Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

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
40for60
Starter
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:37 pm
x 51

Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by 40for60 »

Interesting article. Already assumes Zim is gone, which he probably is:

https://sports.yahoo.com/vikings-named- ... p_catchall
CharVike
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 473

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by CharVike »

Everybody has an opinion. What does being dangerous mean? We beat the Packers so I would call that a dangerous team. Every game is close. Is that not dangerous? I felt we needed to win 14 games this year for a shot at the division crown which gives the best chance of making the show. This cheap starting QB don't exist unless it's a draft pick. We had a cheap starter with Case and no team is winning with that cheap stiff. You have zero chance. Yes we won the division but Rodgers didn't play. Take Rodgers off of that team this year and we would win the division again with a losing record. That's with a junk defense. Case had the best D in the game. Then we hit the playoffs with the cheap stiff Case and scoring becomes basically impossible. Then he throws a pick 6 in the champ game and it was over. Any cheap QB will suck unless it's a guy on his rookie deal that plays dam good like Jones. The team Jones plays for helps but the kid has talent. Put Mond on the Pats and they wouldn't be challenging for the title. No team is winning with our current defense no matter what you have at QB. No team is winning with this absolute joke OL we have. Right now we can't even generate a ground attack. Nothing. That's what Kubsteak offense is. Pound the ball and use play action. Right now there is no pounding. So the entire scheme is done. We have one guy out of 5 that should be a starter. It don't get much weaker than that. If we had the number 1 D this year we would challenge. Our D sucks and that has nothing to do with a QB contract. We have nothing at DE because of injuries. We can't stop the run because these expensive FA DT we signed don't appear to have that ability. That can't hold the point. They get pushed around. Every team wants a good QB on a cheap contract. Hate to tell this guy but that don't exist unless you hit in the draft. This guy acts like there are cheap good QBs laying all around the place. More than half the teams need a new QB. They would be signed quickly. No QB has ever played that would take this current team to the Super Bowl. Other pieces need to be fixed first. That won't happen using FA. Teams keep the players they want to keep. Players in FA usually aren't the best at their position. There is something wrong. Like that pass rusher Speilman traded for last year. He was a FA this year because the Ravens didn't want him. We didn't want him. That's your typical FA player. A guy few teams want.
User avatar
VikingLord
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7573
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
x 667

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by VikingLord »

CharVike wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:06 pm Everybody has an opinion. What does being dangerous mean?
To me dangerous means in the conversation as a legit Superbowl contender.
CharVike
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 473

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by CharVike »

VikingLord wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:24 pm
CharVike wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:06 pm Everybody has an opinion. What does being dangerous mean?
To me dangerous means in the conversation as a legit Superbowl contender.
That's what I was getting at. I thought we were a legit playoff contender but I didn't feel we had the talent to go all the way unless everything broke perfect. Getting past Rodgers and Brady is a tough deal. They are vets who have tremendous passing skills. Can throw any type of pass. They can be slowed if big time pressure is sent but their OL a good enough that seldom happens. I really like this 49er team. I think that's the one team that can upend those teams. Of course Jimmy G is a step back and can look like crap and will probably do them in but he can do some good things. I actually looked at his yards per attempt which is a stat I like and I thought he was more of a dink and dunk guy but he throws the ball downfield or he is hitting guys in stride and they take off. Probably a combination. Plus I think they have a good coach. I think Zim is what holds us back the most. He is a good coach but can't adjust at all. If he had Marino and those WRs he had he would still stick with the pound the rock BS. Shula could adjust to anything thrown his way quickly. Of course Shula was the all time great which isn't a fair comparison but Zim can't move an inch.
User avatar
40for60
Starter
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:37 pm
x 51

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by 40for60 »

I think what the author in the article was implying by "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract" is to free up cap space, which would allow the team to address their other shortcomings. Sure we got some FAs this year, but being restricted by what you can pay will not get the high end younger FAs. Granted, they don't always work out, and sometimes the FAs available aren't worth it, but things can change quickly in the NFL. And this article assumes Zim is gone, so the coaching will be different.
User avatar
40for60
Starter
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:37 pm
x 51

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by 40for60 »

