Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:36 am
But again this is something I mentioned before in a previous post. Keenum has been sacked 24 times this year in Denver (who has a better OL than we do). Cousins has been sacked 26. Keenum has scrambled NINE times this year. Cousins has scrambled 28. That is a giant difference and it's part of the reason why I dont buy into this argument of Keenum being so good under pressure. It's also continuing to tell me more and more about last season as well with Keenum. It was truly a Houdini type season he had.
He's not repeating ANY of last years success. With 6 games left, he's on pace for way less TDs, way more INTs, way less scrambles, way more sacks taken and a much worse record than last year. The Broncos arent the Raiders. They have talent on both sides of the ball. Not the talent the Vikings have, but not THAT far off either. Like PFF said, he's been one of the worst starting QBs in the league this year. Whether he "clicked" here or not, he's coming back to earth. Kirk Cousins played on some weaker teams than the Broncos in Washington and still played at a high level.
Keenum doesn't have what it takes to elevate a bad team for sure. Though, I don't think Cousins does either. Washington seems to be on pace to be better off without him. Maybe not now that they've lost their starting QB but I suppose we'll see.
Kirk Cousins is the better QB I'm just in the camp of not being sure that he's a big enough upgrade to the team.
For starters Keenum went from passing to the arguably best WR tandem in the league to ... not. I'm assuming your receivers getting open more consistently helps you not hold the ball so long.
The team isn't having as much success with Kirk playing but he's got a more difficult schedule and there are a bunch of other variables - though a lot of the core offense is still there.
Overall, the Vikings arent repeating last years success (which is much harder to do than some think) and there was a big QB change in the offseason. In turn, fans are looking for reasons and looking for someone or something to blame. Cousins pocket presence and fumbling is where some are resorting to. His mobility is another.
I think it's natural for people to focus on the biggest change and most expensive to the roster. When the team loses then people focus whatever his negatives might be. His pocket presence comes up because behind the offensive line (the actual biggest weakness of the team) it's his biggest exposed weakness.
The fumbles are a result of being hit/under pressure so much. That's not on him in my opinion. Like you point out, he's not really doing it at an abnormal rate anyway.
Zimmer, Spielman, the offensive line, DeFillipo, etc. When it comes to Cousins, again I'm not saying he's the best QB in the league, I'm not saying he's done nothing wrong but I am laying out the numbers to prove that this argument vs Keenum carries very little weight. These numbers dont lie.
I'm also not saying Keenum is a better QB than Cousins. I'm not sure the difference in production would be as significant for *this* team though ... especially in the Wins and Losses category.
The numbers don't lie but variables have to be considered. Do we think Keenum probably looks better if he's throwing to Diggs and Thielen? He very obviously does if last year is any indication.
Cousins is in the same company with the best in the biz when it comes to fumbles. He's scrambled way more than some think. He's not Russell Wilson from a mobility standpoint obviously, but he's not a stiff like Peyton Manning either. He's a pure pocket passer. Guys like Brady and Manning were stiffs in the pocket but were great QBs. Not comparing them with Cousins but that's the type of passer Cousins is. His 40 time was 4.93, Keenum was 4.82. It doesnt carry much weight but it's not like Keenum is a superior athlete to Cousins like Russell Wilson is.
And that type of QB isn't as compatible with a weak offensive line.
Keenum isn't a superior athlete (by a wide margin) which is what makes it even more weird to me. Keenum was definitely better at avoiding pressure and getting out of tough situations. Maybe it was a one year thing.
I just wont buy the Keenum argument. Never will. Whether it be record, stats, mobility, etc. Kirk Cousins was our best option IMO. I throw him $84 million any day. It's the going rate. He's pretty much better than Keenum in just about any category you could ask for when talking about a true, consistent QB.
I don't buy that Keenum would be doing significantly better this year. I am saying I don't think he'd be doing far worse (win/loss wise). His stats probably wouldn't be as good but how much worse would the team be doing where it matters?
I think what people end up arguing isn't that people think Keenum is better ... but rather it seems like the team messed with the "special sauce". They fixed a situation that wasn't broken.
I won't blame the team for upgrading a position and Cousins *is* an upgrade as a player and it was a tough decision. Then you start thinking about the salary and you look at the team's record and it seems like it wasn't worth it.
There are variables to keep in mind that are impacting the team's record for sure. That our offensive line coach died in the off season. New offensive coordinator. Our starting DE went out for several games after making a scene in the hotel where the players stay the day before they lost to the Bills.
The same question comes up though - how many more losses would the team have with Case at QB? We've beat all teams with losing records. 49ers, Cardinals, Eagles, Lions, Jets. Any doubts the team could beat those teams with Case at QB? I've got little.
How much better would the Bronco's record be with Cousins on the team?