Who had the best draft class of 2019 in the NFC North?

[CharVike]

What about TOs. Winning the TO battle is an important part of the game. Our D didn't get many TOs. Just look at the interceptions the Bears had compared to us. I think they had double the amount. That don't cut it. We will have a hard time scoring on the Bears especially early in the season. We are starting over on O again. Now it could work but I do think it will take time to jell. All the blame will then go to Cousins. You think I'm expecting our D to hold teams below 10 points a game. That's not true. We will stuff the stiffs but we need to play better against the other good teams.

It is the same issue we had with the run game. Teams didn't pass against us because they feared our pass rush and secondary. If the offense had put more pressure on the opposition to score quickly through the air, the picks would have happened more.

KC had one of the worst defenses in the NFL last year, but were 7th in interceptions per drive because their offense forced teams to take chances.

We had 10 sacks against the Lions and 0 combined against the Pats and Saints. Depends on who we played. The Pats and Saints didn't have any fear. But overall 10 sacks in 3 games looks very good. That's what really happened.

[StumpHunter]

He was statistically one of the worst starting QBs this decade and he never had a winning season. Does one good game opening game versus the Saints, a defense that is notorious for starting slow, change that?

I guess that means Fitzpatrick is a good starter, since he did even better on opening day a year later?

Here are the stats of the QB who we traded for:https://www.sportsgrid.com/real-sports/ ... ord-sucks/

Statistically the WORST starter since 2010 with 60+ starts. That means every QB worse statistically (and a number better) were benched or cut. We gave up a first for a bad QB who was always hurt. How do you defend that trade?

It's very easy for me to defend that. I don't even have to look at the stats you are talking about. I did try to look at the stats you were using, but I wasn't going to sign up for them so I couldn't. Just by the title it was obviously some anit-Bradford site wanting to do a hatchet job on him. You can use statistics to prove about anything you want to some times. I know Bradford is one of the most accurate QBs ever. When I saw him play he played well for us. Both seasons when he started healthy he was superb.

I agree, it is easy to say that stats are meaningless, because you don't like them.

Having the second lowest completion percentage, lowesr in YPA, last in passer rating, and TD % while never having a winning season can not be interpreted as anything but Bradford was a bad QB when we traded for him. He had his best season of his career with us, and it amounted to 7 in 8, 16th in yards and 18th in TDs. He had a 70% completion percentage but was dead last in yards per completion, because most of his throws were short, easy passes any QB could make. It was a below average year for a QB with one of the best WR tandems in football. A tandem that made Case Keenum look like a legit starter.

It was a horrible trade then, made worse by the success of Mahomes and the fact the pieces Philly acquired by the trade helped them beat us and move on to the Super Bowl. I honestly can't imagine how it could have turned out worse.

[StumpHunter]

It is the same issue we had with the run game. Teams didn't pass against us because they feared our pass rush and secondary. If the offense had put more pressure on the opposition to score quickly through the air, the picks would have happened more.

KC had one of the worst defenses in the NFL last year, but were 7th in interceptions per drive because their offense forced teams to take chances.

We had 10 sacks against the Lions and 0 combined against the Pats and Saints. Depends on who we played. The Pats and Saints didn't have any fear. But overall 10 sacks in 3 games looks very good. That's what really happened.

So now the number of sacks a defense gets and against who is the measure of how good they are? You are difficult to keep up with.

The defense was 3rd best at preventing the other team from scoring, the offense was 21st at putting points on the board. Fix the offense, and you will get your interceptions, they will not be run on as much, and we will win more games.

[VikingsVictorious]

It's very easy for me to defend that. I don't even have to look at the stats you are talking about. I did try to look at the stats you were using, but I wasn't going to sign up for them so I couldn't. Just by the title it was obviously some anit-Bradford site wanting to do a hatchet job on him. You can use statistics to prove about anything you want to some times. I know Bradford is one of the most accurate QBs ever. When I saw him play he played well for us. Both seasons when he started healthy he was superb.

I agree, it is easy to say that stats are meaningless, because you don't like them.

