Seahawks post game thread

[Crax]

As pointed out online elsewhere as well, there is 9 other teams projected with less cap space than Vikings next year. 4 of those teams have QBs on rookie contracts. Cousins money isn't that big of a deal.

[Mothman]

1. It's not expensive. It's what the league is paying QBs. 14 Other guys are in his salary range.

Which is a minority of starting QBs.

2. He signed as a FA, if we signed him to a 5 year 100 million dollar contract, do you think we wouldn't be locked in with him for atleast 3 years? Matt Stafford just signed for 135 million with 90 million guaranteed. What's the difference. Why is Kirk being talked about to death but Stafford isn't. It's because the league is peddling ####.
3. Nothing stops us from Drafting a QB in the first, and getting better potential QB play for cheap.

I agree. As I said, it's not an insurmountable problem.

4. Wait till you see what Dak and company get next year. People are complaining because NFL Network keeps talking about it. It is not a weird contract. Its not a big contract. You don't move on from a FA QB for 2.5 years anyways.

You might if they stink up the joint. Seattle moved on from one before he even played in the regular season and went with Russell Wilson instead!

It IS a unique contract. He's the first NFL quarterback to sign a multi-year, fully guaranteed deal. You may be right, the league may be grinding on it because they don't like the precedent. I don't know. I haven't noticed much of whatever is being said about it because I rarely watch NFLN or ESPN anymore. I'm simply making the point that's it's a unique deal and the guarantee is a different sort of commitment. Whether it's expensive or not is a matter of perspective. Compared to one of the other options the Vikes had (keeping Keenum), it's expensive.

[J. Kapp 11]

I think they caught lightning in a bottle last year and had the right combination of talent, luck , team chemistry and favorable schedule to get them so many wins. The playoffs revealed their shortcomings pretty quickly and this year, they look more like they 2016 team again.

Are the Vikes benefitting from weaker schedules in winning years and then sliding back when faced with a first place schedule the following year? I have no idea. I'm just wondering if anybody has scrutinized that.

I think the answer is a resounding "no."

Last year, the Vikings destroyed the Saints and Rams in the regular season. They held Atlanta, which was one play from being the Vikings' opponent in the NFC Championship game, to no touchdowns in their building in an impressive road win. They also beat Detroit and Baltimore, both of whom were 9-7, and beat the Saints again in the playoffs (we tend to forget that for 3/4 of that game, we were cruising ... leading the Saints by 10 entering the fourth quarter). That put our overall record against winning teams (including playoffs) at 6-4.

This year, we've played five teams with a winning record, and we've lost them all. Zero wins. It's just ... unbelievable. And our track record doesn't bode well for the rest of the season, since we play two of our last three against teams with winning records. If we lose them both, that would give us a regular-season record of 0-7 against teams with a winning record, compared to 5-3 in the regular season last year. In other words, we actually played more teams with a winning record last year.

From where I sit, the argument that we clean up on weaker schedules doesn't hold water.

[YikesVikes]

1. It's not expensive. It's what the league is paying QBs. 14 Other guys are in his salary range.

Which is a minority of starting QBs.

2. He signed as a FA, if we signed him to a 5 year 100 million dollar contract, do you think we wouldn't be locked in with him for atleast 3 years? Matt Stafford just signed for 135 million with 90 million guaranteed. What's the difference. Why is Kirk being talked about to death but Stafford isn't. It's because the league is peddling ####.
3. Nothing stops us from Drafting a QB in the first, and getting better potential QB play for cheap.

I agree. As I said, it's not an insurmountable problem.

4. Wait till you see what Dak and company get next year. People are complaining because NFL Network keeps talking about it. It is not a weird contract. Its not a big contract. You don't move on from a FA QB for 2.5 years anyways.

You might if they stink up the joint. Seattle moved on from one before he even played in the regular season and went with Russell Wilson instead!

It IS a unique contract. He's the first NFL quarterback to sign a multi-year, fully guaranteed deal. You may be right, the league may be grinding on it because they don't like the precedent. I don't know. I haven't noticed much of whatever is being said about it because I rarely watch NFLN or ESPN anymore. I'm simply making the point that's it's a unique deal and the guarantee is a different sort of commitment. Whether it's expensive or not is a matter of perspective. Compared to one of the other options the Vikes had (keeping Keenum), it's expensive.

Now take out the guys on rookie contracts who can't be paid more. Now the majority of the starting qbs make 20 million a year

[808vikingsfan]

His guaranteed salary is $28M/yr (ave), that's $9M more than the next fellow (Rodgers), $16M more than Keenum. (I really think Keenum could have easily won 6 games with this team) So my question is, how does the guarantee part of the contract come into play? Will it matter only if they want to trade him or if he gets hurt?

Who cares? This season he is making 24 million. Next season 28. He's not going to be the highest and there will be probably 10 guys over 25. None of this is an issue. Again, 14 other QBs are making 20 million this season. 14!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who cares if he suffers a career ending injury and we still owe him $28M a year?

