Kirk Cousins wanted three years, Vikings turned him down

[StumpHunter]

Taking less fully guaranteed money per year than Jones, 4 year AAV that only has 82 million guaranteed is not offering a discount over Jones unless Cousins was willing to take 30 million per year or less over the next 3 years. It could be he just wanted 36 or even 39 million per year fully guaranteed and his agent is calling that a discount. In that case, Cousins would likely make more money in those three seasons than Jones will, and unlike with Jones, the Vikings wouldn't have the option to move on after year 2 on the extension.

It is nice and all that the Vikings aren't allowing Kirk to bend them over for a 4th time in a row, but this is far from over. Despite acknowledging the fact Kirk isn't the answer with this decision to not go all in on him once again, the Vikings have proven to be unwilling to do what it takes to actually draft their QBOTF under the current ownership. Kirk will have another season where he isn't good enough to elevate the team, isn't bad enough to get benched, and the Vikings will cave in fear once again and might give him an extension next March.

There is also the question of why the Vikings don't just trade Kirk if they are unwilling to come to an agreement with him to help them get the ammo they need to find that QBOTF. Either no team is offering anything of value or again, the Vikings are too scared to do what it takes to actually improve that spot.

Jones blows. He has thrown over 20 TDs once in his career. Last year 15. If I was GM I would have said see ya stiff. 15 TDs this year is a joke.

He also had 7 rushing TDs to go along with those passing TDs and he wasn't exactly throwing to JJ and Hockenson out there. His #1 WR is on the same level as KJ Osborn and his #2 is a 27 year old WR who prior to 2022 had never broken 400 yards. I don't think he is worth what the Giants paid him, and that is why I don't think he will earn his 3rd season, but he already has as many playoff wins as Kirk has.

The Vikings don't trade Kirk because they put that stupid no trade clause in.

That didn't stop Houston from trading Watson and Seattle from trading Wilson. If the Vikings make it clear they want to move on and he is allowed to negotiate an extension with his future team, he would waive that clause.

This elevating a team is nonsense. We had one of the worst defenses I have ever seen us have, a terrible injury riddled OL and we still won 13 games and won the division.

The Vikings defensive PPD given up:2.13
KC's: 2.11

Over a season that amounts to one extra FG given up, yet KC won the SB while the Vikings lost to the Giants in the WC round. That was after losing the 2nd best WR in football via trade.

I know Mahomes had little to do with that though, and KC would have been just as likely to win it all with Kirk at QB.

It took the whole team playing together. It wasn't one guy because it never is.

What a profound statement.

We missed our chance when M Jones the national champion winning QB fell in our laps and Speilman said no thanks he sucks. He would be in the wings right now. Currently we have nothing on deck and a vet playing a swan song season. A team can't be any dumber than that.

You call Daniel Jones a scrub for throwing 15 TDs, while being upset about the Vikings not drafting Mac Jones who threw for 14 and only ran for 1?

[allday1991]

The Vikings defensive PPD given up:2.13
KC's: 2.11

Over a season that amounts to one extra FG given up, yet KC won the SB while the Vikings lost to the Giants in the WC round. That was after losing the 2nd best WR in football via trade.

I know Mahomes had little to do with that though, and KC would have been just as likely to win it all with Kirk at QB.

Your math is a bit off. Vikings defence gave up 1000 more total yards, one more touchdown and 15 more fields goals compared to the KC defence. A little bit more than one field goal difference.

[StumpHunter]

The Vikings defensive PPD given up:2.13
KC's: 2.11

Over a season that amounts to one extra FG given up, yet KC won the SB while the Vikings lost to the Giants in the WC round. That was after losing the 2nd best WR in football via trade.

I know Mahomes had little to do with that though, and KC would have been just as likely to win it all with Kirk at QB.

Your math is a bit off. Vikings defence gave up 1000 more total yards, one more touchdown and 15 more fields goals compared to the KC defence. A little bit more than one field goal difference.

Nope, my math was fine. KC's D was asked to defend 12 fewer drives than MN's which is an entire game's worth. So while KC gave up fewer points overall, their points given up were almost identical when factoring in how poor of a job the offense did for MN's defense keeping them off the field.

