Vikings Message Board.Com

Addressing anyone that’s quoted me in the last few threads so I hopefully don’t have to repeat myself 100 more times:

Why do I defend Kirk Cousins? There are multiple reasons. But I will say I defend cousins when guys stray away from the team and hone in on cousins and how HE lost us the game. Here are a few points I wanted to address:

#1: I think nobody has ever gotten a more unfair shot to be successful than cousins- Literally EVERY loss we’ve had since he’s been here has been put on his shoulders. The talk has been HIM. The OL is brought up here and there, the defense here and there, the coaches here and there but mainly cousins. Granted he’s the QB and everyone is obsessed with the contract. Guys think that when I defend cousins after a loss, I’m saying he played good (which some games he did) but many, many times I have said yeah he didn’t play good. But I’m also one of the only ones that look at ALL the aspects of the game that went wrong, NOT just cousins. Others do anything they can to defend the defense, coaches, OL, etc just to prove cousins is the one at fault. If I’m sitting here saying “nope cousins always plays good it’s everyone else’s fault” then please come at me because I am wrong. But never have I done that. This all started last year in week 3. Week 1 we won, week 2 we tied and cousins made a big time throw to get us that tie and bring us back from a big deficit. But when week 3 hit against Buffalo is when it all started. Did he play good, not one bit. Was there multiple reasons we went down 17-0 after 4 offensive plays? Yes. I was at that game. Partly because of cousins, partly because Reiff was getting smoked by jerry Hughes within seconds, partly because linval Joseph got a roughing the passer on the first drive on 3rd down, partly because Flip was flip and we became one dimensional when we’re down and ran the ball 2 times all game with Murray, partly because I think the team was distracted with what happened the day before with Griff. ALL 100% fair assessments. But MANY got down on cousins after 3 weeks of being a Viking mainly because of how the bills game went following a 13-3 season and also given that cousins was a .500 QB in Washington.

#2: The past Viking QBs and cousins past- An unfair reasoning here as well. If teddy bridgewater had an identical game as cousins vs KC this week and the results were the same, I can just about guarantee not many fans would be on here blaming teddy for the loss or complaining about teddy and saying he didn’t play good enough. Why is that? And don’t bother defending it because the teddy supporters out there know that’s how it would be. Hell guys still defend teddy for his two below average years that only had success because of AP. Nobody wants to talk about the two games he crapped the bed on and took a sack fumble UNDER PRESSURE.

Or case Keenum. I explain that look how he was prior to 2017. Look how he’s been in 2018 and 2019. And the excuses are “well Washington sucks” or “Denver sucked” (which they didn’t). There was plenty of talent on Denver last year where Keenum could have succeeded. Well did Washington not suck when cousins was there? Was there defense not terrible? Did they ever have a RB worth a damn? Was their organization not dysfunctional like it’s always been? So my question is, why does it apply to cousins and his past counts but when you guys want to talk Keenum or teddy, there past doesn’t count. Or what case is doing now doesn’t count? It does and it should. So why bring those guys up if we aren’t going to look at both sides of the paper?

#3: Last year- the difference between flip and shurmur is astronomical if you ask me. Now that we see what kind of RB we have in cook (even though we already knew), how Flip failed and avoided using him last year and putting all the weight on cousins shoulders. How flip never adjusted to anything. Yet you see him now in Jacksonville and he’s running Fournette like crazy and he’s a top rusher in the nfl. Did he need to be fired to realize he wasn’t calling plays how he should have? I’m not saying cousins played well non stop last year. He didn’t at all. But this is another look at EVERYTHING and not just cousins.

