As long as Kirk Cousins is a Viking, they will never draft a quarterback!!!

[psjordan]

I fail to believe it was some sort of coincidence we saw no value at the QB position over the last decade. The more logical conclusion is his strategy is to simply ignore or discount any sort of potential or contingency plan drafting strategy at the position. Despite our tremendous lack of continuity at QB.

I know that "sounds good" as an explanation for the lack of QB's drafted in Rick's tenure, but I am not going to believe that you believe, deep down (to paraphrase) that "Rick simply ignores contingency plans at the position".

I don't think there is a GM at any level of football that feels that way. As well, GM's do not work in a vacuum so you are saying by association that the majority of "speaking" members of our draft process feel the same way.

I don't see it that way.

VL about nailed it IMO, in that we've had historically between pick #18 on down in the 1st round in the past several years, maybe in Rick's tenure. Didn't we move up for Ponder? Anyways IMO it's VERY difficult to get your "franchise QB" playing those cards. I really think it's that simple. Low-first-round teams like the Pats have taken plenty of swings at it over the past 10 years.

Now if you want to make the argument that we should have jumped on someone after the first round to get a better backup than a Mannion type, I'm pretty sure our staff has done all kinds of analysis on the success of that approach in getting an above-average QB, even for a backup role. It's just not that probable that the earlier pick you do it the better, not that it's impossible. I would guess they also figure, somewhat correctly, that the rules have changed the past few years and that starting QB's get hurt less often nowadays. So having Mannion vs. Hurts sitting the bench probably does not make a huge difference to our staff.

So I see it as "Rick" playing the odds over the years. It's frustrating, sure, but if we keep picking 25th in the first we are going to have to make a heckuva move to get into the top 5 any given year. Is our staff and ownership gunshy about ever doing that? Probably. I'd love a long-term solution at the QB position, but I am OK admitting we are playing the cards we've been dealt, for the most part.

And holy cow the way folks are talking about Stanley in this thread you'd think he uses a walker when he plays. Mobility may not be a huge part of his game but c'mon, he could probably learn to move as much as say Rothlisberger has over the years (not that he has Ben's talent).

[S197]

I fail to believe it was some sort of coincidence we saw no value at the QB position over the last decade. The more logical conclusion is his strategy is to simply ignore or discount any sort of potential or contingency plan drafting strategy at the position. Despite our tremendous lack of continuity at QB.

OK, so let's assume your view is correct and Spielman's strategy is to ignore the QB position altogether if he feels he has a legit starter at the position.

So he follows that strategy and then, when Bridgewater went down, what did he have to do as a result of it? He had to send a 1st round pick to the Eagles to acquire Sam Bradford.

I don't know about you but if I am Rick Spielman and my draft strategy has been along the lines of what you said, my experience with the Bridgewater situation cures me of that ill-informed outlook real quick.

That was a true disaster. It forced Spielman to pay a heavy price (essentially 2 first round picks for QBs), and *neither* of them still plays for the Vikings.

Now could Spielman be so obstinate that after his experience with those two QBs he's still of the opinion that his current starter at QB is forever and he doesn't need to worry about stocking up in the draft if good value at the position presents itself? I guess he could, but that would kind of defy explanation. Assuming the conclusion you drew is accurate, if Spielman's hard lessons haven't taught him the error of his ways I doubt anything will.

I personally don't believe Spielman ignores the position. I believe the position is really hard to draft successfully, and for competitive teams like the Vikings that are not finishing near or at the bottom of the barrel in the standings very often, by the time their draft picks roll around the big "QB" fish in the barrel that are easy to see and shoot are already gone. It's easier to shoot the big "other positions" fish at those points in the draft that you have a higher degree of confidence will make the overall team better than to reach for guys solely because they played a given position in college.

And one other thing that probably taught Spielman a good lesson too is Christian Ponder, a QB he knows he reached for with another 1st round pick and who had no business as a starter in the pros. I'd say Spielman has had a solid "3 wasted 1st rounders" lesson in drafting QBs.

