Answering everyone’s Cousins questions

[Pondering Her Percy]

We're divided into 2 groups:

A. ) Fans that review at the stats and gauge the level of influence that a certain position (in this case QB) had on the outcome of a game (or season). This group cares about the win or loss, but needs to know why it happened.

B.) Fans that essentially don't care about the stats. They may acknowledge them, but ultimately only care about the win or loss. Nothing else matters.

There nothing wrong with either group.

I'm firmly in group A. I understand group B, because ultimately everything in this league is all about wins. My mind is too analytical though, so I'll always need to know the reasons why we won or lost. For me, placing the blame on a QB for a loss in all cases makes no sense. Group B thinks it makes perfect sense.

Neither group is going to convince the other, but we'll keep trying anyway.

There might be a group C: People that just like to stir the pot.

If C is stir the pot, then there is also a D group which is less reductionist than either group A or group B. This group doesn't care about stats, nor are they so reductionist that it all comes down to wins and losses. These are the fans who analyze the play--where it succeeds, why it succeeds, where it breaks down, why it breaks down--rather than focusing on the outcome of the play. Sometimes great individual plays result in gains of 0 yards, and sometimes poor plays result in touchdowns. D group is the mentality that nearly all coaches are drawn from in all sports. Group A tends toward the ESPN 'analyst' mode, and group B tends to be the casual fan.

I think the group you are trying to explain is right in the same realm of group A. Dames said these fans "need to know why it happened". Since they need to know why it happened, that's why they analyze plays and player performance. I feel like most people in group A do this quite often. I know at least I do and I know there are others that do as well.

[StumpHunter]

Ignoring all stats that disagree with your point of view while propping up the ones that support your locked in stone thought on a game/season/player/coach.

No I just ignore the meaningless ones that I proved havent effected our QBs overall performance. Or I'll disagree with someone when they are simply talking records. That's all

Meaningless as in you don't like them. Proven in that you ignore all evidence or common sense to the contrary of your point of view.

Remember, you claimed you "proved" Cousins was holding the ball so long this year because of all the roll outs before you proved he didn't(still waiting on that source btw).

[Dames]

If C is stir the pot, then there is also a D group which is less reductionist than either group A or group B. This group doesn't care about stats, nor are they so reductionist that it all comes down to wins and losses. These are the fans who analyze the play--where it succeeds, why it succeeds, where it breaks down, why it breaks down--rather than focusing on the outcome of the play. Sometimes great individual plays result in gains of 0 yards, and sometimes poor plays result in touchdowns. D group is the mentality that nearly all coaches are drawn from in all sports. Group A tends toward the ESPN 'analyst' mode, and group B tends to be the casual fan.

It's a good point. It's a focus more on the mechanics of the plays vs the results. Although, good analytics don't focus on positive results or stats alone. Back in the days before this message board even existed I used to follow a Vikings usenet group. The VMB was started by a user from there (shoutout to KansasViking), in order to move away from usenet because it became a cesspool for trolls. I digress. There was a user there who went by Dr Zaius (He may have been here for a while too). He used to do elaborate breakdowns of plays, and focused on the mechanics of individual players. It was always a fascinating read. That's exactly the type you are talking about. Real coaching-level stuff. It's just a different type of analytics though. I love that stuff too.

[Dames]

Same here. I've been doing fantasy football since 2004. Very heavily into it as well. I'm in 3 dynasty leagues. 2 of them being very competitive. One of them is my own 12 man league that I started in 2004. I'm 30 now, I was in 9th grade at the time I started it. I started it off as a $40 entry fee. We are up to $350 entry fee now. I'm in my fathers dynasty league which is also $350 entry fee that they have had since the mid 90's. And then I am in a new dynasty league a buddy of mine started 2 years ago that's $100 entry fee. So all in all, I'm $800 invested in fantasy football every year. That's not even counting pools I'm in or bets I place lol.

I've been playing off and on since about the same time as you, but I didn't get serious until about 5-6 years ago, when I joined a startup keeper/dynasty league. That's when it really started to get fun. I'm hoping it continues for years. Having the same core group of dedicated owners really adds to the fun. Just getting together for the draft is always a blast. We make it an all day event with a bean bag tourney, food, drinks, and of course the draft in the evening. Those days are pretty memorable. Plenty of money on the line, so everyone takes it seriously, but we're all getting pretty close, so we keep it loose and fun.

