Let's play "Reckless Speculation — Kirk Cousins Edition"

[VikeFanInEagleLand]

You don't know that. I would think most of them do, but I don't know that.

This is true. But I’d be shocked if other front offices consider a guy who’s 9-41 against winning teams a top 10 QB.

I’m not trying to pile on Cousins, but that stat is staggering. You play winning teams in the super bowl. You play winning teams in the playoffs. Every franchise in the country wants to win playoff games and Super Bowls. A guy 9-41 against those kinds of teams would suggest many teams would prefer to go another route.

Stafford's record against winning teams was 8-68. What do you think the Rams thought of him considering what they gave up for him?

[StumpHunter]

This is true. But I’d be shocked if other front offices consider a guy who’s 9-41 against winning teams a top 10 QB.

I’m not trying to pile on Cousins, but that stat is staggering. You play winning teams in the super bowl. You play winning teams in the playoffs. Every franchise in the country wants to win playoff games and Super Bowls. A guy 9-41 against those kinds of teams would suggest many teams would prefer to go another route.

Stafford's record against winning teams was 8-68. What do you think the Rams thought of him considering what they gave up for him?

Stafford didn't go from one of the worst run franchises in the NFL to a SB ready team and continue that trend of losing to every winning team. Kirk did.

[VikingsVictorious]

Cousins has no record against winning teams. No QB has ever won or lost a game.
If you want to attribute wins and losses to QBs Matt Stafford must really suck. The Rams sure blew it when they traded for him.

Actually the Rams were smart enough to see a very good QB who happened to play for a team that lost a lot of games.

Come on man. You’re arguing just to argue. If that’s the case then no athlete ever should be judged on anything. No pitchers should ever be in the MLB hall of fame. Hell, no players in any sport should be considered better than any others. Jordan is the same as Towns in regards to NBA careers because neither did anything or win any games by themselves.

For the sake of argument, we all agree that no single player in any sport at any level has been 100% responsible for winning. There, we got that out of the way.

But you know as well as I do, sports, and life for that matter doesn’t work that way. If it did, we wouldn’t be looking for a coach right now. Zimmers record wouldn’t mean a thing. After all, he never lost a single game by himself….

As it is, coaches, players, and especially QB’s, likely the most important position in all of sports, are judged by wins and losses. If a starting QB having a record of 9 - 41 against winning teams doesn’t give a franchise pause, what does? What matters? Coaches are judged the same way. Part of the reason some are excited about Harbaugh being head coach is because he’s won at every level he’s been at. Of COURSE he didn’t win those games alone! Why do you think coaches with great records, that they didn’t get by themselves, get opportunities to move up? Why do coaches with bad records, that they didn’t get themselves, get fired every single year?

And with all due respect, your Stafford example proves my point way more than yours. The guy is literally playing in the super bowl! He’s has more playoff wins this last month than Kirk has had his entire career with the Vikings! He could easily be a super bowl champ and possibly super bowl mvp in two weeks.

I think I can safely speak for the board when I say that if Cousins had gotten us to the super bowl, and gasp, WON the damn thing, many of us would be up in arms! It’s how sports works. Get your team to the promise land and win championships, and fans and coaches tend to be happier with you. And all this despite the fact that you didn’t win the super bowl all by yourself!

Please stop coming back to that lame argument. It could literally be said for every single topic about every single player we discuss on this board every day.

Matthew Stafford and Kirk Cousins are both very good QBs that don't have particularly good records, but it should be obvious to everyone that they are both very good. I stand by my statement.

[VikingsVictorious]

This is true. But I’d be shocked if other front offices consider a guy who’s 9-41 against winning teams a top 10 QB.

I’m not trying to pile on Cousins, but that stat is staggering. You play winning teams in the super bowl. You play winning teams in the playoffs. Every franchise in the country wants to win playoff games and Super Bowls. A guy 9-41 against those kinds of teams would suggest many teams would prefer to go another route.

