Kirk Cousins calls a meeting this offseason....

[J. Kapp 11]

When you look for stats to confirm what you are saying you lose any shred of credibility. You need to look for the stats then come up with your theory. Not come up with your theory and then look for the stats that back your theory up. You've already admitted that's how you do it so you can't put that genie back in the bottle. I've never made anything up. I look at the big picture and realize we have a good QB.

I follow the scientific method:

The six steps of the scientific method include: 1) asking a question about something you observe, 2) doing background research to learn what is already known about the topic, 3) constructing a hypothesis, 4) experimenting to test the hypothesis, 5) analyzing the data from the experiment and drawing conclusions, and 6) communicating the results to others.

1) I observe Cousins being a .500 QB and ask why?
2) I do research to see what is already known about him losing half his starts
3) I construct a hypothesis that he just isn't good enough to overcome any sort of obstacle
4) I collect the stats in wins and losses, who the opponent is, what sort of obstacles he would have to overcome, etc.
5) I analyze the data and draw a conclusion that Cousins is indeed a .500 QB, because that is how he plays
6) I communicate here what I have found, much to the chagrin of fans who would like to pretend he is great despite the evidence pointing to different conclusion.

Again, I'm not a Cousins apologist. That should be clear by now. I do not think he's great. I do think he has flaws that hold him back from being as good as his physical skills and intellect should allow. I happen to believe those flaws are mental, not his intellect, but his tendency to panic when things break down, and his tendency to play worse when faced with adversity such as an interception.

But you are not following the scientific method. Your bias shows through, which negates anything resembling the scientific method. Every post you make about Cousins is either highly negative, or along the lines of "well he can do that, BUT it's offset by his tendency to suck." That's not scientific.

Also, anyone who purports to use the scientific method has to be able to stand up to the scrutiny of his peers. That's ALSO part of Step 6. Sorry dude, but we're your peers. Your comment "much to the chagrin of fans who would like to pretend he is great" shows me that you're not open to an opposing argument. In all the years I've seen you on this board, you never have been. I have never seen you change your mind on anything or adjust any hypothesis you've stated.

You use stats to back your arguments. But it's not the scientific method.

[VikingsVictorious]

When you look for stats to confirm what you are saying you lose any shred of credibility. You need to look for the stats then come up with your theory. Not come up with your theory and then look for the stats that back your theory up. You've already admitted that's how you do it so you can't put that genie back in the bottle. I've never made anything up. I look at the big picture and realize we have a good QB.

I follow the 2 step method
1) I decide Cousins sucks
2) I look for any stats that support my hypothesis and change stats when stats I used before fail me.

I corrected it for you.

[VikingsVictorious]

I follow the scientific method:


1) I observe Cousins being a .500 QB and ask why?
2) I do research to see what is already known about him losing half his starts
3) I construct a hypothesis that he just isn't good enough to overcome any sort of obstacle
4) I collect the stats in wins and losses, who the opponent is, what sort of obstacles he would have to overcome, etc.
5) I analyze the data and draw a conclusion that Cousins is indeed a .500 QB, because that is how he plays
6) I communicate here what I have found, much to the chagrin of fans who would like to pretend he is great despite the evidence pointing to different conclusion.

Again, I'm not a Cousins apologist. That should be clear by now. I do not think he's great. I do think he has flaws that hold him back from being as good as his physical skills and intellect should allow. I happen to believe those flaws are mental, not his intellect, but his tendency to panic when things break down, and his tendency to play worse when faced with adversity such as an interception.

But you are not following the scientific method. Your bias shows through, which negates anything resembling the scientific method. Every post you make about Cousins is either highly negative, or along the lines of "well he can do that, BUT it's offset by his tendency to suck." That's not scientific.

Also, anyone who purports to use the scientific method has to be able to stand up to the scrutiny of his peers. That's ALSO part of Step 6. Sorry dude, but we're your peers. Your comment "much to the chagrin of fans who would like to pretend he is great" shows me that you're not open to an opposing argument. In all the years I've seen you on this board, you never have been. I have never seen you change your mind on anything or adjust any hypothesis you've stated.