The rules to my league vs. my fathers league are practically the same. You get a 1 franchise player and up to 7 rookies you can keep. So as long as you draft them their rookie year, you can keep them forever under the rookie tag. Crazy thing about my fathers league, there is still a guy in his league that has Drew Brees rookie status. Has held onto him since 2001. Another guy had Peyton Manning from '98 until the year he retired. Pretty crazy they are were/still considered rookies on their teams given how old they are.

I like the set up of those leagues. I have 2 pretty different setups. I co-commission a keeper league. 3 keepers, and potentially one rookie (that you drafted originally and kept all year) that we call a dynasty player. You can dynasty a player for a max of 5 years (increasing the round each year that it costs you - starting with a 5th). After that you can keep that player as one of your 3 keeper of course, but you don't get to dynasty him forever. It makes the draft pretty important, and late-round rookies have a lot of value potentially. Trades happen a lot before the draft when everyone is trying to set their keepers. We don't do draft day trades because it's pain in the #### on the ESPN site. We talked about moving to a different site, but that's a pain too. It's a 2 QB league which I really enjoy too. So, it's not overly complex, which lends to the enjoyment in my opinion.

My other serious league is an empire dynasty league. It's pretty complex. Salary caps, player contracts (4 year max), rookie snake draft, Free agent auction draft. It's interesting, and when I first heard about it, I thought it was going to be awesome. But in reality, it's too complicated sometimes. We have a very solid core group, but we have had too much turnover on the bottom teams, because there is no way to be a semi-serious owner and be successful, so some casual owners lose interest. The salary cap makes trading very difficult. Honestly, it's too close to the real NFL in that regard. So, even when a trade on paper looks good for both teams, if one of those players has a bad contract (someone over-paid in the auction), it's hard to get rid of them. If you cut them, it creates a lot of dead-money on the cap for the current year... so often your stuck with players on your team that are just wasting spots, and if you are tight up against the cap with average players, you are kinda screwed. I mean, it's very challenging, and I don't think I've missed the playoffs in 5 straight years, but sometimes it feels too much like a job We are talking about converting it to a different type of league after the empire ends (next year). Most of the same owners will stay, so that's a good thing. Plus I'm in position to cash out on the empire pot.

But I agree, I'm so deep into analytics its not even funny and fantasy football is a huge reason I follow the NFL in general as close as I do the Vikings.

Fantasy has definitely made the rest of the NFL more interesting for me. I enjoy watching even bad Thursday games sometimes, because I might have something riding on it.

Do you do much DFS? That is something that it seems like I would really enjoy, but I don't find it holds my attention as much as seasonal leagues. I throw out a lineup or 2 once a month or so, just for kicks. I think I could make money doing it, but I'm not sure I care enough to play it. It feels like it would be ideal for an analytics guy, so I'm not sure why I'm not into it. I did draft 4 best-ball teams this year ( low-buy in) and am in 1st in 3 of those so far. Yay me!

[VikingLord]

Back in the days before this message board even existed I used to follow a Vikings usenet group. The VMB was started by a user from there (shoutout to KansasViking), in order to move away from usenet because it became a cesspool for trolls. I digress. There was a user there who went by Dr Zaius (He may have been here for a while too). He used to do elaborate breakdowns of plays, and focused on the mechanics of individual players. It was always a fascinating read. That's exactly the type you are talking about. Real coaching-level stuff. It's just a different type of analytics though. I love that stuff too.

I don't remember you from Usenet Dames. Did you post by that name when you were there?

I remember Dr. Zaius and his analysis. I enjoyed looking at all the pieces that had to work together to make a play successful, and was equally fascinated by how it could break down and a defense could stuff it.

[Dames]

I don't remember you from Usenet Dames. Did you post by that name when you were there?

I remember Dr. Zaius and his analysis. I enjoyed looking at all the pieces that had to work together to make a play successful, and was equally fascinated by how it could break down and a defense could stuff it.

A similar name I think. But, I basically just lurked there, I probably only posted a handful of times. I talk a lot lately, but I go through long stretches of just lurking. I'm sure I will again. I've been here since the beginning though... like a cockroach.

[Pondering Her Percy]

No I just ignore the meaningless ones that I proved havent effected our QBs overall performance. Or I'll disagree with someone when they are simply talking records. That's all

Meaningless as in you don't like them. Proven in that you ignore all evidence or common sense to the contrary of your point of view.

Remember, you claimed you "proved" Cousins was holding the ball so long this year because of all the roll outs before you proved he didn't(still waiting on that source btw).