Stafford's record against winning teams was 8-68. What do you think the Rams thought of him considering what they gave up for him?

Hmmm 9-41 or 8-68. Tough call.
If Kirk sucks for 9-41 how much worse must Stafford be?

[VikingsVictorious]

You don't know that. I would think most of them do, but I don't know that.

Maybe I know, maybe I don’t. But as usual, I base my comments on what I read.

Former Redskins GM Scot McCloughan:

He’s a good player. Is he special? I don’t see special.

From a NY Post article before Cousins signed in 2018:

Speaking to several NFL front office executives Wednesday about Cousins reveals a belief around the league that Cousins is a good quarterback who needs a strong team around him to win. He is not viewed as an elite passer like Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees or Tom Brady.

From the Washington Post in 2021:

“Kirk Cousins is overrated,” said one NFL executive whose team played the Vikings this year and who spoke on the condition of anonymity to frankly discuss another team’s player. “He can’t finish. He’s a great guy. Takes it very seriously. He’s got the body, mind and spirit — he’s got all those things you want in that position. But he doesn’t have enough arm talent. There’s a reason why he was taken in the fourth round. He’s just a guy. When [stuff] breaks down and adversity strikes and you got to extend the play, he can’t do it.”

I could go on, but that would just be mean.

Not elite? Total agreement. Not special? How do you define special. One NFL executive unnamed... Not enough arm talent? That guy is a freaking idiot if he actually exists. Great arm talent.

[VikeFanInEagleLand]

And with all due respect, your Stafford example proves my point way more than yours. The guy is literally playing in the super bowl! He’s has more playoff wins this last month than Kirk has had his entire career with the Vikings! He could easily be a super bowl champ and possibly super bowl mvp in two weeks.

I think I can safely speak for the board when I say that if Cousins had gotten us to the super bowl, and gasp, WON the damn thing, many of us would be up in arms! It’s how sports works. Get your team to the promise land and win championships, and fans and coaches tend to be happier with you. And all this despite the fact that you didn’t win the super bowl all by yourself!

I must admit that you lost me here.

Look, it's ok if you want to value wins and losses as a personal statistic as much as most of you seem to. I don't. I don't in football, and I don't in baseball. I have always thought that wins and losses as a statistic for a pitcher is ludicrous. Instead, I watch a guy. And if I like what I see, that's good enough for me. I've seen QB's that I didn't think were all that hot, win a lot of games. I've seen QB's that I thought looked great, not win a ,of of games. I can't tell you how many times I've had the debate with Dan Marino haters who thought that because he had a losing record in the playoffs, and could never win a Super Bowl somehow meant he wasn't as good as someone like Terry Bradshaw. But hey, it's a free world. If you wanna use that to dictate that Bradshaw was a better QB, then have at it.

Several years ago, on this board I got into a debate about Keenum. At this point, I wasn't a big fan of Cousins. There were some Cousins supporters (I think) that asked me to name a QB's that I'd rather have. When I named Stafford, I was mocked because obviously I knew nothing about football because I was incapable of seeing his win-loss record and how much that proved that he was not a good QB. I believe many said that "he sucked". So I think it's safe to say that if these same people were looking for a QB to lead their team, they would not have considered Stafford because his win-loss record speaks for itself. Well again, I'm thinking that the Rams are glad that they looked beyond his win-loss record.

If Cousins goes to another team and ends up in the Super Bowl, it wouldn't surprise me. As I look back over the last several years, I personally put a TON more blame on the coaching than I do any other piece of the team.

[StumpHunter]

And with all due respect, your Stafford example proves my point way more than yours. The guy is literally playing in the super bowl! He’s has more playoff wins this last month than Kirk has had his entire career with the Vikings! He could easily be a super bowl champ and possibly super bowl mvp in two weeks.

I think I can safely speak for the board when I say that if Cousins had gotten us to the super bowl, and gasp, WON the damn thing, many of us would be up in arms! It’s how sports works. Get your team to the promise land and win championships, and fans and coaches tend to be happier with you. And all this despite the fact that you didn’t win the super bowl all by yourself!