[CharVike]

Your math is a bit off. Vikings defence gave up 1000 more total yards, one more touchdown and 15 more fields goals compared to the KC defence. A little bit more than one field goal difference.

Nope, my math was fine. KC's D was asked to defend 12 fewer drives than MN's which is an entire game's worth. So while KC gave up fewer points overall, their points given up were almost identical when factoring in how poor of a job the offense did for MN's defense keeping them off the field.

The Chiefs only gave up 40 points in 2 playoff games and we gave up 31 in 1 to a team with a pitiful offense. That's prime time. Mahomes gets the win and many will say it was all him and nobody else did a dam thing. Mahomes was knocked out the 1st playoff game and some bum QB named Henne came in there and lead them on a 98 yard TD drive. They had some RB do the heavy work. But Kirk would do nothing with that team. Makes sense. KC also had a much better ground attack than us which helps a D. Maybe that was also all Mahomes. They ran the ball fine for Henne also. It comes down to blocking. The D helped them win the SB by scoring a TD when Hurts drop the ball when trying to take off. Wasn't even touched. Bad pocket presence. If Kirk did that everyone would say he didn't want to win. I've heard that over and over.

[allday1991]

Your math is a bit off. Vikings defence gave up 1000 more total yards, one more touchdown and 15 more fields goals compared to the KC defence. A little bit more than one field goal difference.

Nope, my math was fine. KC's D was asked to defend 12 fewer drives than MN's which is an entire game's worth. So while KC gave up fewer points overall, their points given up were almost identical when factoring in how poor of a job the offense did for MN's defense keeping them off the field.

Even if you factor in 12 more drives, you’re telling me in 12 drives Kc will put up 1000 yards of offence 1 td and 15 field goals? Just doesn’t add up. There was a clear difference in defence and the only stat you picked was the closest to being the same. Seems a bit cherry picked.

[StumpHunter]

Nope, my math was fine. KC's D was asked to defend 12 fewer drives than MN's which is an entire game's worth. So while KC gave up fewer points overall, their points given up were almost identical when factoring in how poor of a job the offense did for MN's defense keeping them off the field.

Even if you factor in 12 more drives, you’re telling me in 12 drives Kc will put up 1000 yards of offence 1 td and 15 field goals? Just doesn’t add up. There was a clear difference in defence and the only stat you picked was the closest to being the same. Seems a bit cherry picked.

Vikings had 187 drives they needed to defend last season, giving up 2.13 points per drive. 187*2.13 is 395.31 points given up (ignore the rounding issue). 395.3 - 3/187 = 2.11. Math checks out.

The only stat I picked was the one impacting wins and losses directly: points given up. If we are talking which defense was actually better, yards are a factor there, but as far as impacting the team's ability to win goes, points given up is by far the most important stat. So not cherry picking, just picking the stat that is actually most germane to the argument.

[Cliff]

Even if you factor in 12 more drives, you’re telling me in 12 drives Kc will put up 1000 yards of offence 1 td and 15 field goals? Just doesn’t add up. There was a clear difference in defence and the only stat you picked was the closest to being the same. Seems a bit cherry picked.

Vikings had 187 drives they needed to defend last season, giving up 2.13 points per drive. 187*2.13 is 395.31 points given up (ignore the rounding issue). 395.3 - 3/187 = 2.11. Math checks out.

The only stat I picked was the one impacting wins and losses directly: points given up. If we are talking which defense was actually better, yards are a factor there, but as far as impacting the team's ability to win goes, points given up is by far the most important stat. So not cherry picking, just picking the stat that is actually most germane to the argument.

Wouldn't a better stat for this be scoring percentage? So the percentage of drives that the defense gives up a score? By that metric the Chiefs are 15th and the Vikings are 28th so it's a pretty big discrepancy there.

For KC 35.9% of defended drives ended with a score for the Vikings 41.1% ended with a score.

As far as the points per drive stat, if the math checks out then something is wrong with the logic of the formula you're using. KC giving up 1TD, 1000 yards, and 15 field goals in 12 drives isn't possible.

[CharVike]

Jones blows. He has thrown over 20 TDs once in his career. Last year 15. If I was GM I would have said see ya stiff. 15 TDs this year is a joke.