[YikesVikes]

Who cares? This season he is making 24 million. Next season 28. He's not going to be the highest and there will be probably 10 guys over 25. None of this is an issue. Again, 14 other QBs are making 20 million this season. 14!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who cares if he gets hurt and we still owe him $28M a year?

if we didn't sign him to a three-year deal we would have signed him to a five-year deal with about the same amount guaranteed. Either way he gets hurt and we are on the line.

[808vikingsfan]

Who cares if he gets hurt and we still owe him $28M a year?

if we didn't sign him to a three-year deal we would have signed him to a five-year deal with about the same amount guaranteed. Either way he gets hurt and we are on the line.

OK. that's what my question was. So the guaranteed money really isn't a big deal?

[YikesVikes]

Is Stafford gets hurt the Lions have to pay him about 70 million more. if Jimmy g gets hurt he has to be paid about 50 million more. Oh wait he did get hurt and he's going to rehab and be their quarterback next season. The same thing would happen with cousins

[YikesVikes]

if we didn't sign him to a three-year deal we would have signed him to a five-year deal with about the same amount guaranteed. Either way he gets hurt and we are on the line.

OK. that's what my question was. So the guaranteed money really isn't a big deal?

Yeah it's not really a big deal. Even if he got hurt and missed a part of a season, the team would give him an additional year to try to get healthy. Just like Jimmy g. He missed most of this season and the team will give him all of the next season and maybe part of The following season to prove he can play at a high level again. That's your 3 years and it's what cousins would be given

[Mothman]

I think the answer is a resounding "no."

Last year, the Vikings destroyed the Saints and Rams in the regular season. They held Atlanta, which was one play from being the Vikings' opponent in the NFC Championship game, to no touchdowns in their building in an impressive road win. They also beat Detroit and Baltimore, both of whom were 9-7, and beat the Saints again in the playoffs (we tend to forget that for 3/4 of that game, we were cruising ... leading the Saints by 10 entering the fourth quarter). That put our overall record against winning teams (including playoffs) at 6-4.

This year, we've played five teams with a winning record, and we've lost them all. Zero wins. It's just ... unbelievable. And our track record doesn't bode well for the rest of the season, since we play two of our last three against teams with winning records. If we lose them both, that would give us a regular-season record of 0-7 against teams with a winning record, compared to 5-3 in the regular season last year. In other words, we actually played more teams with a winning record last year.

From where I sit, the argument that we clean up on weaker schedules doesn't hold water.

Thanks, Kapp. It doesn't sound like it. Just to be clear, I wasn't making the argument, just asking the question. I hadn't put much more thought into than that so I appreciate you looking at it more closely. I think it's good news that they haven't simply been taking advantage of weaker schedules in winning seasons.

[VikeFanInEagleLand]

You actually believe that Case Keenum would succeed under an awful OC like flip? Like I said in another thread, he would’ve been a debacle. I just don’t get that after one miracle season, guys are defending him. And after two average to below average seasons with Teddy, guys are defending him. Am I losing it?! Keenum in Denver is bad. Period. Does it equate? No, but let’s not sit here and act like Denver has little talent. They have the 7th best run offense. They had great WRs to start the year. They could’ve succeed just as much as anyone.

Here is why I see Keenum being horrid if he was here right now. Because Flip is a guy that relies on his QB to carry the weight. Could you imagine Keenum throwing 40+ times a game ? Over and over again. Just like the tweet said....we avoided the inevitable regression of Keenum. How fans struggle to see that is beyond me. If he was actually good in Denver, yeah I’d question it too. But he’s not even good right now! Like not even close. Compare case to Kirk all you want. But what needs to happen is shurmur has to be compared to Flip. It’s a GIANT difference. Why anyone thinks Keenum could succeed under Flip is beyond me

I work with a Broncos fan, and a friend of my son is also a Broncos fan. Both of them like Keenum and say that he has had no receivers to throw to all year. I also remember several weeks ago, seeing their OC in a postgame interview saying that their is still a lot of miscommunication between the receivers and Keenum. So once again I think his stats don't tell the whole story.

Look, I'm not saying that Cousins is awful by any means. All I'm saying is that he's not even close to being an elite QB, which is what he is being paid to be. Don't understand how the Vikings thought that they were making the team that much better by acquiring him instead of going with one of the QB's they already had. Unless the GREATLY overestimated the talent of their OL going into this year. WIth a great OL, I think Cousins would thrive.

[VikeFanInEagleLand]

Cris Carter.....”if Case Keenum was still with the Vikings, they’d have two wins right now”. Pretty sure a hall of fame WR judges QB talent a little better than we do.

Sure he does. LOL The same guy who said in an interview the year after the Rams beat the Vikings in a playoff game, that Kurt Warner was a 1 year fluke.