I must admit that you lost me here.

Look, it's ok if you want to value wins and losses as a personal statistic as much as most of you seem to. I don't. I don't in football, and I don't in baseball. I have always thought that wins and losses as a statistic for a pitcher is ludicrous. Instead, I watch a guy. And if I like what I see, that's good enough for me. I've seen QB's that I didn't think were all that hot, win a lot of games. I've seen QB's that I thought looked great, not win a ,of of games. I can't tell you how many times I've had the debate with Dan Marino haters who thought that because he had a losing record in the playoffs, and could never win a Super Bowl somehow meant he wasn't as good as someone like Terry Bradshaw. But hey, it's a free world. If you wanna use that to dictate that Bradshaw was a better QB, then have at it.

Several years ago, on this board I got into a debate about Keenum. At this point, I wasn't a big fan of Cousins. There were some Cousins supporters (I think) that asked me to name a QB's that I'd rather have. When I named Stafford, I was mocked because obviously I knew nothing about football because I was incapable of seeing his win-loss record and how much that proved that he was not a good QB. I believe many said that "he sucked". So I think it's safe to say that if these same people were looking for a QB to lead their team, they would not have considered Stafford because his win-loss record speaks for itself. Well again, I'm thinking that the Rams are glad that they looked beyond his win-loss record.

If Cousins goes to another team and ends up in the Super Bowl, it wouldn't surprise me. As I look back over the last several years, I personally put a TON more blame on the coaching than I do any other piece of the team.

If Cousins goes to another team he will do the same thing he has done on his two teams prior. Hover around .500 and lose to just about every winning team he faces.

[StumpHunter]

A good measure of just how good a QB is, is how they do it against better defenses. A better QB is harder to stop, even with a good pass defense and a lesser QB might destroy bad defenses if playing with a lot of weapons, while they struggle against bad defenses.

From 2018-2019, Matt Stafford had was 1-7 against top 10 pass defenses which is pretty bad. Jared Goff during that time was 3-6, which is much better, but when you look at what their offenses did against those top 10 pass defenses, it becomes clear one QB is significantly better, while the other had a lot of help from their team.

Goff's Passer rating against top 10 pass defenses: 74
Stafford's: 93

Goff's average score against those teams: 18
Stafford's: 21

Goff's numbers would be worse, but he played a top 10 Viking's pass defense during that time when they were still reeling from Griffen's mental issues and were at their worst. So not really a top 10 pass defense. In fact, in that 2018 season where Goff went to the SB, the Rams only played 2 top 10 pass defenses beside the Vikings, and Goff put up a combined 9 points in those games, and had an average passer rating of about 30.

So how does Cousins stack up? Is he closer to Goff or Stafford? Not surprisingly, he is closer to Goff:

Average Passer rating against top 10 passing defenses since 2018
Mahomes: 105
Brees: 103
Ryan: 96
Rodgers: 95
Stafford: 93
Dak: 91
Wilson: 89
Carr: 88
Brady:86
Teddy:86
Cousins: 83.2
Goff: 74

Record against top 10 passing defenses since 2018:
Mahomes: 8-3
Brees: 5-2
Ryan: 2-3
Rodgers: 7-5-1
Stafford: 1-7
Wilson: 4-5
Carr: 1-6
Cousins: 1-13
Brady 7-4
Teddy: 4-5
Goff: 3-6
Dak: 3-6

Average points scored against top 10 passing defenses since 2018:
Mahomes: 31
Brees: 29 (this is padded quite a bit by a single game against SF, but he is probably still #2 without it)
Brady: 23
Wilson: 22
Dak: 21
Stafford: 21
Rodgers: 20
Teddy:19
Ryan: 19
Carr: 18
Goff: 18
Cousins: 16.5

Cousins has a better passer rating than Goff, worse than Stafford's and has put up the fewest points of any QB I did this for. One note, all the QBs but Cousins are just 2018 and 2019 numbers. Cousins numbers are his entire time in MN.