Here's the thing, quite literally everything Spielman has done in the draft supports my hypothesis. From not drafting an heir when we had a 41 year old Favre at the helm all the way to present day where we drafted more players than anyone in the history of the 7rd draft but still didn't pull the trigger on a mid-round QB.

I guess my question is, what supports the argument that Rick has learned from his mistakes? We will go into the season with Cousins/Mannion/UDFA or 7th rounder. No different than Heinicke, Sloter... All the way back to guys like Tyler Thigpen.

The names change but the strategy remains the same. Not finishing bottom of the barrel doesn't hold water either as we have seen from the Patriots, Eagles, Packers, etc. These are not teams drafting top 10.

Let me ask you this, is there any other team in the NFL that has not drafted a mid or higher developmental or backup QB in the last 10 years?

[Pep2Moss]

I'm new here, what's the general consensus on the Cousins era so far?

Welcome!

The general consensus on Cousins (no surprise) depends on whom you ask.

Some see him as a capable quarterback with a few limitations, such as the ability to improvise at anything more than a read through his progressions. The belief in these circles is that he can win a Super Bowl with the right supporting cast and a solid scheme.

Others see him as a quarterback who can pile up stats but can't be counted on to put the team on his back and win big games.

Still others (such as the OP) would rather eat a poop sandwich than see Kirk Cousins take another snap as the Vikings' quarterback.

I don't believe anyone has dubbed him the second coming of Tom Brady, but I could be wrong.

Seriously, opinions are all over the map.

Mine is much like the first on listed above. To break it down further, I think he's smart. I think he has above average arm talent -- he's accurate, including the deep ball, but his spin rate is average, which makes his fastball about average. I think he prepares very well, perhaps too well (leading to a need for the play to develop as planned). I think he's the best quarterback in the league on play-action and planned rollouts. Very accurate, very savvy on those. I think he has a difficult time understanding where his escape routes are when the pocket breaks down; consequently, his eyes move away from downfield. In these situations, he tends to "see the rush" instead of "feeling the rush," and 9 times out of 10, we end up with some sort of negative play. I think he could stand to throw the ball away in certain situations. I think he's gotten a LOT better at taking care of the football since he first reported to the Vikings. For a long time, I thought there was some merit to the "can't make big plays in big moments" analysis, but I believe he did some things in the Denver, Seattle and New Orleans games that indicate he MIGHT be turning that corner. I think his teammates respect him and his leadership. Finally, I think he's Zimmer's type of quarterback ... gunslinger enough to make big plays when they're there, but conservative enough to take care of the football.

Can he lead us to the Super Bowl? I think so, but he's going to need a line that can keep him upright on obvious passing downs. And he needs a running game so that the Vikings can take advantage of his excellent play-action skills.

That's my take.

Absolutely fantastic stuff thank you... I definitely think we can win with him, but it will have to be a total team effort, I don't see us winning one on his shoulders. I will say he's been a lot better than I thought he would be. He can make some big plays, and we didn't really see any of those 29-29 vs GB week 2 INT last season off the top of my head. The NO game to me left we with a far better feeling about him than I had.

[VikingLord]

He wasn't forced to do anything when Teddy went down, but I see your point.

Good point. He didn't need to make the move for Bradford that he did.

[VikingLord]

I guess my question is, what supports the argument that Rick has learned from his mistakes? We will go into the season with Cousins/Mannion/UDFA or 7th rounder. No different than Heinicke, Sloter... All the way back to guys like Tyler Thigpen.

What truly competitive teams will go into the season with an objectively better backup QB situation than the Vikings?

Let me ask you this, is there any other team in the NFL that has not drafted a mid or higher developmental or backup QB in the last 10 years?

I honestly don't know. Maybe not. But it doesn't bother me because Spielman's moves at QB have made sense for the most part. The most frustrating move he made at QB was the 1st round reach for Ponder. That was a clear "need" move and I think Spielman learned his lesson on that one. Otherwise, I think his moves have been mostly reasonable given what he's had to work with both in terms of the draft and FA.

My turn to ask a question. Would you be comfortable if the Vikings had drafted Eason or Fromm or even Morgan in the 3rd, cut Mannion in training camp, and then had to start said 3rd rounder 3 games into this upcoming season when Cousins goes out with an injury that will cost him 6 games? Would that approach be objectively better than sticking with Mannion as the backup?

