes. Ryan Tannehill was available in 2019, and all that it took to get him was a 6th round pick. Tom Brady was available in 2020, and all he did was win the SB.
Yes, and you don't have to go far to pick names like Heineke (name sounds familiar, like we should know him or something) or say Sam Darnold. Either of those guys could be working well for us right now - or they might not.

The real "Cousins issue" IMO is not necessarily his "on field panic mode" shortcomings, it's two other things.

1) His first contract with us, and to a lesser extent the extension
2) His (and any QB on our roster) coaching on this team

His contract(s) basically made any QB move a non-starter for any talent lower than a D Watson type. His first contract kind of forced restructuring at the end. There's no way to justify eating Cousins $ for a guy like Sam Darnold. If we had squat for QB's, gambling on a Darnold makes 100% rock solid sense. Watson minus legal troubles may have been worth eating tens of millions of Cousins contract and associated cap hits. Even gambling on Tannehill would have seemed absurd at the time, one year into Cousins tenure here.

But IMO the most important "non-provable" for our QB position is what our coaches would actually do with any level of talent below a Watson. I would have little to zero faith that our staff would mold Darnold into a top notch, consistent QB. No way I envision our staff getting Tannehill to where his is now. Part of that thought process is that I have ZERO faith our OL coaches could get the line to the point where those QB's could succeed. What is Cousins CONSISTENTLY doing better with us than he did with WAS?

Some part of me definitely would be in favor of taking a gamble on any of the QB names above, but the realist in me knows that our offensive coaching staff has a miserable track record of developing talent that have not hit their stride.

RB's pretty much are what they are out of college, other than maybe coaching them not to fumble there is not a ton a coach can do at the pro level. So is there credit for developing Cook or Mattison? Dunno.

I'll give credit to our WR coaching staff over the past few years, but only grudgingly. I think Thielen, Jefferson and Osborn are a unique group of "self starters/self motivators" that we were lucky to end up with. Osborn's been clawing since his college days in Buffalo (pre MIA) after no one gave him a great shot. Thielen's the ultimate "worker at his craft" and JJ has a drive to be the best. But I can't sell the coaching short, so I'll give them nods for finding a way for the three to blossom. But how long have we waited for a valid #3 WR? When was the last time we had an OL that got BETTER after being coached by our staff?

Maybe credit to our TE coaches? Conklin's definitely gotten better but it sure seemed like it took some time for Irv to hit his stride (pre-injury). Rudolph again seems a guy in that "self starter" category but we can give coaches credit there.

At the end of the day I have huge doubts anything less than a top level "pre-made" QB would have succeeded with this staff.
0 x

StumpHunter
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 429

Re: Browns @ Vikings post game

Post by StumpHunter » Wed Oct 06, 2021 4:03 pm

Frozen Rope wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:09 pm
But then things got personal and I can see why. Do a little self reflection Stump. Just absorb a little of what I’m saying. This is supposed to be fun.
Fun for me on a message board is people making good points that either confirm or contradict my posts. I don't need everyone to agree with me and actually welcome disagreement. You know, because I am an adult.
0 x

StumpHunter
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2866
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 429

Re: Browns @ Vikings post game

Post by StumpHunter » Wed Oct 06, 2021 4:13 pm

psjordan wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 3:49 pm
StumpHunter wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:18 pm
Teddy and Case would have us at worst winning one fewer playoff game over that past 3 seasons, but that is not who I was referring too. In 2018 a future MVP was available and all it would have cost us was Mike Hughes. Ryan Tannehill was available in 2019, and all that it took to get him was a 6th round pick. Tom Brady was available in 2020, and all he did was win the SB.
Yes, and you don't have to go far to pick names like Heineke (name sounds familiar, like we should know him or something) or say Sam Darnold. Either of those guys could be working well for us right now - or they might not.

The real "Cousins issue" IMO is not necessarily his "on field panic mode" shortcomings, it's two other things.

1) His first contract with us, and to a lesser extent the extension
2) His (and any QB on our roster) coaching on this team

His contract(s) basically made any QB move a non-starter for any talent lower than a D Watson type. His first contract kind of forced restructuring at the end. There's no way to justify eating Cousins $ for a guy like Sam Darnold. If we had squat for QB's, gambling on a Darnold makes 100% rock solid sense. Watson minus legal troubles may have been worth eating tens of millions of Cousins contract and associated cap hits. Even gambling on Tannehill would have seemed absurd at the time, one year into Cousins tenure here.