[StanM]

I am getting a chuckle out of how far we have deviated from reckless speculation in this thread. Reckless speculation means to speculate recklessly which is what we’re doing. We make our wreckless speculation and along comes the half a page replies full of stats trying to convince us that our wreckless speculation is wrong. Just have fun with it and allow people to go out on a limb without trying to convince them otherwise. That’s the fun of wreckless speculation.

I will revise my wreckless speculation on that note. I speculate that the Vikings, GM and new coach will have discussed the Cousins issue and already have a plan. No speculation or page long reply citing endless stats will change their plan.

[StanM]

Matthew Stafford cap hit is 23M this year & the Rams traded multiple picks to “build the team.” Get back to me when Kirk is willing to cut his next year cap hit in half.

What we don’t know is what was Kirks motivation to not help the team by working his cap hit down was motivated by. Was it because he is greedy and doesn’t care about the teams success? We’re his “I just work here” comment due to his toxic relationship with Zimmer or does he just not give a damn about the team? In other words, now that Zimmer is gone will that change Kirk. After all, who would be stupid enough to not help lower their cap when they’re having to run for their life all game long? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know we need better OL performance.

I don’t know the answer to any of those questions. Anyways, we will likely have a coach announcement today so that will be another piece of the puzzle. We should get a feel for their plan for the coming season when the new coach speaks to the media and they roll up their sleeves and start going to work. It will be interesting to follow this who thing as it unfolds. Right or wrong we took the leap and cleaned house and I think we’ll end up in a better place when it all shakes out.

[StanM]

Very few executives consider Kirk Cousins a top 10 quarterback.

You don't know that. I would think most of them do, but I don't know that.

Stop and think about what we’re debating here. That a QB who put up HOF type numbers, is one of the most durable and is starting in the Pro Bowl isn’t good enough. I think that’s a lot of shiny chrome for an offensive minded coach to ignore. If someone thinks they can design a playbook around Kirks strengths and find a way to maximize his potential they’re going to step up and make an offer.

If we get rid of Kirk it could be the best move ever or be the move that puts us in QB limbo land for another decade. Drafting and acquiring QB talent isn’t for the faint of heart. Behind every great QB is an organization that took the gamble and hit the jackpot. Elite QBs are hard to find. Grab the popcorn and enjoy the ride. I have been on this roller coaster since 1961, we haven’t won a SB but a major shakeup is entertaining in a train wreck sort of way.

[StumpHunter]

You don't know that. I would think most of them do, but I don't know that.

Stop and think about what we’re debating here. That a QB who put up HOF type numbers, is one of the most durable and is starting in the Pro Bowl isn’t good enough.

Gardner Minshew is the 13th highest passer rated QB through his first 4 seasons of all time. He has averaged 1.87 TDs per start, 277 yards per start and only thrown .56 ints per start throughout his career. Kirk Cousins has averaged 1.86 TDs per start averaged 271 yards per start and thrown .76 ints per start. Jameis Winston was also a pro bowl injury replacement QB at one point.

Both of those guys will either be backups or competing for a starting spot next year.

[vikeinmontana]

And with all due respect, your Stafford example proves my point way more than yours. The guy is literally playing in the super bowl! He’s has more playoff wins this last month than Kirk has had his entire career with the Vikings! He could easily be a super bowl champ and possibly super bowl mvp in two weeks.

I think I can safely speak for the board when I say that if Cousins had gotten us to the super bowl, and gasp, WON the damn thing, many of us would be up in arms! It’s how sports works. Get your team to the promise land and win championships, and fans and coaches tend to be happier with you. And all this despite the fact that you didn’t win the super bowl all by yourself!

I must admit that you lost me here.