Having the second lowest completion percentage, lowesr in YPA, last in passer rating, and TD % while never having a winning season can not be interpreted as anything but Bradford was a bad QB when we traded for him. He had his best season of his career with us, and it amounted to 7 in 8, 16th in yards and 18th in TDs. He had a 70% completion percentage but was dead last in yards per completion, because most of his throws were short, easy passes any QB could make. It was a below average year for a QB with one of the best WR tandems in football. A tandem that made Case Keenum look like a legit starter.

It was a horrible trade then, made worse by the success of Mahomes and the fact the pieces Philly acquired by the trade helped them beat us and move on to the Super Bowl. I honestly can't imagine how it could have turned out worse.

I never say stats are meaningless but they can be twisted and manipulated by those with an agenda. I can say 70% completions as one of the best QB seasons ever. You can say his YPC was low etc... etc... etc... I saw him play. He played very well. Not just the two games against the Saints. Our O Line got decimated by injuries the first year. Bradford got decimated by injuries the second year. When he was healthy and our crappy O Line was healthy (before becoming horrific beyond comprehension) we were going to win a lot more games than we lost. If you didn't see this then you weren't paying attention.

[Raptorman]

Lets us also not forget that with 5 minutes left in the game, the score was 0-6 Seattle.

The D couldn't stop the run game. That's a big problem. A great D don't allow that.

Well, I went back and watched that game. And most of the big yards on runs were on busted plays. Wilson 40 yarder was a busted pass play. Penny's 17-yard play that went left and when he found no hole he reversed field and went all the way to the other side. Another Wilson busted play. 132 yards in the first half and they scored 3 points. 63 yards on their last drive, which 40 was Wilson's busted play run.

Meanwhile, several times the Seahawks rushed 3 and had pressure on Cousins within 2 seconds. Most of the game they rushed 4 and had it very easy making him rush play. And the O-line maybe opened one hole for Cooks to get through. But yea, the Defense was the problem. The only plays Cousins had time to throw were bootlegs.

[StumpHunter]

I agree, it is easy to say that stats are meaningless, because you don't like them.

Having the second lowest completion percentage, lowesr in YPA, last in passer rating, and TD % while never having a winning season can not be interpreted as anything but Bradford was a bad QB when we traded for him. He had his best season of his career with us, and it amounted to 7 in 8, 16th in yards and 18th in TDs. He had a 70% completion percentage but was dead last in yards per completion, because most of his throws were short, easy passes any QB could make. It was a below average year for a QB with one of the best WR tandems in football. A tandem that made Case Keenum look like a legit starter.

It was a horrible trade then, made worse by the success of Mahomes and the fact the pieces Philly acquired by the trade helped them beat us and move on to the Super Bowl. I honestly can't imagine how it could have turned out worse.

I never say stats are meaningless but they can be twisted and manipulated by those with an agenda. I can say 70% completions as one of the best QB seasons ever. You can say his YPC was low etc... etc... etc... I saw him play. He played very well. Not just the two games against the Saints. Our O Line got decimated by injuries the first year. Bradford got decimated by injuries the second year. When he was healthy and our crappy O Line was healthy (before becoming horrific beyond comprehension) we were going to win a lot more games than we lost. If you didn't see this then you weren't paying attention.

Was the trade made so Bradford could complete 70% of his passes or was it made to win games?

[Pondering Her Percy]

I can link to fan posts where I have been consistent on what I wanted the Vikings to do at QB. I wanted them to roll with the punches after Teddy went down and take the high draft pick in 2017, drafting Teddy's replacement. Instead they traded a high draft pick for a below average injured QB. If the Vikings had done what I wanted to do, the odds are pretty good they have a ring right now with a Jefferson-less and Barnett-less Eagles squad going up against Mahommes and not Keenum in the 2017 NFCCG.

After the 2016 season, I wanted the Vikings to trade Bradford at what was probably his peak value and get the draft capital to draft a replacement for Teddy. Didn't happen, and we only got 2 games out of Bradford.

This is not hindsight for me. I was more right than the GM, and there is no one more upset about me being more right than a guy paid millions to make decisions for my favorite team than me.

I want to see where you were on record for the Vikings to draft Mahomes and Mahomes alone? Either before we traded for Bradford or prior to Mahomes being drafted by KC. Until I see that Stump I don't think you can claim to be right about anything.