[Pondering Her Percy]

You actually believe that Case Keenum would succeed under an awful OC like flip? Like I said in another thread, he would’ve been a debacle. I just don’t get that after one miracle season, guys are defending him. And after two average to below average seasons with Teddy, guys are defending him. Am I losing it?! Keenum in Denver is bad. Period. Does it equate? No, but let’s not sit here and act like Denver has little talent. They have the 7th best run offense. They had great WRs to start the year. They could’ve succeed just as much as anyone.

Here is why I see Keenum being horrid if he was here right now. Because Flip is a guy that relies on his QB to carry the weight. Could you imagine Keenum throwing 40+ times a game ? Over and over again. Just like the tweet said....we avoided the inevitable regression of Keenum. How fans struggle to see that is beyond me. If he was actually good in Denver, yeah I’d question it too. But he’s not even good right now! Like not even close. Compare case to Kirk all you want. But what needs to happen is shurmur has to be compared to Flip. It’s a GIANT difference. Why anyone thinks Keenum could succeed under Flip is beyond me

I work with a Broncos fan, and a friend of my son is also a Broncos fan. Both of them like Keenum and say that he has had no receivers to throw to all year. I also remember several weeks ago, seeing their OC in a postgame interview saying that their is still a lot of miscommunication between the receivers and Keenum. So once again I think his stats don't tell the whole story.

Look, I'm not saying that Cousins is awful by any means. All I'm saying is that he's not even close to being an elite QB, which is what he is being paid to be. Don't understand how the Vikings thought that they were making the team that much better by acquiring him instead of going with one of the QB's they already had. Unless the GREATLY overestimated the talent of their OL going into this year. WIth a great OL, I think Cousins would thrive.

I hear what you're saying but right NOW Denver doesnt have much at WR. But Demaryius Thomas wasnt traded untill week 9, Sanders didnt get hurt until week 13. So for the first 9 weeks of the year, Keenum had Thomas, Sanders and Sutton. And a legit running game. For 13 weeks he had Sanders and Sutton. He's had plenty of talent around him and just because he doesnt have any WRs NOW, doesnt disregard the fact that he was pretty horrible when he had those 3 WRs which is as good of a trio as any in the NFL. Even having just Sanders and Sutton is still a solid duo. It's not like he had Allen Hurns and Tavon Austin to start the year like Prescott did. The guy had plenty of talent around him

[J. Kapp 11]

I think the answer is a resounding "no."

Last year, the Vikings destroyed the Saints and Rams in the regular season. They held Atlanta, which was one play from being the Vikings' opponent in the NFC Championship game, to no touchdowns in their building in an impressive road win. They also beat Detroit and Baltimore, both of whom were 9-7, and beat the Saints again in the playoffs (we tend to forget that for 3/4 of that game, we were cruising ... leading the Saints by 10 entering the fourth quarter). That put our overall record against winning teams (including playoffs) at 6-4.

This year, we've played five teams with a winning record, and we've lost them all. Zero wins. It's just ... unbelievable. And our track record doesn't bode well for the rest of the season, since we play two of our last three against teams with winning records. If we lose them both, that would give us a regular-season record of 0-7 against teams with a winning record, compared to 5-3 in the regular season last year. In other words, we actually played more teams with a winning record last year.

From where I sit, the argument that we clean up on weaker schedules doesn't hold water.

Thanks, Kapp. It doesn't sound like it. Just to be clear, I wasn't making the argument, just asking the question. I hadn't put much more thought into than that so I appreciate you looking at it more closely. I think it's good news that they haven't simply been taking advantage of weaker schedules in winning seasons.

No worries. I didn't take your comments as argumentative, although it seems to have come out like I did. Sorry about that.

I was actually stunned to find out that we actually played more teams with winning records last year.

Not gonna lie. Last year was one of my favorite as a Vikings fan. Our defense could flat-out ball, and our QB and both wide receivers were guys almost nobody wanted. Our star rookie running back went down, and we still reeled off 8 straight wins and a 13-3 record, the second-best in team history. When we got both Cousins and DeFilippo, I thought we'd hit the lottery. We won the opener, then Cousins went nuts in the fourth quarter against Green Bay, and I thought we were going to have a great season. Then came the Buffalo game the very next week ... as optimistic as I am, it became obvious that day that we had major flaws. The rest of the season has been death by a thousand paper cuts. The team does just enough to start looking better, then they do something inexplicable.

You all will probably find this funny, but I almost never go into a game thinking we'll lose. Even in 2011 when we were 3-13, I always thought we had a chance. Still a little boy, I guess. I'm that optimistic. But right now, it doesn't feel like we can beat anybody. I mean, we laughed when we saw Miami on the schedule -- a sure win. Well don't look now, but they have a better record than we do and actually beat New England. Heck, I'm not even sure we can beat Detroit. When I don't think the Vikings can win, you know it's pretty bad.

As fun and memorable as last season was, this season has been as much a disappointment. I know I'm not alone there.