112.1 vs 112.0 passer rating....but him “holding the ball too long” is holding the team back??....weird. Those numbers right there are proof that the stat you’re obsessed with carries little (if any) weight when it comes to cousins overall play. But keep holding onto that weak argument of yours. You’re beat pal.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I've been playing off and on since about the same time as you, but I didn't get serious until about 5-6 years ago, when I joined a startup keeper/dynasty league. That's when it really started to get fun. I'm hoping it continues for years. Having the same core group of dedicated owners really adds to the fun. Just getting together for the draft is always a blast. We make it an all day event with a bean bag tourney, food, drinks, and of course the draft in the evening. Those days are pretty memorable. Plenty of money on the line, so everyone takes it seriously, but we're all getting pretty close, so we keep it loose and fun.

Yeah same here. We’re all pretty close so it’s fun. At this point given I’m in 3 dynasty leagues, I can’t muscle myself to do a redraft league anymore. Just doesn’t excite me like a keeper/dynasty league does. It really forces you to hone in on rookies and do your homework.

I like the set up of those leagues. I have 2 pretty different setups. I co-commission a keeper league. 3 keepers, and potentially one rookie (that you drafted originally and kept all year) that we call a dynasty player. You can dynasty a player for a max of 5 years (increasing the round each year that it costs you - starting with a 5th). After that you can keep that player as one of your 3 keeper of course, but you don't get to dynasty him forever. It makes the draft pretty important, and late-round rookies have a lot of value potentially. Trades happen a lot before the draft when everyone is trying to set their keepers. We don't do draft day trades because it's pain in the #### on the ESPN site. We talked about moving to a different site, but that's a pain too. It's a 2 QB league which I really enjoy too. So, it's not overly complex, which lends to the enjoyment in my opinion.

Yeah I hate being in low money/free leagues with guys that don’t pay attention. The more homework it requires, the more I like it which is the case in all my dynasty leagues. But yeah in all of my leagues you get 1 franchise player and up to 7 rookies or no franchise player and 8 rookies. We go pretty crazy with trades too. But 95% of the time, our entire first round is rookies RBs, WRs and a few vets mixed in based on who’s available. Like the year Dalvin got drafted, the first round went 1.) Fournette 2.) Mixon 3.) McCaffery and 4.) Dalvin Cook (which luckily was my pick lol. Because most of the top RBs are already kept rookie status by other teams. So rookies are huge in my leagues.

My 12 man league is tough but my fathers is that much harder being a 14 man. The guys left in the free agent pool and largely backups. I have pretty good teams in both.

My 12 man my keepers are: Thielen (franchise player), Matt Ryan (rookie), dalvin cook (rookie), Melvin Gordon (rookie), nick chubb (rookie), tyreek hill (rookie), stefon diggs (rookie), and Evan engram (rookie). So I have a pretty good core going into each draft.

My 14 man my keepers are: Travis kelce (franchise), pat mahomes (rookie), David Johnson (rookie), mark ingram (rookie), marlon Mack (rookie), Phillip Lindsey (rookie), deandre Hopkins (rookie) and stefon diggs (rookie). So same here my core is pretty good but when that dwindles for whatever reason, it’s tough to get good players in that league.

Fantasy has definitely made the rest of the NFL more interesting for me. I enjoy watching even bad Thursday games sometimes, because I might have something riding on it.

Do you do much DFS? That is something that it seems like I would really enjoy, but I don't find it holds my attention as much as seasonal leagues. I throw out a lineup or 2 once a month or so, just for kicks. I think I could make money doing it, but I'm not sure I care enough to play it. It feels like it would be ideal for an analytics guy, so I'm not sure why I'm not into it. I did draft 4 best-ball teams this year ( low-buy in) and am in 1st in 3 of those so far. Yay me!

Yeah I watch any nfl game I can. I put multiple TVs in my man cave with the ticket simply for fantasy purposes lol. So I can watch other games along with the Vikings.

As for DFS, ya know, I never really got into it. Kind of like what I said above where it just doesn’t excite me like a dynasty/keeper league does. I’ve tried it here and there but I guess my problem is, I can never trust who’s behind the screen in these leagues. Even the 50/50 games, you could be going against some guy that dedicates his whole life to that and doesn’t have a job and he takes you to the cleaner. It’s hard for me to ever put forth big money when it comes to these. I’m sure I’d win some and lose some but I like leagues done in person with people you know. You can never trust what’s behind a screen IMO.