And yes, it's an opinion. Just like all of ours.
StumpHunter
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 587

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by StumpHunter »

CharVike wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:06 pm Everybody has an opinion. What does being dangerous mean? We beat the Packers so I would call that a dangerous team. Every game is close. Is that not dangerous? I felt we needed to win 14 games this year for a shot at the division crown which gives the best chance of making the show. This cheap starting QB don't exist unless it's a draft pick. We had a cheap starter with Case and no team is winning with that cheap stiff. You have zero chance. Yes we won the division but Rodgers didn't play. Take Rodgers off of that team this year and we would win the division again with a losing record. That's with a junk defense. Case had the best D in the game. Then we hit the playoffs with the cheap stiff Case and scoring becomes basically impossible. Then he throws a pick 6 in the champ game and it was over. Any cheap QB will suck unless it's a guy on his rookie deal that plays dam good like Jones. The team Jones plays for helps but the kid has talent. Put Mond on the Pats and they wouldn't be challenging for the title. No team is winning with our current defense no matter what you have at QB. No team is winning with this absolute joke OL we have. Right now we can't even generate a ground attack. Nothing. That's what Kubsteak offense is. Pound the ball and use play action. Right now there is no pounding. So the entire scheme is done. We have one guy out of 5 that should be a starter. It don't get much weaker than that. If we had the number 1 D this year we would challenge. Our D sucks and that has nothing to do with a QB contract. We have nothing at DE because of injuries. We can't stop the run because these expensive FA DT we signed don't appear to have that ability. That can't hold the point. They get pushed around. Every team wants a good QB on a cheap contract. Hate to tell this guy but that don't exist unless you hit in the draft. This guy acts like there are cheap good QBs laying all around the place. More than half the teams need a new QB. They would be signed quickly. No QB has ever played that would take this current team to the Super Bowl. Other pieces need to be fixed first. That won't happen using FA. Teams keep the players they want to keep. Players in FA usually aren't the best at their position. There is something wrong. Like that pass rusher Speilman traded for last year. He was a FA this year because the Ravens didn't want him. We didn't want him. That's your typical FA player. A guy few teams want.
Our defense is actually better than the SB favorite GB Packers at preventing teams from scoring, so if Rodgers can't win with our D, he isn't going to win with his, which is good news to me.

As far as Oline, we have an above average run game that can be very good most of the time, bad some of the time. It is good enough that teams don't take it lightly when facing us and tend to scheme against it. It would benefit a better QB, not hinder him. Pass blocking this Oline is very average in its overall impact on the QB's ability to pass the football. 17th highest pressure percentage and 4th fewest sacks. If we had a QB who got rid of the ball as quickly as Brady or Rodgers those numbers get even better.

This team isn't good enough to compete for a SB with an average QB, something we know because our very average QB has us out of the playoffs, but a Mahomes or Rodgers has us as Super Bowl favorites.
User avatar
VikingLord
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7573
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
x 667

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by VikingLord »

CharVike wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 2:03 pm
VikingLord wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:24 pm

To me dangerous means in the conversation as a legit Superbowl contender.
That's what I was getting at. I thought we were a legit playoff contender but I didn't feel we had the talent to go all the way unless everything broke perfect.
Well, I think the Vikings were a legit playoff contender this year. That's the thing. I mean, a few things break their way this year and they're in the playoffs easily. I think Kapp posted that seasonal analysis highlighting the games and even plays that tipped it the other way.

In part, that fact is what makes this situation most frustrating, because its not like you and I were really wrong about the team heading into this season (I also felt they were legit contenders).

And that fact is what makes this coming offseason all the more uncertain, because its unclear how the Wilfs view the state of the team or what changes, if any, need to be made to get them over the hump. Do they need to be blown up, or tweaked? Maybe a few tweaks here and there coupled with better luck next time is all they really need. I could see the Wilfs agreeing with that, and it would be hard to say objectively they would be wrong.

Some believe the Vikings are only a better QB away. They could be right, but who is that better QB and how do the Vikings acquire him?