But IMO the most important "non-provable" for our QB position is what our coaches would actually do with any level of talent below a Watson. I would have little to zero faith that our staff would mold Darnold into a top notch, consistent QB. No way I envision our staff getting Tannehill to where his is now. Part of that thought process is that I have ZERO faith our OL coaches could get the line to the point where those QB's could succeed. What is Cousins CONSISTENTLY doing better with us than he did with WAS?

Some part of me definitely would be in favor of taking a gamble on any of the QB names above, but the realist in me knows that our offensive coaching staff has a miserable track record of developing talent that have not hit their stride.

RB's pretty much are what they are out of college, other than maybe coaching them not to fumble there is not a ton a coach can do at the pro level. So is there credit for developing Cook or Mattison? Dunno.

I'll give credit to our WR coaching staff over the past few years, but only grudgingly. I think Thielen, Jefferson and Osborn are a unique group of "self starters/self motivators" that we were lucky to end up with. Osborn's been clawing since his college days in Buffalo (pre MIA) after no one gave him a great shot. Thielen's the ultimate "worker at his craft" and JJ has a drive to be the best. But I can't sell the coaching short, so I'll give them nods for finding a way for the three to blossom. But how long have we waited for a valid #3 WR? When was the last time we had an OL that got BETTER after being coached by our staff?

Maybe credit to our TE coaches? Conklin's definitely gotten better but it sure seemed like it took some time for Irv to hit his stride (pre-injury). Rudolph again seems a guy in that "self starter" category but we can give coaches credit there.

At the end of the day I have huge doubts anything less than a top level "pre-made" QB would have succeeded with this staff.
You might be right about Kube JR and the current offensive coaching staff, but two QBs who failed at every other stop they have been too had career years with the Vikings in Bradford and Case in the past. Not to mention Cousins has had his best seasons with the Vikings.

There is not an example of a QB regressing with Zimmer as the HC. They come here and reach their ceilings, it is just that their ceilings are too low to really compete for a SB.
0 x

Frozen Rope
Backup
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:27 am
x 79

Re: Browns @ Vikings post game

Post by Frozen Rope » Wed Oct 06, 2021 4:25 pm

psjordan wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 3:49 pm
StumpHunter wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:18 pm
Teddy and Case would have us at worst winning one fewer playoff game over that past 3 seasons, but that is not who I was referring too. In 2018 a future MVP was available and all it would have cost us was Mike Hughes. Ryan Tannehill was available in 2019, and all that it took to get him was a 6th round pick. Tom Brady was available in 2020, and all he did was win the SB.
Yes, and you don't have to go far to pick names like Heineke (name sounds familiar, like we should know him or something) or say Sam Darnold. Either of those guys could be working well for us right now - or they might not.

The real "Cousins issue" IMO is not necessarily his "on field panic mode" shortcomings, it's two other things.

1) His first contract with us, and to a lesser extent the extension
2) His (and any QB on our roster) coaching on this team

His contract(s) basically made any QB move a non-starter for any talent lower than a D Watson type. His first contract kind of forced restructuring at the end. There's no way to justify eating Cousins $ for a guy like Sam Darnold. If we had squat for QB's, gambling on a Darnold makes 100% rock solid sense. Watson minus legal troubles may have been worth eating tens of millions of Cousins contract and associated cap hits. Even gambling on Tannehill would have seemed absurd at the time, one year into Cousins tenure here.

But IMO the most important "non-provable" for our QB position is what our coaches would actually do with any level of talent below a Watson. I would have little to zero faith that our staff would mold Darnold into a top notch, consistent QB. No way I envision our staff getting Tannehill to where his is now. Part of that thought process is that I have ZERO faith our OL coaches could get the line to the point where those QB's could succeed. What is Cousins CONSISTENTLY doing better with us than he did with WAS?

Some part of me definitely would be in favor of taking a gamble on any of the QB names above, but the realist in me knows that our offensive coaching staff has a miserable track record of developing talent that have not hit their stride.

RB's pretty much are what they are out of college, other than maybe coaching them not to fumble there is not a ton a coach can do at the pro level. So is there credit for developing Cook or Mattison? Dunno.