He also had 7 rushing TDs to go along with those passing TDs and he wasn't exactly throwing to JJ and Hockenson out there. His #1 WR is on the same level as KJ Osborn and his #2 is a 27 year old WR who prior to 2022 had never broken 400 yards. I don't think he is worth what the Giants paid him, and that is why I don't think he will earn his 3rd season, but he already has as many playoff wins as Kirk has.

The Vikings don't trade Kirk because they put that stupid no trade clause in.

That didn't stop Houston from trading Watson and Seattle from trading Wilson. If the Vikings make it clear they want to move on and he is allowed to negotiate an extension with his future team, he would waive that clause.

This elevating a team is nonsense. We had one of the worst defenses I have ever seen us have, a terrible injury riddled OL and we still won 13 games and won the division.

The Vikings defensive PPD given up:2.13
KC's: 2.11

Over a season that amounts to one extra FG given up, yet KC won the SB while the Vikings lost to the Giants in the WC round. That was after losing the 2nd best WR in football via trade.

I know Mahomes had little to do with that though, and KC would have been just as likely to win it all with Kirk at QB.

It took the whole team playing together. It wasn't one guy because it never is.

What a profound statement.

We missed our chance when M Jones the national champion winning QB fell in our laps and Speilman said no thanks he sucks. He would be in the wings right now. Currently we have nothing on deck and a vet playing a swan song season. A team can't be any dumber than that.

You call Daniel Jones a scrub for throwing 15 TDs, while being upset about the Vikings not drafting Mac Jones who threw for 14 and only ran for 1?

Points allowed we were 30 and KC was 18. PPD doesn't count for anything. You can say Jones isn't very good which is ok it's your opinion. He took a non playoff team to the playoffs as a rookie. He had a bad year last season. It's not over. I wanted Jones. Maybe he is done. It's only year 3. The G men can have that QB. He is a great runner. That only last so long. Sometimes a QB makes WR better. I'm more concerned with our next string of QBs. The other don't mean anything. I just have an opinion. Not everyone will agree.

[StumpHunter]

Vikings had 187 drives they needed to defend last season, giving up 2.13 points per drive. 187*2.13 is 395.31 points given up (ignore the rounding issue). 395.3 - 3/187 = 2.11. Math checks out.

The only stat I picked was the one impacting wins and losses directly: points given up. If we are talking which defense was actually better, yards are a factor there, but as far as impacting the team's ability to win goes, points given up is by far the most important stat. So not cherry picking, just picking the stat that is actually most germane to the argument.

Wouldn't a better stat for this be scoring percentage? So the percentage of drives that the defense gives up a score? By that metric the Chiefs are 15th and the Vikings are 28th so it's a pretty big discrepancy there.


For KC 35.9% of defended drives ended with a score for the Vikings 41.1% ended with a score.

That depends, do you think giving up 5 FGs on 10 drives makes it more difficult to win than giving up 4 TDs in 10 drives?

If overcoming 15 points given up is more difficult than overcoming 28, than yeah, scoring percentage is the more important stat when it comes to the defensive impact on winning. If not, then I will stick with PPD.

As far as the points per drive stat, if the math checks out then something is wrong with the logic of the formula you're using. KC giving up 1TD, 1000 yards, and 15 field goals in 12 drives isn't possible.

The Vikings gave up significantly more yards than KC per drive so the 1K more yards checks out. Yards don't factor into the final score though.

The Vikings gave up 2 fewer TDs on defense than KC, and 15 more FGs. I am not sure where his scoring numbers came from. It does appear there is a discrepancy between football outsiders and pro football reference though. Football outsiders has the Vikings with 187 drives, PFR has them at 192 and since I can verify PFR total points against other sources and they are correct, we can go with them. Going with PFR the difference is actually a single TD, not a FG.

PFR is also free so I can actually link to it:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... 22/opp.htm

[StumpHunter]

He also had 7 rushing TDs to go along with those passing TDs and he wasn't exactly throwing to JJ and Hockenson out there. His #1 WR is on the same level as KJ Osborn and his #2 is a 27 year old WR who prior to 2022 had never broken 400 yards. I don't think he is worth what the Giants paid him, and that is why I don't think he will earn his 3rd season, but he already has as many playoff wins as Kirk has.