I'm not going to claim I know the answer to the above question, but in essence it's the question the GM who makes the moves in the draft and FA has to answer. Assuming those rookie QBs have been fully scouted, and what Mannion brings to the field is well-known within the team, that's the decision the GM has to make. If Spielman is rational, and it would defy belief to argue he is not, he's done the math with the coaches and scouts and concluded the backup QB situation wasn't going to be improved earlier in the draft.

One last thing. Nate Stanley isn't a terrible QB prospect. Walterfootball had him as it's 12th-ranked QB prospect, and if you watch draft analysis on him, he has decent potential. I think Kapp is an Iowa fan and might have some thoughts on his ceiling as a pro, but I personally thought Stanley could have gone much earlier in the draft and was great value where the Vikings found him. Granted, he's not a "mid-round" pick, but he could have gone as early as the 4th and time may demonstrate he should have gone much earlier than the 7th.

[StumpHunter]

I guess my question is, what supports the argument that Rick has learned from his mistakes? We will go into the season with Cousins/Mannion/UDFA or 7th rounder. No different than Heinicke, Sloter... All the way back to guys like Tyler Thigpen.

What truly competitive teams will go into the season with an objectively better backup QB situation than the Vikings?

Let me ask you this, is there any other team in the NFL that has not drafted a mid or higher developmental or backup QB in the last 10 years?

I honestly don't know. Maybe not. But it doesn't bother me because Spielman's moves at QB have made sense for the most part. The most frustrating move he made at QB was the 1st round reach for Ponder. That was a clear "need" move and I think Spielman learned his lesson on that one. Otherwise, I think his moves have been mostly reasonable given what he's had to work with both in terms of the draft and FA.

My turn to ask a question. Would you be comfortable if the Vikings had drafted Eason or Fromm or even Morgan in the 3rd, cut Mannion in training camp, and then had to start said 3rd rounder 3 games into this upcoming season when Cousins goes out with an injury that will cost him 6 games? Would that approach be objectively better than sticking with Mannion as the backup?

I'm not going to claim I know the answer to the above question, but in essence it's the question the GM who makes the moves in the draft and FA has to answer. Assuming those rookie QBs have been fully scouted, and what Mannion brings to the field is well-known within the team, that's the decision the GM has to make. If Spielman is rational, and it would defy belief to argue he is not, he's done the math with the coaches and scouts and concluded the backup QB situation wasn't going to be improved earlier in the draft.

One last thing. Nate Stanley isn't a terrible QB prospect. Walterfootball had him as it's 12th-ranked QB prospect, and if you watch draft analysis on him, he has decent potential. I think Kapp is an Iowa fan and might have some thoughts on his ceiling as a pro, but I personally thought Stanley could have gone much earlier in the draft and was great value where the Vikings found him. Granted, he's not a "mid-round" pick, but he could have gone as early as the 4th and time may demonstrate he should have gone much earlier than the 7th.

3 1st round picks on a QB, 0 back-to-back full seasons of starts from all 3. Even when he gets a QB capable of starting multiple seasons in Cousins, he isn't the best QB available to the Vikings that year.

He hasn't been very good at identifying QB talent and has made some really questionable decisions at the spot.

[VikingLord]

He hasn't been very good at identifying QB talent and has made some really questionable decisions at the spot.

I won't argue the merit of Spielman's decisions at QB. While I think the choices he's made are reasonable, I can see the other side of the argument against them. He's also been a bit unlucky in some respects. Bridgewater would likely have bucked the trend you noted had he not suffered the freak knee injury.

I'm mainly trying to point out that he hasn't ignored the position. He might not be taking swings at it in the mid-rounds of the draft, but he's definitely taking swings at it.

[S197]

I guess my question is, what supports the argument that Rick has learned from his mistakes? We will go into the season with Cousins/Mannion/UDFA or 7th rounder. No different than Heinicke, Sloter... All the way back to guys like Tyler Thigpen.

What truly competitive teams will go into the season with an objectively better backup QB situation than the Vikings?