Look, it's ok if you want to value wins and losses as a personal statistic as much as most of you seem to. I don't. I don't in football, and I don't in baseball. I have always thought that wins and losses as a statistic for a pitcher is ludicrous. Instead, I watch a guy. And if I like what I see, that's good enough for me. I've seen QB's that I didn't think were all that hot, win a lot of games. I've seen QB's that I thought looked great, not win a ,of of games. I can't tell you how many times I've had the debate with Dan Marino haters who thought that because he had a losing record in the playoffs, and could never win a Super Bowl somehow meant he wasn't as good as someone like Terry Bradshaw. But hey, it's a free world. If you wanna use that to dictate that Bradshaw was a better QB, then have at it.

Several years ago, on this board I got into a debate about Keenum. At this point, I wasn't a big fan of Cousins. There were some Cousins supporters (I think) that asked me to name a QB's that I'd rather have. When I named Stafford, I was mocked because obviously I knew nothing about football because I was incapable of seeing his win-loss record and how much that proved that he was not a good QB. I believe many said that "he sucked". So I think it's safe to say that if these same people were looking for a QB to lead their team, they would not have considered Stafford because his win-loss record speaks for itself. Well again, I'm thinking that the Rams are glad that they looked beyond his win-loss record.

If Cousins goes to another team and ends up in the Super Bowl, it wouldn't surprise me. As I look back over the last several years, I personally put a TON more blame on the coaching than I do any other piece of the team.

If Cousins goes to another team and wins a Super Bowl I will gladly eat crow and I'll admit I was wrong. I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

The point is I have yet to see any poster say that the QB and the QB alone is 100% responsible for wins. That is an asinine take and everyone knows it.

And your point about Stafford is valid. He never beat good teams either. Which is why a record isn't the end all be all. Many other factors are in play. But let's please not pretend that playing for the Lions is even in the same stratosphere as the situation Cousins went into with the Vikings. Either every player who ever played for the Lions sucks, or they are just a terrible franchise. I'll let you determine which of those is true. To be clear, I don't think Cousins would do anything for the Lions.

It's possible the Rams looked at Stafford like I do. A very good QB who was in a very terrible situation for years. They gave up a fortune to land him, and now they're going to the Super Bowl. Seems like a very wise move to me at this point.

We'll see if a team is willing to give up the same to land Cousins. You're only as valuable as a franchise allows you to be. In the Rams eyes, Stafford was very valuable, and more importantly he's proving his value and playing in the biggest game of his life. In the Vikings eyes, Cousins was VERY valuable based on what they paid him; and where has that gotten us.

If a team ends up giving up the farm for Cousins, and he leads them to a Super Bowl, you have my word that I'll get right back on this board and say how wrong I was about Cousins. And I LIKE Cousins!

[VikingsVictorious]

Stop and think about what we’re debating here. That a QB who put up HOF type numbers, is one of the most durable and is starting in the Pro Bowl isn’t good enough.

Gardner Minshew is the 13th highest passer rated QB through his first 4 seasons of all time. He has averaged 1.87 TDs per start, 277 yards per start and only thrown .56 ints per start throughout his career. Kirk Cousins has averaged 1.86 TDs per start averaged 271 yards per start and thrown .76 ints per start. Jameis Winston was also a pro bowl injury replacement QB at one point.

Both of those guys will either be backups or competing for a starting spot next year.

Cousins will not be a backup or competing for a starting spot. Did you mean Winston and Minshew?

[CharVike]

One statistic common to every champion since 2013 – a stinginess on defense. All ranked in the Top 10 in scoring defense. They did not allow points. That’s been the one statistic universal to the success of all Super Bowl champions – 47 of the 54 winners ranked in the Top 10 in scoring defense. Of the 108 teams that have reached the Super Bowl, 89 of them ranked in the Top 10 in scoring defense. Bottom line when your defense sucks you have zero chance of a Super Bowl. As others posted it takes a team to get the prize. You could make the playoffs but you will get booted.
Maybe our new GM has a magical QB up his sleeve that can propel a 20th + ranked scoring D to the podium. That's highly unlikely but you never know. A miracle out of nowhere.