And maybe nothing the Vikings can objectively do will be good enough because the Packers have Rodgers and Rodgers is simply the best. Even if the Vikings got the literally best QB they could possibly find next year playing at the highest level he could play at, Rodgers would still be better and as a result, so would be the Packers. I'm not saying that is the case, but just that ultimate success doesn't just come down to the moves a given team makes, but also the quality of their competition. Sometimes you can do everything right and perform at a high level and its still not going to be good enough to beat someone who is just better at that thing than you could ever be.

I personally would like to see the Wilfs start over, though, because Spielman certainly has had more than enough time to show how he compares to his peers as a GM, and I think Zimmer has had enough time to show the same as the head coach. I think their collective records and results speak to mediocrity. Neither has succeeded in putting together a durable competitive team. They've had a few seasons of relative success (noting, with a huge asterisk, that their most successful season together came with a 3rd string journeyman QB at the helm for most of that season), but for the most part they have pretty consistently fallen short. Bad luck can explain a season or even two maybe of that. I think the preponderance of the evidence suggests neither is capable of consistently exceeding expectations or making more out of less. If anything, they've done no better than average with what they've both been given to work with, and it's time to give someone else a chance.

As for Cousins, it depends. If the Vikings have a better option next year, great. I'm sure they can work something out where Cousins could go somewhere else and play and be happy as the starter. If not, he can finish his contract out with the Vikings while the Vikings work on finding that next great QB.

In the meantime, I guess we enjoy seeing how they play out this season and look forward to what might be a very interesting offseason.
User avatar
VikingLord
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7573
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:12 pm
Location: The Land of the Ice and Snow
x 667

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by VikingLord »

StumpHunter wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 2:37 pm This team isn't good enough to compete for a SB with an average QB, something we know because our very average QB has us out of the playoffs, but a Mahomes or Rodgers has us as Super Bowl favorites.
What do you think about Malik Willis as a QB prospect?

https://walterfootball.com/scoutingrepo ... Willis.php

Walterfootball has him as the second QB prospect heading into the offseason in a relatively weak QB draft class.

This is the first year in a long time where none of the top 5 picks in a lot of mock drafts have a QB being taken, and, depending on how things shake out these last two games, the Vikings might very well have a shot at drafting someone like Willis staying pat at their draft position which is increasingly looking like it will be in the 10-15 range, and probably closer to 10 than 15.

Willis isn't particularly big, but he's bigger than someone like Kyler Murrary and moves just about as well with the ball in his hand. He shows a great deal of escapability in the pocket, but he's not just escaping to run. More often than not, he's escaping looking to throw, and he's often pretty successful when he does. Further, he rarely settles for the safety valve. One of the bigger criticisms of him is that he's always looking to make a play, which he has the arm and vision to do. With some solid coaching, he might be able to rein in his worst impulses.

To me, he looks like Deshaun Watson. I don't know what he's like from a character perspective, but given how many people on this board were salivating at the prospect of Watson being traded to the Vikings at one point before all of his off-field stuff became known, Willis is at least a player of that caliber and potential at QB. He even physically resembles him in terms of height and weight in addition to style of play, arm talent, etc.

The thing that intrigues me the most about Willis isn't his running ability. I like his arm and his release. When he releases the ball, it looks like a guided missile. Of course those are highlights but the guy definitely has the arm talent to throw and deliver strikes on the run.

In short, I like Willis's potential and ceiling more than I liked Mond's coming out. I think Willis could develop into a top-tier pro QB, especially if he has a season to marinate behind an established starter. Mond's ceiling seems to be more a solid starter. Still good enough with a good enough team around him, but not special per se. I could always be wrong about Mond, of course, but Willis seems to be the type of prospect that, if the Vikings can just sit and take him, might be worth the flyer. He might be the kind of QB the Vikings could restructure around.
CharVike
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 473

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by CharVike »