You use stats to back your arguments. But it's not the scientific method.

Amen

[StumpHunter]

I follow the scientific method:


1) I observe Cousins being a .500 QB and ask why?
2) I do research to see what is already known about him losing half his starts
3) I construct a hypothesis that he just isn't good enough to overcome any sort of obstacle
4) I collect the stats in wins and losses, who the opponent is, what sort of obstacles he would have to overcome, etc.
5) I analyze the data and draw a conclusion that Cousins is indeed a .500 QB, because that is how he plays
6) I communicate here what I have found, much to the chagrin of fans who would like to pretend he is great despite the evidence pointing to different conclusion.

Again, I'm not a Cousins apologist. That should be clear by now. I do not think he's great. I do think he has flaws that hold him back from being as good as his physical skills and intellect should allow. I happen to believe those flaws are mental, not his intellect, but his tendency to panic when things break down, and his tendency to play worse when faced with adversity such as an interception.

But you are not following the scientific method. Your bias shows through, which negates anything resembling the scientific method. Every post you make about Cousins is either highly negative, or along the lines of "well he can do that, BUT it's offset by his tendency to suck." That's not scientific.

At the end of the day the results speak for themselves, and when the results are negative, how can you possibly come to a positive conclusion without a sever case of delusion?

Also, anyone who purports to use the scientific method has to be able to stand up to the scrutiny of his peers. That's ALSO part of Step 6. Sorry dude, but we're your peers. Your comment "much to the chagrin of fans who would like to pretend he is great" shows me that you're not open to an opposing argument.

So if a scientist presents proof the Earth is a sphere in front of flat earthers that are factual, he isn't following the scientific method because the people he is presenting the arguments to don't want to believe them? Should that scientist be open to the earth being flat or should he just realize that theory is pure delusion not based on any fact, but on what people want to believe?

Do you think my posts would be taken differently on a different football team's board? Outside of them wondering why I was always posting about the Vikings, most would agree with everything I wrote, because their opinions wouldn't be clouded by fandom.

By the way, this right here is the perfect example of why threads get derailed. Instead of talking about points actually being made about whatever the thread is about, I am not defending the method in which I post because someone decided to argue the poster instead of the post. I am happy to engage them because it amuses me, but I doubt others on the board like it.

[allday1991]

Again, I'm not a Cousins apologist. That should be clear by now. I do not think he's great. I do think he has flaws that hold him back from being as good as his physical skills and intellect should allow. I happen to believe those flaws are mental, not his intellect, but his tendency to panic when things break down, and his tendency to play worse when faced with adversity such as an interception.

But you are not following the scientific method. Your bias shows through, which negates anything resembling the scientific method. Every post you make about Cousins is either highly negative, or along the lines of "well he can do that, BUT it's offset by his tendency to suck." That's not scientific.

At the end of the day the results speak for themselves, and when the results are negative, how can you possibly come to a positive conclusion without a sever case of delusion?

Also, anyone who purports to use the scientific method has to be able to stand up to the scrutiny of his peers. That's ALSO part of Step 6. Sorry dude, but we're your peers. Your comment "much to the chagrin of fans who would like to pretend he is great" shows me that you're not open to an opposing argument.

So if a scientist presents proof the Earth is a sphere in front of flat earthers that are factual, he isn't following the scientific method because the people he is presenting the arguments to don't want to believe them? Should that scientist be open to the earth being flat or should he just realize that theory is pure delusion not based on any fact, but on what people want to believe?

Do you think my posts would be taken differently on a different football team's board? Outside of them wondering why I was always posting about the Vikings, most would agree with everything I wrote, because their opinions wouldn't be clouded by fandom.

By the way, this right here is the perfect example of why threads get derailed. Instead of talking about points actually being made about whatever the thread is about, I am not defending the method in which I post because someone decided to argue the poster instead of the post. I am happy to engage them because it amuses me, but I doubt others on the board like it.

Scientific method for football evaluation? You guys are way over thinking this. Scientific method works for controlled experiments, nothing controlled about the nfl.