That didn't stop Houston from trading Watson and Seattle from trading Wilson. If the Vikings make it clear they want to move on and he is allowed to negotiate an extension with his future team, he would waive that clause.



The Vikings defensive PPD given up:2.13
KC's: 2.11

Over a season that amounts to one extra FG given up, yet KC won the SB while the Vikings lost to the Giants in the WC round. That was after losing the 2nd best WR in football via trade.

I know Mahomes had little to do with that though, and KC would have been just as likely to win it all with Kirk at QB.


What a profound statement.


You call Daniel Jones a scrub for throwing 15 TDs, while being upset about the Vikings not drafting Mac Jones who threw for 14 and only ran for 1?

Points allowed we were 30 and KC was 18. PPD doesn't count for anything.

Points allowed we were tied for 28th, KC was 16th.

What is wrong with adding more context around a stat? PPG doesn't count for anything either and is essentially trying to do the same thing PPD does, only not as well. It includes TDs scored when the defense isn't even on the field and it doesn't account for offenses that can't sustain drives and constantly put the D on the field. PPD is just the better all around stat for establishing how difficult it is for an offense to overcome the points given up by their D.

You can say Jones isn't very good which is ok it's your opinion. He took a non playoff team to the playoffs as a rookie. He had a bad year last season. It's not over. I wanted Jones. Maybe he is done. It's only year 3. The G men can have that QB. He is a great runner. That only last so long. Sometimes a QB makes WR better. I'm more concerned with our next string of QBs. The other don't mean anything. I just have an opinion. Not everyone will agree.

You can still believe in Mac Jones, I have no issue with that, I just find it funny how inconsistent you appear to be between the two Jones QBs. One Jones has 22 TDs total on the season and leads a pretty mediocre team to a playoff win while the other Jones has 15 TDs total and is unable to take a team with the 4th best scoring D (PPD) to the playoffs period. Yet you say the first Jones is a scrub and are still upset about not drafting the second one?

[CharVike]

Wouldn't a better stat for this be scoring percentage? So the percentage of drives that the defense gives up a score? By that metric the Chiefs are 15th and the Vikings are 28th so it's a pretty big discrepancy there.


For KC 35.9% of defended drives ended with a score for the Vikings 41.1% ended with a score.

That depends, do you think giving up 5 FGs on 10 drives makes it more difficult to win than giving up 4 TDs in 10 drives?

If overcoming 15 points given up is more difficult than overcoming 28, than yeah, scoring percentage is the more important stat when it comes to the defensive impact on winning. If not, then I will stick with PPD.

As far as the points per drive stat, if the math checks out then something is wrong with the logic of the formula you're using. KC giving up 1TD, 1000 yards, and 15 field goals in 12 drives isn't possible.

The Vikings gave up significantly more yards than KC per drive so the 1K more yards checks out. Yards don't factor into the final score though.

The Vikings gave up 2 fewer TDs on defense than KC, and 15 more FGs. I am not sure where his scoring numbers came from. It does appear there is a discrepancy between football outsiders and pro football reference though. Football outsiders has the Vikings with 187 drives, PFR has them at 192 and since I can verify PFR total points against other sources and they are correct, we can go with them. Going with PFR the difference is actually a single TD, not a FG.

PFR is also free so I can actually link to it:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... 22/opp.htm

Yes Mac Jones blew up his 2nd year. I don't know what happened. Maybe teams figured out what he was doing and they adjusted and he couldn't handle that. I found this piece.
This season, though, Jones has been a disaster when pressured, ranking 34th of 35 quarterbacks in EPA per play while throwing just one touchdown pass and five interceptions to go with a meager 4.5 yards per attempt. That seems to stem from a lack of trust in the front five.Nov 15, 2022
I don't even know what EPA is and don't care. It looks like he can't handle pressure. Pressure is another deal which is not an exact measurement. Just like hurries. Who the hell knows what that is. Looks like the guy blows when pressured. From my experience watching most if not all QBs don't play the same when pressured. That's why the great defenses like our PPE and the 85 Bears ect... all pressured the QB big time. Page was the MVP in 1970 I think. That don't happen very often. I don't watch college but I also liked this about Jones.
Alabama would go on to win the 2021 College Football Playoff National Championship game against the Ohio State Buckeyes 52–24, with Jones throwing 5 touchdown passes. Jones finished the season throwing for 4,500 yards with 41 touchdowns and four interceptions.
I prefer a passer and that is some great passing. Of course I'm sure he played against a bunch of teams that his team over matched big time and blew them out. He probably had no pressure or sacks or hurries ect... all season. The OL saved his a$$.
Our team needs to concentrate on the OL and get that into the top 10 our I don't see us ever competing unless we pull a Bengals deal and play super D in the playoffs. We haven't done that in a long time.