This is what I'm saying. Anything he has found was saying the Bradford trade was dumb because Mahomes and Watson were in that draft class. Well I didnt see anyone pulling for either of those 2 AT THAT TIME. Saying it a year or two later that we should have drafted them is quite comical. Of course we would have wanted one of those guys NOW but back then, I dont recall anyone hoping to land them to be quite honest. Why arent you saying, a draft with Watson, Mahomes AND Trubisky? Because Trubisky is the worst of the 3 and hasnt proven himself yet? It simply comes down to Mahomes and Watson being the obvious choices NOW. Which is just unrealistic. Nobody can predict that Watson and Mahomes were going to be the next generation of great QBs in this league. It's just an easy out for you to go along with your Cousins argument

[VikingsVictorious]

I never say stats are meaningless but they can be twisted and manipulated by those with an agenda. I can say 70% completions as one of the best QB seasons ever. You can say his YPC was low etc... etc... etc... I saw him play. He played very well. Not just the two games against the Saints. Our O Line got decimated by injuries the first year. Bradford got decimated by injuries the second year. When he was healthy and our crappy O Line was healthy (before becoming horrific beyond comprehension) we were going to win a lot more games than we lost. If you didn't see this then you weren't paying attention.

Was the trade made so Bradford could complete 70% of his passes or was it made to win games?

And we won five in a row before injuries devastated our team. Bradford was very good.

[CharVike]

The D couldn't stop the run game. That's a big problem. A great D don't allow that.

Well, I went back and watched that game. And most of the big yards on runs were on busted plays. Wilson 40 yarder was a busted pass play. Penny's 17-yard play that went left and when he found no hole he reversed field and went all the way to the other side. Another Wilson busted play. 132 yards in the first half and they scored 3 points. 63 yards on their last drive, which 40 was Wilson's busted play run.

Meanwhile, several times the Seahawks rushed 3 and had pressure on Cousins within 2 seconds. Most of the game they rushed 4 and had it very easy making him rush play. And the O-line maybe opened one hole for Cooks to get through. But yea, the Defense was the problem. The only plays Cousins had time to throw were bootlegs.

To you giving up 200+ yards rushing isn't a problem. I don't even know what you mean stating the yards came on busted plays. So you know what the call was on both sides. Our O was a joke I'm not denying that. It will be a joke again this year. We are starting over. How long does it take to get the players needed for this new scheme. It's not one off season. It's not rookies. People only look at select games, myself included, and I know the Rams did what ever they wanted to. Our O scored 31. That should have been an easy win against a very good team. But our D laid down and said F it. This is too much for us. I pointed out in another post that we sacked the mighty Lions 10 times but couldn't sack the Saints or Pats at all combined. Lay the wood to Brady. Let him know we are coming get ready. Our D couldn't do it and to you that's no problem. To me that's a big problem.

[StumpHunter]

Was the trade made so Bradford could complete 70% of his passes or was it made to win games?

And we won five in a row before injuries devastated our team. Bradford was very good.

He wasn't. The STs, defense and Hill won us most of those first 5 games. Then we played the Eagles, they showed the league how to shut down a very limited QB, and we lost 8 of 11.

Bradford had his best year of his career and it amounted to 7-8 and a bottom feeder offense. This was the best we were ever going to get out of him, and it wasn't close to being good enough. Horrible trade.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Was the trade made so Bradford could complete 70% of his passes or was it made to win games?

And we won five in a row before injuries devastated our team. Bradford was very good.

There was no doubting Bradfords talent IMO. It was more if he could stay healthy or not. Which surprisingly he did that year given how terrible that OL was. But by about midseason, the OL he had in front of him was even worse than anything Cousins was behind. He also had Jerick McKinnon and Matt Asiata as RBs. Which was pretty awful.

