Kyle Rudolph unfollows Vikings after Irv Smith Jr. drafted

[VikingLord]

They felt that way last year too.

But to be fair to them last year

- It was a different "them" in terms of coaches
- At this point last year the OL they expected to have was different than the OL they actually had due to injuries that weren't yet known.

[StumpHunter]

Murray wanted to start so bad he went to a team with a healthier, better starting RB.

I KNOW you really liked them both. Conveniently we didn't want either back now. I am sure the same will be true with who ever we lose next year too. "We didn't want those guys anyway"

I played against Latavius Murray, like Latavius Murray and think he's a good player. I like Sheldon Richardson and think he's a good player. I just posted about being a fan of him. But since I like them that means the Vikings are suppose to want them back? I can assure you I dont have that kind of power. Nor did I all of the sudden say they werent good players or something. So what are you trying to prove? You had no proof that we wanted them back. You just knew they were the best two players we let go so you're going to claim them as cap casualties due to Cousins.....just to help your argument. And then have no proof of it.....

And anyone that watches football knows that the Saints use their #2 RB just as much as Kamara. Every year Kamara has been there Ingram went for over 1,000 outside of this past year where he missed 4 games. If he played in those 4 games, he needed about 87 yards a game to break 1000 which was more than possible. If anything he'd be a touch short. So yeah, Murray went to a team where he will get significantly more playing time than he would here if Cook was healthy all season. When Cook was healthy, more often than not Murray was getting about 5-6 carries a game. Ingram was getting double to triple that in New Orleans. So I have no clue where you're trying to go there either.

Stop arguing just to argue. You watch football enough to where you should know the RB situation in New Orleans and you know that if I like a player it doesnt mean the Vikings will keep him nor does it mean they were let go because of Kirk Cousins contract. I never once said "we didnt want them anyways". Murray expressed his concern. Richardson had little talks to us. I like both players but they were bound to go somewhere else. I'm being realistic here, not just claiming them as losses because of Cousins.

Murray had more carries than Cook last season, despite starting only 6 games.

Every year Kamara has been there Ingram went for over 1,000 outside of this past year where he missed 4 games

Every year huh?

[Raptorman]

Which is why the Vikings signed Stephan to replace Richardson before Richardson signed with the Browns. It's easy to sit here and say we couldn't sign him, but I never thought for one moment that Richardson wasn't going to be here for more than a year. If he was, they could have signed him for more than one year last year.

As to Murray, I remember people complaining about the fact that we signed him for $15 million. Many thought that was too much.

So, "we didn't want those guys anyway"?

No. You don't know that the Vikings even wanted to keep them. So move on.

For years people complained about the Vikings not doing anything to address the QB situation. So they draft Ponder. And people complained. Then Teddy, and people complained. Then they traded for Bradford and people complained. Now Cousins, and people continue to complain. I'm pretty sure that had we not signed Cousins, and kept Keenum and the Vikes went 8-7-1 last year, people would be complaining about not getting Cousins. Seriously, it's annoying.

[StumpHunter]

So, "we didn't want those guys anyway"?

No. You don't know that the Vikings even wanted to keep them. So move on.

For years people complained about the Vikings not doing anything to address the QB situation. So they draft Ponder. And people complained. Then Teddy, and people complained. Then they traded for Bradford and people complained. Now Cousins, and people continue to complain. I'm pretty sure that had we not signed Cousins, and kept Keenum and the Vikes went 8-7-1 last year, people would be complaining about not getting Cousins. Seriously, it's annoying.

It is almost like we haven't had a franchise QB since Fran and people want that to change.

I actually frequent boards of some of the teams that were in the running for Cousins, and none of them complain about not getting him. It is pretty much a consensus outside of MN the signing has not worked out so far.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Murray had more carries than Cook last season, despite starting only 6 games.

So are you going to play dumb and say Murray was our starter? Like what are you trying to get at? Never was there a game when Murray out-carried cook. Murray was getting carries because cook wasn’t healthy. Bottom line is, when cook was healthy, he was starting. Would have been no different this year. I’m not sure why you think Murray having 7 more carries than cook is proving something.

Every year huh?

And there you go again. Arguing just to argue. And this is why you’re getting on everyone’s nerves. Because no matter how wrong you are, you can’t ever admit it. Ingram was hurt. Not benched. If Ingram didn’t get hurt, clearly he’d be getting carries. Just like he does every year. Going over 1000 yards WITH Alvin Kamara there. But all you come back with is “every year huh” because you realized how ridiculous your “Murray went to a team with a better RB” comment sounded after I called you out for it.

[StumpHunter]

So are you going to play dumb and say Murray was our starter? Like what are you trying to get at? Never was there a game when Murray out-carried cook. Murray was getting carries because cook wasn’t healthy. Bottom line is, when cook was healthy, he was starting. Would have been no different this year. I’m not sure why you think Murray having 7 more carries than cook is proving something.