My other side pool is one that I run. It’s called the “25 pool”. It’s actually super fun. 25 is one of the toughest scores for a team to hit. So before the season starts, I get 32 guys and we draw teams out of a hat. Everyone gets 1 team for the entire year. It’s $10 per week ($170 for the year). If a team has a final score of 25, win or lose, you win the pot. If nobody hits, the pot rolls over to the next week. So it’s $320 pot per week. If nobody hits it rolls over to $640, then $920 and so on. So far this year 3 guys have hit (me being one of them!). My father in law had Baltimore week 4 and hit for $1,280, my buddy had the bears and hit week 7 for $960 and I had Arizona a few weeks ago Thursday night and hit for $640. And say if nobody hits from week 14 and on, the remaining money goes into a super bowl square pool we do as a group. So it’s a pretty fun pool. Little investment at $170 for the entire year and potential big payoff. Even if you hit week 1, you win $320 and nearly double your money. I like using the number 25 because one, it is tough to hit and two, it’s a score just about any team could hit. Where if you go with higher scores, if you have someone like the dolphins for the year, you’ll probably never hit. Although I still think they’ve only broke 25 points once this year.

But yeah man, I’m a pretty big fantasy gambler lol, just not a daily fantasy guy. (Sorry for the lengthy post). Just boarding my flight to Minnesota now!! SKOL!

[808vikingsfan]

Then there's the group E . They just want a QB that is not a crutch to the team and can elevate a teams play and carry a team when needed.

You all talk about winning as a team and losing as a team. There are times when a player is not carrying his own weight . There are teams that have weak areas. When a QB has time to throw , receivers are open but he either misses the throw or dumps to his outlet, IMO, that's like an OL missing his assignment. If we're so critical of Elf in his pass pro, why can't we be as critical (or even more so) with Kirk.

I'd like a QB that doesn't have to rely on everything else being perfect to succeed. I'd like a QBs that can make up for a teams deficiencies at times.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Then there's the group E . They just want a QB that is not a crutch to the team and can elevate a teams play and carry a team when needed.

You all talk about winning as a team and losing as a team. There are times when a player is not carrying his own weight . There are teams that have weak areas. When a QB has time to throw , receivers are open but he either misses the throw or dumps to his outlet, IMO, that's like an OL missing his assignment. If we're so critical of Elf in his pass pro, why can't we be as critical (or even more so) with Kirk.

I'd like a QB that doesn't have to rely on everything else being perfect to succeed. I'd like a QBs that can make up for a teams deficiencies at times.

Nobody is saying we can’t be critical of Kirk but what are you going to be critical about right now? The fact he’s gone 5-1 the last 6 weeks? The fact he’s played like an all pro throughout that span? When Kirk plays bad, we all talk about it. But how often is it JUST Kirk that’s a problem? Hardly ever. You say cousins needs everything to be perfect to succeed. Was everything perfect vs Dallas? Was everything perfect vs Detroit? Or philly? Last time I checked our “great defense” gave up roughly 25 points a game during that time. Saying Kirk needs everything perfect to succeed is laughable given how he’s been playing. And this teams been far from perfect....

[808vikingsfan]

Then there's the group E . They just want a QB that is not a crutch to the team and can elevate a teams play and carry a team when needed.

You all talk about winning as a team and losing as a team. There are times when a player is not carrying his own weight . There are teams that have weak areas. When a QB has time to throw , receivers are open but he either misses the throw or dumps to his outlet, IMO, that's like an OL missing his assignment. If we're so critical of Elf in his pass pro, why can't we be as critical (or even more so) with Kirk.

I'd like a QB that doesn't have to rely on everything else being perfect to succeed. I'd like a QBs that can make up for a teams deficiencies at times.

Nobody is saying we can’t be critical of Kirk but what are you going to be critical about right now? The fact he’s gone 5-1 the last 6 weeks? The fact he’s played like an all pro throughout that span? When Kirk plays bad, we all talk about it. But how often is it JUST Kirk that’s a problem? Hardly ever. You say cousins needs everything to be perfect to succeed. Was everything perfect vs Dallas? Was everything perfect vs Detroit? Or philly? Last time I checked our “great defense” gave up roughly 25 points a game during that time. Saying Kirk needs everything perfect to succeed is laughable given how he’s been playing. And this teams been far from perfect....

Perfect meaning pass protection and a good running game. No one gave ponder much credit in 2012. Cook is having as good a production as Peterson did in 2012. Imo, without cook, Vikings would be a .500 team right now. Besides the Eagles game, every game that cook didn't do well, the Vikings have lost. I don't care about kirks stats. He's been a stat machine his entire .500 career. He needs to show (me) he can do what he did in Philly more often than what her did in CHI and GB before I start thinking he could lead us deep into the playoffs. Ill start believing if dalvin has an average game and yet the Vikings beat the Seahawks in Seattle.