In regards to what Stump was saying, Sam Bradford wasnt outright losing us games. The only one I would say was Philly. Bradford was awful that game and so was the OL. Outside of that, there wasnt much. Sack numbers shot up after the bye week that year. I mean our OL by the end of the year consisted of a pile of trash and Joe Berger. Either way, you do the same thing in regards to Cousins. In your eyes its always on the QB that wins or loses us games and that's not always the case. You take nothing else into consideration when there are so many others things to consider. The QBs are a part of winning and losing but no way are they the sole reason so to always throw the record and lack of success as a team on their shoulders all the time like you do, open your eyes to the rest of reality surrounding the TEAM

[Raptorman]

Well, I went back and watched that game. And most of the big yards on runs were on busted plays. Wilson 40 yarder was a busted pass play. Penny's 17-yard play that went left and when he found no hole he reversed field and went all the way to the other side. Another Wilson busted play. 132 yards in the first half and they scored 3 points. 63 yards on their last drive, which 40 was Wilson's busted play run.

Meanwhile, several times the Seahawks rushed 3 and had pressure on Cousins within 2 seconds. Most of the game they rushed 4 and had it very easy making him rush play. And the O-line maybe opened one hole for Cooks to get through. But yea, the Defense was the problem. The only plays Cousins had time to throw were bootlegs.

To you giving up 200+ yards rushing isn't a problem. I don't even know what you mean stating the yards came on busted plays. So you know what the call was on both sides. Our O was a joke I'm not denying that. It will be a joke again this year. We are starting over. How long does it take to get the players needed for this new scheme. It's not one off season. It's not rookies. People only look at select games, myself included, and I know the Rams did what ever they wanted to. Our O scored 31. That should have been an easy win against a very good team. But our D laid down and said F it. This is too much for us. I pointed out in another post that we sacked the mighty Lions 10 times but couldn't sack the Saints or Pats at all combined. Lay the wood to Brady. Let him know we are coming get ready. Our D couldn't do it and to you that's no problem. To me that's a big problem.

Well yes. I do know what busted plays look like after 50+ years of watching football. When a QB goes back to pass, has no one open and takes off running, it's a pretty good sign of a busted play. When a RB runs all the way to the left side of the field behind his blockers and gets jammed up, reverse's course, and runs a backward loop all the way to the other side of the field, I'm pretty sure the OC didn't draw that up.

And I never said it wasn't a problem. I'm saying that you can't just go by yards. If a defense holds the other team to 98 yards until 2 minutes left in the game and one player busts out a 99-yard run doesn't mean the run defense sucked the whole game. See to you it doesn't' matter that the defense held the Seahawks to 6 points for 55 minutes of the game. 4 trips to the red zone and they came out with 14 points. Defense only gave up 14 points that game, it doesn't matter how many yards they ran on the ground. When your defense holds the other team to 14 points, you should win that game. Matter of fact, the odds are that you do win that game 83% of the time. It's the offense that stalled. Against a good defense.

136 yards rushing in the first half. 3 points. I'll take that any day of the week.

[StumpHunter]

And we won five in a row before injuries devastated our team. Bradford was very good.

There was no doubting Bradfords talent IMO. It was more if he could stay healthy or not. Which surprisingly he did that year given how terrible that OL was. But by about midseason, the OL he had in front of him was even worse than anything Cousins was behind. He also had Jerick McKinnon and Matt Asiata as RBs. Which was pretty awful.

In regards to what Stump was saying, Sam Bradford wasnt outright losing us games. The only one I would say was Philly. Bradford was awful that game and so was the OL. Outside of that, there wasnt much. Sack numbers shot up after the bye week that year. I mean our OL by the end of the year consisted of a pile of trash and Joe Berger. Either way, you do the same thing in regards to Cousins. In your eyes its always on the QB that wins or loses us games and that's not always the case. You take nothing else into consideration when there are so many others things to consider. The QBs are a part of winning and losing but no way are they the sole reason so to always throw the record and lack of success as a team on their shoulders all the time like you do, open your eyes to the rest of reality surrounding the TEAM

I posted the stats that all point to Bradford sucking. Clearly he was a talented guy or he wouldn't have been drafter #1 overall, but that talent did not amount to him being a good QB. For his entire career, including here, he was a failure as a starter.

What exactly is the QB responsible for, if you can't even hold them accountable for the offense sucking? Forget winning games, what about just scoring points? The defense was great last year and we didn't make the playoffs because the offense failed to score.