StumpHunter wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 2:37 pm
CharVike wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:06 pm Everybody has an opinion. What does being dangerous mean? We beat the Packers so I would call that a dangerous team. Every game is close. Is that not dangerous? I felt we needed to win 14 games this year for a shot at the division crown which gives the best chance of making the show. This cheap starting QB don't exist unless it's a draft pick. We had a cheap starter with Case and no team is winning with that cheap stiff. You have zero chance. Yes we won the division but Rodgers didn't play. Take Rodgers off of that team this year and we would win the division again with a losing record. That's with a junk defense. Case had the best D in the game. Then we hit the playoffs with the cheap stiff Case and scoring becomes basically impossible. Then he throws a pick 6 in the champ game and it was over. Any cheap QB will suck unless it's a guy on his rookie deal that plays dam good like Jones. The team Jones plays for helps but the kid has talent. Put Mond on the Pats and they wouldn't be challenging for the title. No team is winning with our current defense no matter what you have at QB. No team is winning with this absolute joke OL we have. Right now we can't even generate a ground attack. Nothing. That's what Kubsteak offense is. Pound the ball and use play action. Right now there is no pounding. So the entire scheme is done. We have one guy out of 5 that should be a starter. It don't get much weaker than that. If we had the number 1 D this year we would challenge. Our D sucks and that has nothing to do with a QB contract. We have nothing at DE because of injuries. We can't stop the run because these expensive FA DT we signed don't appear to have that ability. That can't hold the point. They get pushed around. Every team wants a good QB on a cheap contract. Hate to tell this guy but that don't exist unless you hit in the draft. This guy acts like there are cheap good QBs laying all around the place. More than half the teams need a new QB. They would be signed quickly. No QB has ever played that would take this current team to the Super Bowl. Other pieces need to be fixed first. That won't happen using FA. Teams keep the players they want to keep. Players in FA usually aren't the best at their position. There is something wrong. Like that pass rusher Speilman traded for last year. He was a FA this year because the Ravens didn't want him. We didn't want him. That's your typical FA player. A guy few teams want.
Our defense is actually better than the SB favorite GB Packers at preventing teams from scoring, so if Rodgers can't win with our D, he isn't going to win with his, which is good news to me.

As far as Oline, we have an above average run game that can be very good most of the time, bad some of the time. It is good enough that teams don't take it lightly when facing us and tend to scheme against it. It would benefit a better QB, not hinder him. Pass blocking this Oline is very average in its overall impact on the QB's ability to pass the football. 17th highest pressure percentage and 4th fewest sacks. If we had a QB who got rid of the ball as quickly as Brady or Rodgers those numbers get even better.

This team isn't good enough to compete for a SB with an average QB, something we know because our very average QB has us out of the playoffs, but a Mahomes or Rodgers has us as Super Bowl favorites.
I don't know where you get our defense is better than the Packers. I realize there are about a thousand different things that go into this in todays world but based on points per game given up the Packers defense is better and it goes like this. No 1 NE 17.3, Packers 21.6, Vikings 24.8. Then you have NFL Week 17 Defense Rankings from PFF. Buffalo is No 1, Packers No 15, and Vikings 20. IMO points given up matter the most. No team ever lost a game based on yards or sacks or whatever else.
Cousins is an above average QB. He's no 8 in yards passing. He's no 7 in TDs. He has a 101 QBR which is better than Brady, Prescott, Murray ect.... Saying he's average is not correct. He's above average. One other piece... Minnesota's Kirk Cousins finally threw a red zone interception. He entered Sunday with 21 TD throws and zero interceptions in the red zone this season, per ESPN Stats & Information, and only Tom Brady (25) had more touchdown passes without a pick. Yes Cousins threw a pick Sunday but that was caused by a stiff WR who can't catch a football. Cousins has been sacked 25 times. That's nowhere near the worst. Tannehill has 45 as an example.
I don't care what you think about our OL IMO it's pathetic. You act like we have 4 or 5 pro bowl players. We only have one guy who should be starting in the NFL. This center we have is the worst I have ever seen us put on the field. I've been watching since Tingelhoff. We have zero at both guard spots and LT. Don't start with how good this OL is because it blows.
StumpHunter
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 587

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by StumpHunter »

CharVike wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 12:52 am
StumpHunter wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 2:37 pm

Our defense is actually better than the SB favorite GB Packers at preventing teams from scoring, so if Rodgers can't win with our D, he isn't going to win with his, which is good news to me.

As far as Oline, we have an above average run game that can be very good most of the time, bad some of the time. It is good enough that teams don't take it lightly when facing us and tend to scheme against it. It would benefit a better QB, not hinder him. Pass blocking this Oline is very average in its overall impact on the QB's ability to pass the football. 17th highest pressure percentage and 4th fewest sacks. If we had a QB who got rid of the ball as quickly as Brady or Rodgers those numbers get even better.