Let me ask you this, is there any other team in the NFL that has not drafted a mid or higher developmental or backup QB in the last 10 years?

I honestly don't know. Maybe not. But it doesn't bother me because Spielman's moves at QB have made sense for the most part. The most frustrating move he made at QB was the 1st round reach for Ponder. That was a clear "need" move and I think Spielman learned his lesson on that one. Otherwise, I think his moves have been mostly reasonable given what he's had to work with both in terms of the draft and FA.

My turn to ask a question. Would you be comfortable if the Vikings had drafted Eason or Fromm or even Morgan in the 3rd, cut Mannion in training camp, and then had to start said 3rd rounder 3 games into this upcoming season when Cousins goes out with an injury that will cost him 6 games? Would that approach be objectively better than sticking with Mannion as the backup?

I'm not going to claim I know the answer to the above question, but in essence it's the question the GM who makes the moves in the draft and FA has to answer. Assuming those rookie QBs have been fully scouted, and what Mannion brings to the field is well-known within the team, that's the decision the GM has to make. If Spielman is rational, and it would defy belief to argue he is not, he's done the math with the coaches and scouts and concluded the backup QB situation wasn't going to be improved earlier in the draft.

One last thing. Nate Stanley isn't a terrible QB prospect. Walterfootball had him as it's 12th-ranked QB prospect, and if you watch draft analysis on him, he has decent potential. I think Kapp is an Iowa fan and might have some thoughts on his ceiling as a pro, but I personally thought Stanley could have gone much earlier in the draft and was great value where the Vikings found him. Granted, he's not a "mid-round" pick, but he could have gone as early as the 4th and time may demonstrate he should have gone much earlier than the 7th.

To answer your question, if Cousins went down 3 games in, I wouldn't be confident in Eason or Fromm. Short-term they would not help the team. Longer-term I think they help the team more than Mannion would as I feel he has a well established ceiling (low). They have committed to Cousins for 2 more years. During this span is a perfect time to grab a developmental QB to groom. In that respect, Eason/Fromm is a much better choice than Mannion. It's not as though Mannion is going to lead this team to the playoffs if Cousins goes down.

[VikingLord]

It's not as though Mannion is going to lead this team to the playoffs if Cousins goes down.

I find it interesting that Mannion was a 3rd round selection in the 2015 draft while Case Keenum went undrafted, and yet Keenum nearly led the Vikings to the Superbowl despite starting the year as a 3rd string QB.

It is unlikely that Mannion would lead any team to the playoffs. It is equally unlikely that Keenum would have. It is just slightly less unlikely that Cousins will.

[StumpHunter]

It's not as though Mannion is going to lead this team to the playoffs if Cousins goes down.

I find it interesting that Mannion was a 3rd round selection in the 2015 draft while Case Keenum went undrafted, and yet Keenum nearly led the Vikings to the Superbowl despite starting the year as a 3rd string QB.

It is unlikely that Mannion would lead any team to the playoffs. It is equally unlikely that Keenum would have. It is just slightly less unlikely that Cousins will.

I bet we could go back to threads prior to the 2017 season talking about how Keenum adds nothing and we need a serious upgrade at the backup spot.

[fiestavike]

I find it interesting that Mannion was a 3rd round selection in the 2015 draft while Case Keenum went undrafted, and yet Keenum nearly led the Vikings to the Superbowl despite starting the year as a 3rd string QB.

It is unlikely that Mannion would lead any team to the playoffs. It is equally unlikely that Keenum would have. It is just slightly less unlikely that Cousins will.

I bet we could go back to threads prior to the 2017 season talking about how Keenum adds nothing and we need a serious upgrade at the backup spot.

I want to see Mannion and Stanley in the preseason.

[StumpHunter]

Here is how we all felt about Keenum after week 2 in 2017. Pretty comical.

http://www.vikingsmessageboard.com/view ... =1&t=29935

[fiestavike]

Here is how we all felt about Keenum after week 2 in 2017. Pretty comical.

http://www.vikingsmessageboard.com/view ... =1&t=29935

To be fair, Week 2 was against the steelers as I recall, and Keenum was pretty rough in that one. There was little cause for rejoicing after that game.