Not sure where I said that Murray was our starter? Where do you even come up with this stuff? I was just showing that in MN he had more opportunities to carry the football than he probably will get in NO. He will run behind a better line and I can see that being more appealing to a RB, but he said he was leaving to start, and went to a team where that will be less likely than it would have been here.

And there you go again. Arguing just to argue. And this is why you’re getting on everyone’s nerves. Because no matter how wrong you are, you can’t ever admit it. Ingram was hurt. Not benched. If Ingram didn’t get hurt, clearly he’d be getting carries. Just like he does every year. Going over 1000 yards WITH Alvin Kamara there. But all you come back with is “every year huh” because you realized how ridiculous your “Murray went to a team with a better RB” comment sounded after I called you out for it.

You implied that Ingram had more than a 1000 yards rushing with Kamara multiple years. "Every" implies more than one. Instead it was just his rookie season and in his second year, Kamara took a larger role in the offense.

Here is a pro tip. Just because you post anecdotal evidence that may or may not support your point, it does not make the other person wrong. Also, people get more upset with posts that are correct that they disagree with than posts that are wrong. Which is why I am having a lot of fun with this, while for you it is getting "on your nerves".

[CharVike]

So, "we didn't want those guys anyway"?

No. You don't know that the Vikings even wanted to keep them. So move on.

For years people complained about the Vikings not doing anything to address the QB situation. So they draft Ponder. And people complained. Then Teddy, and people complained. Then they traded for Bradford and people complained. Now Cousins, and people continue to complain. I'm pretty sure that had we not signed Cousins, and kept Keenum and the Vikes went 8-7-1 last year, people would be complaining about not getting Cousins. Seriously, it's annoying.

I give Speilman credit for trying to fix the problem. Unless we tank a season, like Jimmy Johnson did, and get pick number 1 we won't get a QB. Grabbing Sloter was a nice move because he has the physical tools. But he's years away but I'm hoping it works and he may be the guy to take over. You never know. IMO it's better to tank than win 6-8 games. No benefit to that at all. Your draft position blows at that point. The top QBs will be gone. We have been in this position for decades.

[Raptorman]

No. You don't know that the Vikings even wanted to keep them. So move on.

For years people complained about the Vikings not doing anything to address the QB situation. So they draft Ponder. And people complained. Then Teddy, and people complained. Then they traded for Bradford and people complained. Now Cousins, and people continue to complain. I'm pretty sure that had we not signed Cousins, and kept Keenum and the Vikes went 8-7-1 last year, people would be complaining about not getting Cousins. Seriously, it's annoying.

I give Speilman credit for trying to fix the problem. Unless we tank a season, like Jimmy Johnson did, and get pick number 1 we won't get a QB. Grabbing Sloter was a nice move because he has the physical tools. But he's years away but I'm hoping it works and he may be the guy to take over. You never know. IMO it's better to tank than win 6-8 games. No benefit to that at all. Your draft position blows at that point. The top QBs will be gone. We have been in this position for decades.

Vikings have never had the number 1 pick because of their record. Nor do I want it because of their record.

[StumpHunter]

No. You don't know that the Vikings even wanted to keep them. So move on.

For years people complained about the Vikings not doing anything to address the QB situation. So they draft Ponder. And people complained. Then Teddy, and people complained. Then they traded for Bradford and people complained. Now Cousins, and people continue to complain. I'm pretty sure that had we not signed Cousins, and kept Keenum and the Vikes went 8-7-1 last year, people would be complaining about not getting Cousins. Seriously, it's annoying.

I give Speilman credit for trying to fix the problem. Unless we tank a season, like Jimmy Johnson did, and get pick number 1 we won't get a QB. Grabbing Sloter was a nice move because he has the physical tools. But he's years away but I'm hoping it works and he may be the guy to take over. You never know. IMO it's better to tank than win 6-8 games. No benefit to that at all. Your draft position blows at that point. The top QBs will be gone. We have been in this position for decades.

The Colts accepted their fate when their starting QB went down and ended up with Luck. The Vikings tried to salvage their season and ended up with Sam Bradford and Case Keenum instead of Mahomes or Watson.

[VikingLord]

I actually frequent boards of some of the teams that were in the running for Cousins, and none of them complain about not getting him. It is pretty much a consensus outside of MN the signing has not worked out so far.

I'd be a lot more surprised if you claimed that folks outside of Minnesota thought signing Cousins had worked out so far.

Because the only way a move like Spielman made to bring Cousins in is ever going to be considered astute is if the Vikings not only make the playoffs, but get farther in them than they managed with Keenum at the helm, regardless of what Cousins manages to do as an individual player.

Also, is it possible that last year's Vikings was like the 1972 Vikings who were coming off a great year, were loaded with talent, traded to bring back Fran Tarkenton at QB, and somehow ended up laying enough eggs during the season that they fell way short of expectations?