[allday1991]

Wouldn't a better stat for this be scoring percentage? So the percentage of drives that the defense gives up a score? By that metric the Chiefs are 15th and the Vikings are 28th so it's a pretty big discrepancy there.


For KC 35.9% of defended drives ended with a score for the Vikings 41.1% ended with a score.

That depends, do you think giving up 5 FGs on 10 drives makes it more difficult to win than giving up 4 TDs in 10 drives?

If overcoming 15 points given up is more difficult than overcoming 28, than yeah, scoring percentage is the more important stat when it comes to the defensive impact on winning. If not, then I will stick with PPD.

As far as the points per drive stat, if the math checks out then something is wrong with the logic of the formula you're using. KC giving up 1TD, 1000 yards, and 15 field goals in 12 drives isn't possible.

The Vikings gave up significantly more yards than KC per drive so the 1K more yards checks out. Yards don't factor into the final score though.

The Vikings gave up 2 fewer TDs on defense than KC, and 15 more FGs. I am not sure where his scoring numbers came from. It does appear there is a discrepancy between football outsiders and pro football reference though. Football outsiders has the Vikings with 187 drives, PFR has them at 192 and since I can verify PFR total points against other sources and they are correct, we can go with them. Going with PFR the difference is actually a single TD, not a FG.

PFR is also free so I can actually link to it:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... 22/opp.htm

I used NFL.com since they're the organization that has the final say, what there records say is what is written in the books. I dunno why you'd use anything other than the actual entity that runs the league.
NFL.com has KC giving up 43 passing tds and 23 fields goals https://www.nfl.com/teams/kansas-city-chiefs/stats
NFL.com has Minneosta giving up 44 tds 38 field goals. https://www.nfl.com/teams/minnesota-vikings/stats

What is also telling is KC gave up 25 FG attempts while we gave up 44. which I think further proves our defense provided a lot less resistance. Also id argue total yard does tell you a lot, if a team drives 80 yards a misses a field goal due to there own error do you really praise the defense for this? Sure it makes the PPG look better but definitely doesn't mean the defense is good or did there job.

[StumpHunter]

That depends, do you think giving up 5 FGs on 10 drives makes it more difficult to win than giving up 4 TDs in 10 drives?

If overcoming 15 points given up is more difficult than overcoming 28, than yeah, scoring percentage is the more important stat when it comes to the defensive impact on winning. If not, then I will stick with PPD.


The Vikings gave up significantly more yards than KC per drive so the 1K more yards checks out. Yards don't factor into the final score though.

The Vikings gave up 2 fewer TDs on defense than KC, and 15 more FGs. I am not sure where his scoring numbers came from. It does appear there is a discrepancy between football outsiders and pro football reference though. Football outsiders has the Vikings with 187 drives, PFR has them at 192 and since I can verify PFR total points against other sources and they are correct, we can go with them. Going with PFR the difference is actually a single TD, not a FG.

PFR is also free so I can actually link to it:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... 22/opp.htm

I used NFL.com since they're the organization that has the final say, what there records say is what is written in the books. I dunno why you'd use anything other than the actual entity that runs the league.
NFL.com has KC giving up 43 passing tds and 23 fields goals https://www.nfl.com/teams/kansas-city-chiefs/stats
NFL.com has Minneosta giving up 44 tds 38 field goals. https://www.nfl.com/teams/minnesota-vikings/stats

NFL.com runs the league? Interesting.

That 44 TDs includes 3 TDs scored when the D wasn't on the field. Should we include those in the points given up by the defense?KC gave up 0 TDs on offense or STs this season. So KC gave up 2 more TDs than the Vikings on DEFENSE.