[J. Kapp 11]

I guess my question is, what supports the argument that Rick has learned from his mistakes? We will go into the season with Cousins/Mannion/UDFA or 7th rounder. No different than Heinicke, Sloter... All the way back to guys like Tyler Thigpen.

What truly competitive teams will go into the season with an objectively better backup QB situation than the Vikings?

Let me ask you this, is there any other team in the NFL that has not drafted a mid or higher developmental or backup QB in the last 10 years?

I honestly don't know. Maybe not. But it doesn't bother me because Spielman's moves at QB have made sense for the most part. The most frustrating move he made at QB was the 1st round reach for Ponder. That was a clear "need" move and I think Spielman learned his lesson on that one. Otherwise, I think his moves have been mostly reasonable given what he's had to work with both in terms of the draft and FA.

My turn to ask a question. Would you be comfortable if the Vikings had drafted Eason or Fromm or even Morgan in the 3rd, cut Mannion in training camp, and then had to start said 3rd rounder 3 games into this upcoming season when Cousins goes out with an injury that will cost him 6 games? Would that approach be objectively better than sticking with Mannion as the backup?

I'm not going to claim I know the answer to the above question, but in essence it's the question the GM who makes the moves in the draft and FA has to answer. Assuming those rookie QBs have been fully scouted, and what Mannion brings to the field is well-known within the team, that's the decision the GM has to make. If Spielman is rational, and it would defy belief to argue he is not, he's done the math with the coaches and scouts and concluded the backup QB situation wasn't going to be improved earlier in the draft.

One last thing. Nate Stanley isn't a terrible QB prospect. Walterfootball had him as it's 12th-ranked QB prospect, and if you watch draft analysis on him, he has decent potential. I think Kapp is an Iowa fan and might have some thoughts on his ceiling as a pro, but I personally thought Stanley could have gone much earlier in the draft and was great value where the Vikings found him. Granted, he's not a "mid-round" pick, but he could have gone as early as the 4th and time may demonstrate he should have gone much earlier than the 7th.

Nate Stanley is an interesting prospect, for sure.

Yes, I did watch him play for 3 years at Iowa. From the beginning, it was apparent he had the arm. Of course when he was starting as a sophomore, he had a lot to learn, but he always acquitted himself well and played mature football.

Stanley's stats won't blow you away, but here's what you have to remember.

First, Iowa doesn't get a lot of big-name recruits. I think they've had one 5-star recruit in the past 15 years. Iowa's players are coached really well, especially along the O-line, which is why you see so many linemen and tight ends drafted from the Hawkeyes. But they don't get a lot of the top-top athletes. That means Stanley's receiving talent, while adequate for what Iowa does, never allows him to run up big stats.

Second, Kirk Ferentz is a VERY conservative coach in all areas of the game. On defense, they play base 4-3 ... always. Down and distance doesn't matter. He's very old-school in that his mantra is "we do what we do, and if we do it well enough, we'll win." Now, Stanley played in a pro-style offense ... Brian Ferentz, the offensive coordinator, was an assistant with New England, and they use a lot of their concepts. But Kirk Ferentz is never going to let his quarterback throw 40 times unless the Hawks are way behind. So again, Stanley's stats look pedestrian.

It may very well be that Nate Stanley will be a better pro than collegian.

Here's the downfall. He's not super mobile. He has some ability to escape, barely, but that's college. If he tries to run around much in the pros, these guys will run him down. I think he's more mobile than, say, Joe Flacco, but certainly not as good on the move as Kirk Cousins. Where he might have Cousins beat is when the play breaks down. Time will tell. But you're not going to mistake his wheels for Patrick Mahomes. He's essentially a pocket passer.

The other concern for me is his accuracy. Just under 60 percent is not a great stat. But again, it's hard to tell because Iowa's receivers just don't get a ton of separation, with the exception of when Hockenson and Fant were there. Also, a good percentage of Iowa's passes are on third down and medium-to-long (Ferentz runs on first down more than most teams) so that's going to hurt a quarterback's completion percentage. We'll just have to see how accurate he is throwing to better receivers in non-obvious passing situations.