That the 1972 result wasn't indicative of the overall potential of the Vikings, nor Fran Tarkenton's abilities of that era should serve as a cautionary tale about predicting the future based on a singularly disappointing result, both for a team and for an individual player, especially at QB.

It's very reasonable to believe that this upcoming season the Vikings and Cousins are more likely to return to contention than to remain average or regress further IMHO.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I give Speilman credit for trying to fix the problem. Unless we tank a season, like Jimmy Johnson did, and get pick number 1 we won't get a QB. Grabbing Sloter was a nice move because he has the physical tools. But he's years away but I'm hoping it works and he may be the guy to take over. You never know. IMO it's better to tank than win 6-8 games. No benefit to that at all. Your draft position blows at that point. The top QBs will be gone. We have been in this position for decades.

The Colts accepted their fate when their starting QB went down and ended up with Luck. The Vikings tried to salvage their season and ended up with Sam Bradford and Case Keenum instead of Mahomes or Watson.

The colts also didn’t have the roster we did. But I’m sure you knew all about Mahomes and Watson back then, would’ve tanked the season and somehow beat KC to drafting Mahomes. I’m sure you would have had it alllll figured out

[VikingsVictorious]

I give Speilman credit for trying to fix the problem. Unless we tank a season, like Jimmy Johnson did, and get pick number 1 we won't get a QB. Grabbing Sloter was a nice move because he has the physical tools. But he's years away but I'm hoping it works and he may be the guy to take over. You never know. IMO it's better to tank than win 6-8 games. No benefit to that at all. Your draft position blows at that point. The top QBs will be gone. We have been in this position for decades.

Vikings have never had the number 1 pick because of their record. Nor do I want it because of their record.

Not even with Steckel?

[StumpHunter]

The Colts accepted their fate when their starting QB went down and ended up with Luck. The Vikings tried to salvage their season and ended up with Sam Bradford and Case Keenum instead of Mahomes or Watson.

The colts also didn’t have the roster we did. But I’m sure you knew all about Mahomes and Watson back then, would’ve tanked the season and somehow beat KC to drafting Mahomes. I’m sure you would have had it alllll figured out

Yep, that 8 in 8 team was something special all right. Couldn't waste that season...

I am not sure why you think something you have zero proof of, whether or not I liked Mahomes before the draft, is a valid point to make here. Even if true, it wouldn't mean our GM wasn't stupid for blowing his chance on Mahomes. Isn't his job to know that stuff? I am pretty sure my opinion had no impact on the decision or we would be talking about how many more SBs Mahomes would be winning with us right now.

KC was originally drafting 27th and didn't bother to trade ahead of the Jets at 6th, who were also looking for a QB. It is safe to say that with a Hill/Stave season, KC wouldn't have had the ammo to get ahead of us. Now, you could argue our GM wouldn't have necessarily drafted the best young QB in the NFL if given the chance, but that isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of Rick now is it?

[J. Kapp 11]

Haha I believe you did didn’t you?

And yeah I second the David Morgan thing! He’s caught 16 balls in 3 years but guys drool over him for whatever reason. I don’t get it

I've seen Morgan called the best blocking TE in the NFL. Blocking is a big part of what TEs are supposed to do. I like him.

Called? By whom? His mom?

Liking him is not the same as "he should start." He shouldn't.

[J. Kapp 11]

I actually frequent boards of some of the teams that were in the running for Cousins, and none of them complain about not getting him. It is pretty much a consensus outside of MN the signing has not worked out so far.

I'd be a lot more surprised if you claimed that folks outside of Minnesota thought signing Cousins had worked out so far.

Because the only way a move like Spielman made to bring Cousins in is ever going to be considered astute is if the Vikings not only make the playoffs, but get farther in them than they managed with Keenum at the helm, regardless of what Cousins manages to do as an individual player.

Also, is it possible that last year's Vikings was like the 1972 Vikings who were coming off a great year, were loaded with talent, traded to bring back Fran Tarkenton at QB, and somehow ended up laying enough eggs during the season that they fell way short of expectations?

That the 1972 result wasn't indicative of the overall potential of the Vikings, nor Fran Tarkenton's abilities of that era should serve as a cautionary tale about predicting the future based on a singularly disappointing result, both for a team and for an individual player, especially at QB.

It's very reasonable to believe that this upcoming season the Vikings and Cousins are more likely to return to contention than to remain average or regress further IMHO.

Great comparison to the '72 Vikings and Tarkenton.

Both Vikings teams lost (or tied) some games they should have won. Last year, Buffalo comes to mind. The tie with Green Bay is another. The second Bears game was a head-scratcher ... us at home with the playoffs on the line, while the Bears had nothing to play for. We lose to Seattle in spite of holding Russell Wilson to 72 yards passing. It's very similar to what the '72 Vikings did.

As Bill Parcells famously said, you are what your record says you are. Neither of those teams played well enough to get into the postseason. But it's obvious to me that both teams could have had 10+ wins had they not played below their abilities.