In the end both Bradford and Cousins were brought in for a hefty price (Bradford's price being significantly higher) to give us a chance to win the Super Bowl. Not put up high completion percentages, but win. Bradford failed miserably at it, Cousins is 0 for 1 so far. Cousins has the opportunity to do better and stranger things have happened in the NFL than a QB of Cousins caliber winning it all, but so far his signing has been a failure.

[Raptorman]

So let's look at a QB of Cousins Caliber. Since he is getting slammed left and right let's see how bad he really is. Average game stats for QB's from 2016 -2018. This was sorted by most yards per game.

Code: Select all

Player	        Cmp      At     Perc.    YPG    YPA     TD      Int    Sack	
Ben Roeth	25.3	38.8	65.2%	293.3	7.6	2.0	1.0	1.4	
Matt Ryan	23.7	34.8	68.1%	290.9	8.4	1.9	0.5	2.1	
Drew Brees	26.0	36.1	72.0%	288.0	8.0	2.0	0.6	1.4	
Tom Brady	23.9	36.0	66.4%	283.8	7.9	2.0	0.5	1.6	
Kirk Cousins	24.5	36.5	67.1%	277.3	7.6	1.7	0.7	2.2	
Philip Rivers	22.0	34.6	63.6%	275.2	8.0	1.9	0.9	1.8	
Aaron Rodgers	23.8	37.1	64.2%	270.4	7.3	2.1	0.4	2.7	
M.Stafford	23.5	35.7	65.8%	261.5	7.3	1.5	0.6	2.6	
C. Wentz	23.1	36.2	63.8%	253.8	7.0	1.8	0.7	2.3	
Jared Goff	20.3	32.7	62.1%	252.1	7.7	1.7	0.7	2.2	
Eli Manning	23.6	37.1	63.6%	250.9	6.8	1.4	0.9	2.1	
Derek Carr	23.1	35.4	65.3%	249.6	7.1	1.5	0.6	1.9	
Russell Wilson	20.3	31.8	63.8%	242.7	7.6	1.9	0.6	2.8	

[StumpHunter]

So let's look at a QB of Cousins Caliber. Since he is getting slammed left and right let's see how bad he really is. Average game stats for QB's from 2016 -2018. This was sorted by most yards per game.

Code: Select all

Player	        Cmp      At     Perc.    YPG    YPA     TD      Int    Sack	
Ben Roeth	25.3	38.8	65.2%	293.3	7.6	2.0	1.0	1.4	
Matt Ryan	23.7	34.8	68.1%	290.9	8.4	1.9	0.5	2.1	
Drew Brees	26.0	36.1	72.0%	288.0	8.0	2.0	0.6	1.4	
Tom Brady	23.9	36.0	66.4%	283.8	7.9	2.0	0.5	1.6	
Kirk Cousins	24.5	36.5	67.1%	277.3	7.6	1.7	0.7	2.2	
Philip Rivers	22.0	34.6	63.6%	275.2	8.0	1.9	0.9	1.8	
Aaron Rodgers	23.8	37.1	64.2%	270.4	7.3	2.1	0.4	2.7	
M.Stafford	23.5	35.7	65.8%	261.5	7.3	1.5	0.6	2.6	
C. Wentz	23.1	36.2	63.8%	253.8	7.0	1.8	0.7	2.3	
Jared Goff	20.3	32.7	62.1%	252.1	7.7	1.7	0.7	2.2	
Eli Manning	23.6	37.1	63.6%	250.9	6.8	1.4	0.9	2.1	
Derek Carr	23.1	35.4	65.3%	249.6	7.1	1.5	0.6	1.9	
Russell Wilson	20.3	31.8	63.8%	242.7	7.6	1.9	0.6	2.8	

The guy puts up some good stats while winning half his games, there is no doubt. The caliber comment wasn't a rip btw. He is an above average QB and a very good passer. QBs worse than him have won.

Shouldn't a QB who was brought in to help win the Super Bowl, you know, at least help compete for a Super Bowl? Instead of just not being the problem?

He wasn't brought in to put up good stats, he was brought in to win. Spielman said so himself this off season and I am not sure why people take such offense to me arguing the same.