For a seventh-round pick, you couldn't do much better than Nate Stanley. He has potential, especially at that price.

[fiestavike]

What truly competitive teams will go into the season with an objectively better backup QB situation than the Vikings?



I honestly don't know. Maybe not. But it doesn't bother me because Spielman's moves at QB have made sense for the most part. The most frustrating move he made at QB was the 1st round reach for Ponder. That was a clear "need" move and I think Spielman learned his lesson on that one. Otherwise, I think his moves have been mostly reasonable given what he's had to work with both in terms of the draft and FA.

My turn to ask a question. Would you be comfortable if the Vikings had drafted Eason or Fromm or even Morgan in the 3rd, cut Mannion in training camp, and then had to start said 3rd rounder 3 games into this upcoming season when Cousins goes out with an injury that will cost him 6 games? Would that approach be objectively better than sticking with Mannion as the backup?

I'm not going to claim I know the answer to the above question, but in essence it's the question the GM who makes the moves in the draft and FA has to answer. Assuming those rookie QBs have been fully scouted, and what Mannion brings to the field is well-known within the team, that's the decision the GM has to make. If Spielman is rational, and it would defy belief to argue he is not, he's done the math with the coaches and scouts and concluded the backup QB situation wasn't going to be improved earlier in the draft.

One last thing. Nate Stanley isn't a terrible QB prospect. Walterfootball had him as it's 12th-ranked QB prospect, and if you watch draft analysis on him, he has decent potential. I think Kapp is an Iowa fan and might have some thoughts on his ceiling as a pro, but I personally thought Stanley could have gone much earlier in the draft and was great value where the Vikings found him. Granted, he's not a "mid-round" pick, but he could have gone as early as the 4th and time may demonstrate he should have gone much earlier than the 7th.

Nate Stanley is an interesting prospect, for sure.

Yes, I did watch him play for 3 years at Iowa. From the beginning, it was apparent he had the arm. Of course when he was starting as a sophomore, he had a lot to learn, but he always acquitted himself well and played mature football.

Stanley's stats won't blow you away, but here's what you have to remember.

First, Iowa doesn't get a lot of big-name recruits. I think they've had one 5-star recruit in the past 15 years. Iowa's players are coached really well, especially along the O-line, which is why you see so many linemen and tight ends drafted from the Hawkeyes. But they don't get a lot of the top-top athletes. That means Stanley's receiving talent, while adequate for what Iowa does, never allows him to run up big stats.

Second, Kirk Ferentz is a VERY conservative coach in all areas of the game. On defense, they play base 4-3 ... always. Down and distance doesn't matter. He's very old-school in that his mantra is "we do what we do, and if we do it well enough, we'll win." Now, Stanley played in a pro-style offense ... Brian Ferentz, the offensive coordinator, was an assistant with New England, and they use a lot of their concepts. But Kirk Ferentz is never going to let his quarterback throw 40 times unless the Hawks are way behind. So again, Stanley's stats look pedestrian.

It may very well be that Nate Stanley will be a better pro than collegian.

Here's the downfall. He's not super mobile. He has some ability to escape, barely, but that's college. If he tries to run around much in the pros, these guys will run him down. I think he's more mobile than, say, Joe Flacco, but certainly not as good on the move as Kirk Cousins. Where he might have Cousins beat is when the play breaks down. Time will tell. But you're not going to mistake his wheels for Patrick Mahomes. He's essentially a pocket passer.

The other concern for me is his accuracy. Just under 60 percent is not a great stat. But again, it's hard to tell because Iowa's receivers just don't get a ton of separation, with the exception of when Hockenson and Fant were there. Also, a good percentage of Iowa's passes are on third down and medium-to-long (Ferentz runs on first down more than most teams) so that's going to hurt a quarterback's completion percentage. We'll just have to see how accurate he is throwing to better receivers in non-obvious passing situations.

For a seventh-round pick, you couldn't do much better than Nate Stanley. He has potential, especially at that price.

Thanks for this report. It confirms a lot of what I've read elsewhere, but also provides some valuable context. I really want to see the kid, and hope we get to have preseason games this year.