I'll give credit to our WR coaching staff over the past few years, but only grudgingly. I think Thielen, Jefferson and Osborn are a unique group of "self starters/self motivators" that we were lucky to end up with. Osborn's been clawing since his college days in Buffalo (pre MIA) after no one gave him a great shot. Thielen's the ultimate "worker at his craft" and JJ has a drive to be the best. But I can't sell the coaching short, so I'll give them nods for finding a way for the three to blossom. But how long have we waited for a valid #3 WR? When was the last time we had an OL that got BETTER after being coached by our staff?

Maybe credit to our TE coaches? Conklin's definitely gotten better but it sure seemed like it took some time for Irv to hit his stride (pre-injury). Rudolph again seems a guy in that "self starter" category but we can give coaches credit there.

At the end of the day I have huge doubts anything less than a top level "pre-made" QB would have succeeded with this staff.
PS, I appreciate the way you frame your position and the points you made. It’s not exhausting to read your posts. My point was that I need to put on a flak jacket every time I see Stumps posts. Many posters have differing points of views and that’s what this board is about. You and most others don’t lecture.
0 x

User avatar
makila
Backup
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:43 pm
x 29

Re: Browns @ Vikings post game

Post by makila » Wed Oct 06, 2021 6:58 pm

VikingLord wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 3:45 pm

If I had to summarize what I understand Stump's position to be on Cousins it is that yes, the Vikings can win with Cousins, but they will only do so with a very strong supporting cast, and with Cousins earning the money he's earning, assembling and maintaining a supporting cast of that level will be nearly impossible compared to their competition. If the argument is that the team around Cousins needs to be stronger if the QB's level of play against better competition is consistently weaker, then does it make sense to pay that QB in the first place? Why not just relieve the team of that QB's exceptional compensation and use that freed up money to make the rest of the team stronger, and then get a QB whose pay can be justified for whatever level of performance the Vikings can expect out of him? Pay what you need to pay at a given position to get the performance you need to get out of that position. That is what good, winning teams do at more positions than not. Weak teams and teams that struggle overpay for the production they're getting at certain positions, which in turn hurts their overall competitiveness.

It's not an unreasonable argument.
Great post overall imo. Agree with this point. I've always viewed him as a QB who needs at least an above average oline and supporting cast. He can be a very good QB when he has time in the pocket. He's smart, durable, and can make throws. He is so afraid of throwing a pick though, once he gets scared it's just downhill. If they expected Cousins to be able to be great at improvising when the line play breaks down, I'm more concerned about our scouting of QBs. He never displayed that trait at Michigan St or Washington.

Yes, any QB in the game is going to do better with a good online and supporting cast, I get that. Some are just more dependent than others.

All that said, when you sign this QB to a huge contract you have to build the team that fits him, and with that contract, you limit your ability to build out everything else. There is a salary cap. Plain and simple. Cap management is one of the few things I think this FO does very well, this (Cousin's contract) has never made much sense to me though.

I get everyone has a strong opinion on this subject, and at this point, it likely isn't changing.

Also, I don't fault Cousins for the contract. Get what's yours man.
0 x

Dmizzle0
Pro Bowl Elite Player
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 5:03 pm
x 37

Re: Browns @ Vikings post game

Post by Dmizzle0 » Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:06 pm

Silly take but,

I think Kevin Harlan is one of the best announcers out there, but I get nervous when he's calling our games. Does anyone know our record when he's calling Vikings games? :tongue:
0 x

CharVike
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1811
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 313

Re: Browns @ Vikings post game

Post by CharVike » Thu Oct 07, 2021 12:32 am

VikingLord wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 3:45 pm
Frozen Rope wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:09 pm
He never once has ever conceded anything.when Cousins does get time and has a really good game, not a peep out of him.
If anything, Stump's argument around Cousins is similar to the climate change "debate". There are those who point to an unusually cold day or even series of days in December or January in one part of the country and use that point example to claim that climate change isn't happening because look, it's unusually cold for this time of year.

But on larger scales of time and over many more data points, the underlying warming trend is clear and undeniable. There is a baseline that underpins things even if there are points of data that buck the trend.

As it relates to Cousins, he performs well against weaker defenses and teams that don't defend the pass well. There are plenty of data points that show that. Against the stronger defenses he faces, his results are basically the opposite.