[JJBreaksRecords]

There was a time when almost everyone on this board disliked cousins)I assume, (i havent gone through all the threads back then) and wanted him gone. Now the same people are praising him and talking about scientific facts. Next we will hear about how glorious his stats are (just the ones that done mean much) which are mostly useless. But his biggest stat of off all is robbery. Millions and millions from the Wilfs (who cares about that really) but also from the Viking fans. I am so sick of Cousins and the endless excuses that come year after year, that I could spit. And 2 years from now the players giving Kirk their praise, will be hating on him on this board. Until the Wilfs tell KAM to hire Kirk again....

[VikingsVictorious]

There was a time when almost everyone on this board disliked cousins)I assume, (i havent gone through all the threads back then) and wanted him gone. Now the same people are praising him and talking about scientific facts. Next we will hear about how glorious his stats are (just the ones that done mean much) which are mostly useless. But his biggest stat of off all is robbery. Millions and millions from the Wilfs (who cares about that really) but also from the Viking fans. I am so sick of Cousins and the endless excuses that come year after year, that I could spit. And 2 years from now the players giving Kirk their praise, will be hating on him on this board. Until the Wilfs tell KAM to hire Kirk again....

You're just blind to the fact that he has played quite well for us. Not much we can do for you.

[VikingsVictorious]

Again, I'm not a Cousins apologist. That should be clear by now. I do not think he's great. I do think he has flaws that hold him back from being as good as his physical skills and intellect should allow. I happen to believe those flaws are mental, not his intellect, but his tendency to panic when things break down, and his tendency to play worse when faced with adversity such as an interception.

But you are not following the scientific method. Your bias shows through, which negates anything resembling the scientific method. Every post you make about Cousins is either highly negative, or along the lines of "well he can do that, BUT it's offset by his tendency to suck." That's not scientific.

At the end of the day the results speak for themselves, and when the results are negative, how can you possibly come to a positive conclusion without a sever case of delusion?

Also, anyone who purports to use the scientific method has to be able to stand up to the scrutiny of his peers. That's ALSO part of Step 6. Sorry dude, but we're your peers. Your comment "much to the chagrin of fans who would like to pretend he is great" shows me that you're not open to an opposing argument.

So if a scientist presents proof the Earth is a sphere in front of flat earthers that are factual, he isn't following the scientific method because the people he is presenting the arguments to don't want to believe them? Should that scientist be open to the earth being flat or should he just realize that theory is pure delusion not based on any fact, but on what people want to believe?

Do you think my posts would be taken differently on a different football team's board? Outside of them wondering why I was always posting about the Vikings, most would agree with everything I wrote, because their opinions wouldn't be clouded by fandom.

By the way, this right here is the perfect example of why threads get derailed. Instead of talking about points actually being made about whatever the thread is about, I am not defending the method in which I post because someone decided to argue the poster instead of the post. I am happy to engage them because it amuses me, but I doubt others on the board like it.

Your idea of Scientific method is you start with a conclusion and then look for evidence that supports your conclusion and dismiss all evidence that doesn't. Nothing scientific about your methods.

[halfgiz]

Everyone that looks at QB performance forgets one thing. The offence had to keep scoring because the defense was "below average."
But when the offense is ranked in the bottom 1/3 of the league in 3rd down conversions. I would say there is plenty of blame on both sides of the ball.
Not just it’s the defenses fault.
Definitely need to improve on both sides of the ball.

[CharVike]

Everyone that looks at QB performance forgets one thing. The offence had to keep scoring because the defense was "below average."
But when the offense is ranked in the bottom 1/3 of the league in 3rd down conversions. I would say there is plenty of blame on both sides of the ball.
Not just it’s the defenses fault.
Definitely need to improve on both sides of the ball.