Can we really be critical of Cousins here without being ridiculed or laughed at?

[J. Kapp 11]

Then there's the group E . They just want a QB that is not a crutch to the team and can elevate a teams play and carry a team when needed.

You all talk about winning as a team and losing as a team. There are times when a player is not carrying his own weight . There are teams that have weak areas. When a QB has time to throw , receivers are open but he either misses the throw or dumps to his outlet, IMO, that's like an OL missing his assignment. If we're so critical of Elf in his pass pro, why can't we be as critical (or even more so) with Kirk.

I'd like a QB that doesn't have to rely on everything else being perfect to succeed. I'd like a QBs that can make up for a teams deficiencies at times.

Nobody is saying we can’t be critical of Kirk but what are you going to be critical about right now? The fact he’s gone 5-1 the last 6 weeks? The fact he’s played like an all pro throughout that span? When Kirk plays bad, we all talk about it. But how often is it JUST Kirk that’s a problem? Hardly ever. You say cousins needs everything to be perfect to succeed. Was everything perfect vs Dallas? Was everything perfect vs Detroit? Or philly? Last time I checked our “great defense” gave up roughly 25 points a game during that time. Saying Kirk needs everything perfect to succeed is laughable given how he’s been playing. And this teams been far from perfect....

You might find this interesting, PHP.

Not that I'm a huge fan of Pro Football Focus (I'm not), but they recently released their top quarterbacks at each of 35 different categories they rate. Stuff like who's the highest rated at post routes, out routes, hitch routes, rollouts, tight-window throws, etc.

Kirk Cousins leads in 5 categories -- crossing routes, next-read throws (throws when the first read is covered), throwing to receivers out wide, play-action, and designed rollouts. That's one QB leading the league in 15% of the categories rated. Only Russell Wilson leads in more categories. I also know that he ranked 5th in first-read throws, and that his efficiency on next-read throws is EXACTLY THE SAME as his efficiency on first-read throws. Thought I'd throw that in there for all the people who think Cousins can't complete passes if his first read is covered.

Our QB is ballin'.

Oh, also forgot. Cousins ranks fifth overall, behind Wilson, Jackson, Brees and Rodgers.

[CharVike]

Then there's the group E . They just want a QB that is not a crutch to the team and can elevate a teams play and carry a team when needed.

You all talk about winning as a team and losing as a team. There are times when a player is not carrying his own weight . There are teams that have weak areas. When a QB has time to throw , receivers are open but he either misses the throw or dumps to his outlet, IMO, that's like an OL missing his assignment. If we're so critical of Elf in his pass pro, why can't we be as critical (or even more so) with Kirk.

I'd like a QB that doesn't have to rely on everything else being perfect to succeed. I'd like a QBs that can make up for a teams deficiencies at times.

There are certain things a QB can't make up for. In our case the Bears own our OL. Cook who is a dam good back got nothing. He needs everything to be perfect as you say. Cousins who is a good QB got nothing. Reason? The Bears dominated the LOS. They have done that to us every time since they have become a good D(adding Mack). We will meet again in our house. I want our OL to punch holes in that DL and Cook rattle off a 100+ yards. If that happens we win. If it don't we won't win because we are being dominated at the LOS. Every QB that gets pressure has a hard time. Even the great Tom Brady. The Eagles hit him a couple times and things didn't go like they usually do. He looked average. He overthrew deep guys because he didn't want to hold the ball and wait for them to clear. That's only a few hits. Send the avalanche after him and make him feel it. He will fold like they all do. When he faces the Jets again he won't be hit all day and pick them apart.

[S197]

Another interesting stat I saw was Cousins was pressured only 12% of the time vs Denver. That equates to 5 drop backs, which is also the number of sacks the Broncos had for the game.

[CharVike]

Today the Cowboys hit Brady. He was pouting of course and didn't play at his normal level. Missed a guy and even he couldn't believe it. Believe it Tom you were getting hit. Tough to hang in there. Dak did his usual. Played a good team and blew. He'll get the Giants or Skins again and look all world. That will knock his stats through the roof of course and every media guy will say what a tremendous QB. Best ever.They need to give him a long term deal. Guess what they won't give him the 40 million he's looking for. He can't beat good teams. Look it up.