If I had to summarize what I understand Stump's position to be on Cousins it is that yes, the Vikings can win with Cousins, but they will only do so with a very strong supporting cast, and with Cousins earning the money he's earning, assembling and maintaining a supporting cast of that level will be nearly impossible compared to their competition. If the argument is that the team around Cousins needs to be stronger if the QB's level of play against better competition is consistently weaker, then does it make sense to pay that QB in the first place? Why not just relieve the team of that QB's exceptional compensation and use that freed up money to make the rest of the team stronger, and then get a QB whose pay can be justified for whatever level of performance the Vikings can expect out of him? Pay what you need to pay at a given position to get the performance you need to get out of that position. That is what good, winning teams do at more positions than not. Weak teams and teams that struggle overpay for the production they're getting at certain positions, which in turn hurts their overall competitiveness.

It's not an unreasonable argument.

The main point of contention with the argument is whether Cousins is a great QB worthy of his top-level compensation or he's an average or even below-average QB who is not worth what he's being paid. If that debate has no context, I think it can be argued that Cousins' stats put him around top 10 consideration and certainly top 15 in the league.

But if you look at the games that really matter, be those playoff games or games against rivals for divisional titles or playoff teams (in other words, the better teams in the league), Cousins falls woefully short there. It's not up for debate any more than the long-term temperature trends in the climate change debate. Cousins struggles greatly to win the games against the types of teams that you need to be able to beat to have any chance of sniffing the Superbowl, much less winning one. And I think we saw another example of that this last Sunday against the Browns. While he's not the reason the Vikings lost, neither did he do much of anything to improve their chances or rally them.

I'm with Stump on this. I spent a decent amount of time and energy arguing the "Cousins just needs a better team around him" angle, but I've seen enough. Cousins isn't going to change this team's playoff fortunes, and if they're going to shell out top bank to a QB, that QB needs to be able to change the team's playoff fortunes ala what Brett Favre did in 2009 with an otherwise similar Vikings team under an otherwise similar Vikings head coach and (I can't believe I'm writing this) the same GM. Cousins hasn't done that and he's had more than enough time to show he can do it.
You do realize Farve was a 1st ballot HOFer right? Cousins isn't that. That 2009 roster was loaded with talent. Our 2009 draft was solid. The left side of that OL were both pro bowlers. Mckinnie and Hutchinson. Hutch is a HOFer. Our center Sullivan was no stiff either. Loadholt was a good player as a rookie that season. He had what I like size. He could move people. Syndey Rice was a good WR. AP who will be in the HOF was our back and had 18 TDs. Off the bench was Percy Harvin the rookie of the year. He was lighting in the bottle. Get the ball in his hands with a crack and say good night. Also helped out on ST. Took a few to the house. We don't have a player on our roster with his type of explosiveness. On D we had the Williams Wall and Kevin is in the ring of honor. Allen was a great pass rusher. In the secondary Winfield made the pro bowl. The other CB had 4 picks.
In the playoffs opening round our D gave up 3 points. That's playing football. The Farve changed our playoff fortunes as you stated we were beat down in NO in OT. He threw the pick. Same old story. But at least we made a great game of it. I do agree with you that Farve was a better QB than Cousins. Rodgers is today. He was better than any we had since Fran for one season. But that roster had some talent and could control the LOS on both sides. That's were it all starts and is a must have. I have always said one player can't do it alone. Football is a team sport to the fullest. Every QB needs players including Farve. He couldn't get that roster to the Super Bowl and he's a HOFer which was the most disappointing part of that core team. Couldn't break through. Maybe the biggest heart breaker season I have ever seen. Thanks for the memory.
0 x

User avatar
allday1991
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1074
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:31 pm
x 24

Re: Browns @ Vikings post game

Post by allday1991 » Thu Oct 07, 2021 5:30 am

Wow, funny how quick things change from one week to another in here. Two weeks ago our head coach was getting chewed out for being a bad coach (which he is) in a game were our QB played great and our coach gave up a lot of points and made some questionable calls. Now fast forward to this week and back to Cousins, his inability to win or play good against good teams and his contract. Well again neglecting the teams overall play, and managements unwillingness to change. Our oline is as bad as it’s always been in the Cousins era, during this time every game we play a dominate dline we struggle badly (check out our division record against Chicago) and have done nothing to change that. Outside of O’Neil our oline is trash and gets beaten constantly. But again this is nothing new yet every year we do the same things expecting different results. Definition of insanity.
1 x
“I remember my mistakes more than my success.” - Adrian Peterson