This team isn't good enough to compete for a SB with an average QB, something we know because our very average QB has us out of the playoffs, but a Mahomes or Rodgers has us as Super Bowl favorites.
I don't know where you get our defense is better than the Packers. I realize there are about a thousand different things that go into this in todays world but based on points per game given up the Packers defense is better and it goes like this. No 1 NE 17.3, Packers 21.6, Vikings 24.8.
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... tsdef/2021

The Packer's D has defended 22 fewer drives than the Vikings so far this season, because they have the better QB who sustains drives and keeps his D off the field. On each individual drive, GB's D is giving up more points than the Vikings. That means GB's offense has to score more points on each of their individual drives to win. For this discussion about how a defense impacts the QB's ability to win, that is the only stat that matters. Not grades that aren't based on results, just how many more points the QB has to help manufacture versus another QB.
CharVike wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 12:52 am Cousins is an above average QB. He's no 8 in yards passing. He's no 7 in TDs. He has a 101 QBR which is better than Brady, Prescott, Murray ect.... Saying he's average is not correct. He's above average. One other piece... Minnesota's Kirk Cousins finally threw a red zone interception. He entered Sunday with 21 TD throws and zero interceptions in the red zone this season, per ESPN Stats & Information, and only Tom Brady (25) had more touchdown passes without a pick. Yes Cousins threw a pick Sunday but that was caused by a stiff WR who can't catch a football. Cousins has been sacked 25 times. That's nowhere near the worst. Tannehill has 45 as an example.
Those are individual stats that are not translating to success on the field. We are the 15th best scoring offense despite a great WR corp, top 3 running back and an Oline who's impact on the QB (pay attention to my wording here, wording matters) is very average. His QBR, which is the best stat I have found for a QB's impact on wins and losses, is 15th. Quibbling over above average versus average doesn't really matter though, because in the end, 10 seasons into his career, all that matters is he has proven he isn't good enough.
CharVike wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 12:52 am I don't care what you think about our OL IMO it's pathetic. You act like we have 4 or 5 pro bowl players. We only have one guy who should be starting in the NFL. This center we have is the worst I have ever seen us put on the field. I've been watching since Tingelhoff. We have zero at both guard spots and LT. Don't start with how good this OL is because it blows.
I don't care what you think about our OL. Or what PFF thinks. Or what any sports pundit have to say. For this discussion, all that matters is how the Oline is impacting the QB, and as I said, their impact on the QB is very average. Not 4 or 5 pro bowl players level good (how did me calling the impact average equate to 4 or 5 pro bowlers? :lol: ), but good enough that it shouldn't be used as the main excuse for the offense failing.
CharVike
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 473

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by CharVike »

StumpHunter wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 8:18 am
CharVike wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 12:52 am
I don't know where you get our defense is better than the Packers. I realize there are about a thousand different things that go into this in todays world but based on points per game given up the Packers defense is better and it goes like this. No 1 NE 17.3, Packers 21.6, Vikings 24.8.
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats ... tsdef/2021

