mansquatch wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:53 pmI think this is comparing the Cousins of the past 4 weeks, not all of 2018 Cousins. Cousins is heads and tails a superior passer. His accuracy is better as well. He put us in position to win the first GB game several times. He kept us in the game against LAR. He helped us close SF.
Keenum had better ball security in terms of fumbles and pocket awareness. He had Moxy also. But... people seem to have forgotten that even last year Keenum's INT number had more to do with luck and his WR bailing him out than it did with any kind of great decision making by Keenum. It is convenient to not remember the 2-4 ducks he would put up each and every single game where you would be like "WTF WAS THAT??!?!?!" Cousins has had some bone head plays, but not 2-4 per game like Keenum.
Also, look at Denver's season and ask, how many games did Keenum win for them with his play? The answer is zero. He is giving them at best average QB play and nothing more. So 2018 Keenum doesn't = 2017 Keenum either.
His performance in Denver is irrelevant to the question of whether Cousins in 2018 is a significant upgrade at quarterback over what Keenum gave the Vikes in 2017. Personally, I think the answer to that question is "no". Cousins' overall performance isn't yielding significantly better results.
It isn't apple to apples to compare 2017 Vikings vs. 2018 Vikings. Are you going to really argue that Pat Shurmer as OC is = to JDF? For that matter are you going to argue that the drop off isn't precipitous? To me this is the real story of our issues this season. (Well 60%, the other being the defensive hang over early.)
You go down position by position and the only changes on offense are at Guard. If you accept the premise that Cousins = Keenum, then you are essentially arguing that having two guards hurt is enough to see the offensive production dwindle as much as it has YOY.
At this point I'm not convinced that 2018 Cousins = 2017 Keenum.
If that is the case, then explain to me why Guard has the 2nd most influence on offensive production after the QB. It should be obvious that this is absurd. What changed then? The answer is OC.
I think the more accurate answer to "what changed?" is: OC, guard, quarterback, right tackle, WR (Wright's gone), RB (McKinnon and Murray played RB most of last season). All differences. You'll never have a perfect apples-to-apples comparison from one year to the next because there will always be roster moves and lineup changes. However, comparing performances with the same team in back-to-back seasons is as close to that kind of comparison as you're likely to get.
The JDF hire was a total failure. When 2018 is in the books, that will be the main reason for why the team failed in the regular season.
I don't disagree that the hiring was a failure but suggesting it's the main reason the team finds itself basically at .500 sounds a bit like scapegoating. They're where they are for a host of reasons.
OK I'm rolling now...
Look at our losses (and the tie:)
GB Tie: ST Failure: blocked punt for TD and missed FG
Buffalo Loss: Total Game Planning Failure, 7 step drops against BUF DL with our Guards
LAR Loss: Defensive meltdown
NO Loss: Turnovers by offense (This game came down to 2 mistakes by the WR that lead to 14 points)
CHI Loss: Offensive mediocrity / Game planning failure against superior DL (See Buffalo Loss)
NE Loss: Total Game Planning Fail on Offense + Waynes injury allowing Brady to feast for 14 points
SEA Loss: Total Failure by OC, game planning disaster
4 (!) of the losses can be attributed to JDF being bad at his job.
The GB tie is on Priefer and Zimmer for not fixing an issue that dates back to 2014. The NO was our two best offensive players making uncharacteristic mistakes. LAR was the defense sucking, AND a road TNF game crossing 2 time zones. (UP until yesterday, the road team had always lost in these games.)
— GB drove
40+ yards in 31 seconds against the Vikings defense to kick the FG that forced OT. Think that influenced the outcome?
— NO loss was not the result of "two best offensive players making uncharacteristic mistakes". For example, Thielen didn't just "make a mistake". The ball was knocked out of his hands by an opposing player! That's a forced turnover, not a clumsy blunder. Plus, the Saints rushed for 106 yards and put together 4 scoring drives in addition to the two scores on/after turnovers. The defense allowed 24 points at home. they have some responsibility for the loss.
— CHI: The Vikes allowed 148 yards rushing against the Bears, who converted 3rd downs at a 50% clip and had about a 9 minute advantage in time of possession. Chicago was able to use the run to control that game. Defense clearly contributed to the loss.
— NE: Vikes defense allowed 471 yards, 160 yards rushing, 24 points and a 50% conversion rate on 3rd down. Clearly, the loss isn't simply attributable to the offense and Waynes' injury alone.
— SEA: I agree that this was a game-planning disaster but again, not just for the offense. Everyone knew Seattle would come out running the ball so where was the game plan and performance to stop it? They had over 100 yards rushing by halftime, racked up 214 on the night and used that to control the tempo of the game. The Vikes defense did an admirable job of limiting points but they still bear some genuine responsibility for the loss.
Those last 3 losses make it pretty clear what recent opponents see as an effective strategy to beat MN. All 3 teams ran the ball close to 40 times. All 3 won. That's not a coincidence. It's a trend and it underlines that, as bad as he's been recently, JDF can't simply be blamed for those losses.