You can also put some blame on our special teams. Couldn't make a 37 yard FG for a win, allowed a punt return for a TD against the Rams which didn't help us. That's just off the top of my head. Not all 3rd down conversions are the same. Was it 3rd and inches or 3rd and 20. We had some games were the holding penalties were very high.This Holder Olli was a joke and if I was the coach he would have been gone. Holding don't help drives. Against the Browns when our O really struggled we had a 37 yard completion to Jefferson which was called back for holding on Conklin. In that same game Myles Garrett just blew up Rashod Hill. Hill shouldn't be on the field but that's what is on the roster. No team out there has a complete team across the board. The cap won't allow that. I take a much more simple approach. We had over 400 points put up against us. That gives you zero chance. Even if you have the best O every game will be a nail bitter and a stupid mistake will end your chance at victory. We had them all. Fumbles, interceptions, missed FGs ect..... We need to improve our points allowed or we are dead meat. I look at that Saint team and they don't give up many points but they have problems scoring. I get the feeling that they are looking to deal because they have 2 1st round picks. Got off track.

[JJBreaksRecords]

There was a time when almost everyone on this board disliked cousins)I assume, (i havent gone through all the threads back then) and wanted him gone. Now the same people are praising him and talking about scientific facts. Next we will hear about how glorious his stats are (just the ones that done mean much) which are mostly useless. But his biggest stat of off all is robbery. Millions and millions from the Wilfs (who cares about that really) but also from the Viking fans. I am so sick of Cousins and the endless excuses that come year after year, that I could spit. And 2 years from now the players giving Kirk their praise, will be hating on him on this board. Until the Wilfs tell KAM to hire Kirk again....

You're just blind to the fact that he has played quite well for us. Not much we can do for you.

I just love your personal insults, keep them coming.

[VikingsVictorious]

You're just blind to the fact that he has played quite well for us. Not much we can do for you.

I just love your personal insults, keep them coming.

Sorry if that seemed like a personal insult. It was just an observation of your perception of Kirk. You probably think I'm blind to how bad he sucks.

[Cliff]

It's like when your boss schedules a meeting except someone wrote an article about it.

[vikeinmontana]

It's like when your boss schedules a meeting except someone wrote an article about it.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Everyone that looks at QB performance forgets one thing. The offence had to keep scoring because the defense was "below average."
But when the offense is ranked in the bottom 1/3 of the league in 3rd down conversions. I would say there is plenty of blame on both sides of the ball.
Not just it’s the defenses fault.
Definitely need to improve on both sides of the ball.

You can also put some blame on our special teams. Couldn't make a 37 yard FG for a win, allowed a punt return for a TD against the Rams which didn't help us. That's just off the top of my head. Not all 3rd down conversions are the same. Was it 3rd and inches or 3rd and 20. We had some games were the holding penalties were very high.This Holder Olli was a joke and if I was the coach he would have been gone. Holding don't help drives. Against the Browns when our O really struggled we had a 37 yard completion to Jefferson which was called back for holding on Conklin. In that same game Myles Garrett just blew up Rashod Hill. Hill shouldn't be on the field but that's what is on the roster. No team out there has a complete team across the board. The cap won't allow that. I take a much more simple approach. We had over 400 points put up against us. That gives you zero chance. Even if you have the best O every game will be a nail bitter and a stupid mistake will end your chance at victory. We had them all. Fumbles, interceptions, missed FGs ect..... We need to improve our points allowed or we are dead meat. I look at that Saint team and they don't give up many points but they have problems scoring. I get the feeling that they are looking to deal because they have 2 1st round picks. Got off track.

It just simply shows this is a TEAM game. There is only so much in the QBs control. Cousins doesnt kick for them, he doesnt play defense for them, he doesnt coach them, etc.

I'm not sure how anyone can point to Cousins for the Arizona loss when he literally put them in position to win. Similar to the Cincy game when Dalvin fumbled. Like sure we could all sit here and say "well if Cousins put up more points in quarter A then the game would result in B". But we can also say that about the defense, the special teams, the coaching decisions, etc. Why does that strictly apply to Cousins but nobody else with some fans? Yeah Cousins could've done "more" but Greg Joseph could've also not missed a chip shot, the defense could've not given up 34 points, Mike Zimmer could've worked to get closer with the amount of time we had left in that game, etc.

More and more reason this is a TEAM game.