The Packer's D has defended 22 fewer drives than the Vikings so far this season, because they have the better QB who sustains drives and keeps his D off the field. On each individual drive, GB's D is giving up more points than the Vikings. That means GB's offense has to score more points on each of their individual drives to win. For this discussion about how a defense impacts the QB's ability to win, that is the only stat that matters. Not grades that aren't based on results, just how many more points the QB has to help manufacture versus another QB.
CharVike wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 12:52 am Cousins is an above average QB. He's no 8 in yards passing. He's no 7 in TDs. He has a 101 QBR which is better than Brady, Prescott, Murray ect.... Saying he's average is not correct. He's above average. One other piece... Minnesota's Kirk Cousins finally threw a red zone interception. He entered Sunday with 21 TD throws and zero interceptions in the red zone this season, per ESPN Stats & Information, and only Tom Brady (25) had more touchdown passes without a pick. Yes Cousins threw a pick Sunday but that was caused by a stiff WR who can't catch a football. Cousins has been sacked 25 times. That's nowhere near the worst. Tannehill has 45 as an example.
Those are individual stats that are not translating to success on the field. We are the 15th best scoring offense despite a great WR corp, top 3 running back and an Oline who's impact on the QB (pay attention to my wording here, wording matters) is very average. His QBR, which is the best stat I have found for a QB's impact on wins and losses, is 15th. Quibbling over above average versus average doesn't really matter though, because in the end, 10 seasons into his career, all that matters is he has proven he isn't good enough.
CharVike wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 12:52 am I don't care what you think about our OL IMO it's pathetic. You act like we have 4 or 5 pro bowl players. We only have one guy who should be starting in the NFL. This center we have is the worst I have ever seen us put on the field. I've been watching since Tingelhoff. We have zero at both guard spots and LT. Don't start with how good this OL is because it blows.
I don't care what you think about our OL. Or what PFF thinks. Or what any sports pundit have to say. For this discussion, all that matters is how the Oline is impacting the QB, and as I said, their impact on the QB is very average. Not 4 or 5 pro bowl players level good (how did me calling the impact average equate to 4 or 5 pro bowlers? :lol: ), but good enough that it shouldn't be used as the main excuse for the offense failing.
Your opinion is fine it's what you think. Every poster on this board has an opinion which is ok by me. My opinion is this OL is garbage no matter how anyone slices it. A garbage OL impacts every player. Losing the LOS battle makes doing anything harder on offense. Cook who is arguably the best all around back we have ever had recently avg 3.2 yards a pop against the Bears. I blame this OL we have. You might blame something else. Cousins has higher than average TD passes which is right in front of you. Scoring is what matters. He's not a very good rusher of the football. Matter of fact he's terrible based on others. We lost some games and yes the blame will go to the QB Our stiff FG kicked missed a 30 some yard FG for the win. The QB gets the blame. Lamar got a win when he lead a great last second drive and his kicker booted a 60 some yard FG to win it. One QB was a winner the other a loser. IMO the FG kicker also made a contribution. We were driving for the win against the Bengals and Cook coughed the ball up. Players make mistakes. The bum Osboure, who is part of the great WR crew you pointed out, dropped a TD pass for an interception that cost us at least 3 points against the Rams. You can blame the QB I blame the WR. They need to do there jobs also. You call this WR group great. I'm sorry but we have had much better groups in our teams history, Moss,Carter,Reed...Carter,Lewis,Jones. I've seen them all and this current group isn't great. We don't even have a 3rd guy that's worth anything. All this don't even matter this season was sunk right from the start. Everyone one of us has an opinion and IMO everything a team does starts at the LOS and we don't have the talent at this point to win that battle on both sides of the ball.
StumpHunter
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 587

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by StumpHunter »

CharVike wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:17 am Your opinion is fine it's what you think.
Not so much my opinion but what the facts of what has happened on the field over the season. Yours, mine, anyone's opinion means nothing compared to that.
CharVike
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 473

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by CharVike »

StumpHunter wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:56 am
CharVike wrote: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:17 am Your opinion is fine it's what you think.
Not so much my opinion but what the facts of what has happened on the field over the season. Yours, mine, anyone's opinion means nothing compared to that.
Cousins is top 10 easy in all the important stats. That's not average. Every QB needs something around them. We can't win and that's a team deal. One player can help but no more than that. Teams pound the ball down our D's throat. You can't win like that. And that's just the start.
User avatar
Maelstrom88
All Pro Elite Player
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:38 am
x 321

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by Maelstrom88 »

They should have told Kirk 35 million a year is his ceiling. 45 is criminal but good for him. They should have told him he is a trailer not a truck. He doesn't pull an average team to greatness. He needs a great supporting cast especially up front. Zero pocket awareness. Should have told him instead of 45 you get 35 and we invest the extra 10 million towards a stud like Thuney or Sherff to prolong your career. You'll make more than the extra 10 million during the years this will add on to the back end. Should have but instead they gave him the world and draft bust cornerbacks and Bradbury who never added the strength necessary to hold the point which was his biggest weakness coming out.
mael·strom

a powerful whirlpool in the sea or a river.

a situation or state of confused movement or violent turmoil.