What is also telling is KC gave up 25 FG attempts while we gave up 44. which I think further proves our defense provided a lot less resistance. Also id argue total yard does tell you a lot, if a team drives 80 yards a misses a field goal due to there own error do you really praise the defense for this? Sure it makes the PPG look better but definitely doesn't mean the defense is good or did there job.

That is a good argument for which defense was better, not for which defense made it more difficult for the team to win. Luck, for lack of a better term, plays a big factor in success and the Vikings D was actually incredibly lucky last season.

An opportune fumble against the Bears, the Lions making poor decisions on fourth down in their first meeting, and as you pointed out, a bunch of missed FGs means that D was worse than the PPD indicate and should make us all very nervous about the upcoming season.

To go back to the original point though, luck or no luck, KC's D gave up a similar number of points as MN's D, was a disaster in their final game of the season, and because of primarily their QB, they ended the season with a +127 point differential and a SB ring compared to our -3 point differential and a first round bounce to a bad Giants team.

[allday1991]

I used NFL.com since they're the organization that has the final say, what there records say is what is written in the books. I dunno why you'd use anything other than the actual entity that runs the league.
NFL.com has KC giving up 43 passing tds and 23 fields goals https://www.nfl.com/teams/kansas-city-chiefs/stats
NFL.com has Minneosta giving up 44 tds 38 field goals. https://www.nfl.com/teams/minnesota-vikings/stats

NFL.com runs the league? Interesting.

That 44 TDs includes 3 TDs scored when the D wasn't on the field. Should we include those in the points given up by the defense?KC gave up 0 TDs on offense or STs this season. So KC gave up 2 more TDs than the Vikings on DEFENSE.

What is also telling is KC gave up 25 FG attempts while we gave up 44. which I think further proves our defense provided a lot less resistance. Also id argue total yard does tell you a lot, if a team drives 80 yards a misses a field goal due to there own error do you really praise the defense for this? Sure it makes the PPG look better but definitely doesn't mean the defense is good or did there job.

That is a good argument for which defense was better, not for which defense made it more difficult for the team to win. Luck, for lack of a better term, plays a big factor in success and the Vikings D was actually incredibly lucky last season.

An opportune fumble against the Bears, the Lions making poor decisions on fourth down in their first meeting, and as you pointed out, a bunch of missed FGs means that D was worse than the PPD indicate and should make us all very nervous about the upcoming season.

To go back to the original point though, luck or no luck, KC's D gave up a similar number of points as MN's D, was a disaster in their final game of the season, and because of primarily their QB, they ended the season with a +127 point differential and a SB ring compared to our -3 point differential and a first round bounce to a bad Giants team.

Fair point, I’d agree special teams shouldn’t affect defensive stats. I’d also agree “luck” all around was on the Viking side last year. However I don’t believe Mahomes is the only difference in our teams, I still think if we had Mahomes last year we wouldn’t have won the bowl. But I can respect why people might disagree.

[StumpHunter]

NFL.com runs the league? Interesting.

That 44 TDs includes 3 TDs scored when the D wasn't on the field. Should we include those in the points given up by the defense?KC gave up 0 TDs on offense or STs this season. So KC gave up 2 more TDs than the Vikings on DEFENSE.


That is a good argument for which defense was better, not for which defense made it more difficult for the team to win. Luck, for lack of a better term, plays a big factor in success and the Vikings D was actually incredibly lucky last season.

An opportune fumble against the Bears, the Lions making poor decisions on fourth down in their first meeting, and as you pointed out, a bunch of missed FGs means that D was worse than the PPD indicate and should make us all very nervous about the upcoming season.

To go back to the original point though, luck or no luck, KC's D gave up a similar number of points as MN's D, was a disaster in their final game of the season, and because of primarily their QB, they ended the season with a +127 point differential and a SB ring compared to our -3 point differential and a first round bounce to a bad Giants team.

Fair point, I’d agree special teams shouldn’t affect defensive stats. I’d also agree “luck” all around was on the Viking side last year. However I don’t believe Mahomes is the only difference in our teams, I still think if we had Mahomes last year we wouldn’t have won the bowl. But I can respect why people might disagree.

I don't think Mahomes is the only difference, just the biggest difference. Kelce is elite and Reed is a great HC.

If Mahomes were on the Vikings I do think the Vikings are competing for the SB, but there is never a guarantee we win one no matter who the QB is.