#4: This year- Cousins just won 4 straight games. 3 of them where he was literally a top 3 QB in the nfl. I don’t care who we played. They weren’t great teams but they definitely weren’t bad ones. Especially Philly. Again, cousins has had his bad games this year but that also came with bad play in other areas as well. Chicago being the worst. But again, sacked multiple times, the defense not being able to get chase Daniel off the field, etc. Cousins responded exceptionally well to those games. Better than many could possibly ask for. This game against KC again wasn’t NOT cousins fault due to his inaccuracies but there were much bigger problems during that game. Either way, Kirk cousins is still playing pretty darn good football. He has this team in position to make a run. But when guys want to look mainly at cousins any time we lose in extremely unfair if you ask me. Kirk cousins isn’t the only guy that ever needs to “step up”. Other players and coaches do just as much. I listened to his podcast regarding the KC game. He mentioned how multiple passes during that game were 2nd, 3rd and even 4th reads that turned into a successful play. And that’s what guys don’t see. They want to look at every pass play and try to find any random guy open they can and say “Kirk can’t see the field”. If you go on YouTube and type in “Aaron Rodgers missed throws”, you’ll find this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RT_zWoVRPIw&t=106s Hundreds of throws where he has guys WIDE OPEN and overthrows them or completely misses them. I’m not comparing Rodgers to cousins but to sit there and pick apart cousins literally being a half inch off stefon diggs hands vs KC is pushing it. Or when you watch film and say “yup Thielen is wide open and cousins didn’t even look at him”. Do you guys realize how often that happens every game to even the best QBs. Rodgers is the “best in the game” and there are hundreds of throws where he did the same damn thing. So nitpicking a film trying to act like you know anything at all about being a QB and knowing what it takes to see the field, is downright laughable.


Final thoughts-In the end, I don’t defend cousins because I have a “man crush” on him. I don’t defend cousins because I think he does no wrong. I don’t defend cousins just because he’s the QB of the Vikings now. I defend him when I don’t think he’s getting a fair shot. I don’t think he’s gotten a fair shot from the start. And anyone that thinks he was just suppose to walk in here after a 13-3 season on a new team with a new scheme and just take us to the SB year 1, you don’t know football. And if you think Keenum could have done anything close to what he did in 2017 here, you don’t know football. Kirk cousins is a good QB. He has his flaws just like anyone else but I do think he has what it takes under the right circumstances And what I mean by this is having a TEAM around him that is also doing their jobs when called upon. Coaches included. Granted that’s not always going to happen and he needs to overcome it when duty calls (which he has at times this year). But when guys aren’t giving him a fair shot from the start, already have their opinions set when he was in Washington or after week 3 of last year and want to blame him every time we lose, I’m going to defend him. When he plays bad I do and will admit it. But even when he plays bad, if the OL or defense or coaching was just as bad, I’m going to bring it up. Nobody has been given less of a chance at a team by fans than Kirk cousins. Ever, that I have seen and I don’t agree with it. If you don’t agree, sorry but that’s how I feel and that’s a big reason I defend him.

Cousins is a good QB. Look at that Bear team that's a bad QB. That team can play some D though. When we had the 13-3 season people thought we were set. I looked at that schedule again and we had an easy road. The Steelers kicked our ####. Even the Pack didn't have Rodgers. We swept them. For us to win with Cousins we better play some D against good teams. We got a huge break for the Chief game. Some stiff beat us. If the real guy played how bad would it have been. 38-28 or something like that. They would have scored a #### load. And yes they are a good O. When the Eagles won with Foles, who I think isn't as good as Cousins, they played some D. In the champ game they laid the wood to Surmur's great O. We couldn't do anything. We have had much worse QBs than Cousins. IMO he's the best since Fran, outside of one year with a HOFer, and Cousins isn't that. Not even close. But he's good enough to win with but we need to play some D. We play Dallas next and supposedly they play D. There O isn't top shelf and there QB like ours isn't close to Rodgers. We should kick there #### based on talent but I get the feeling we won't. Especially if Dallas won't let us run the ball or our OC decides to open up trying to pass.

I don't think this has anything to do with you feeling Cousins is being treated unfairly, and everything to do with you not wanting to be wrong.

I will humor you though, and respond to your points.

#1 You see people having Cousins as part of the problem in a list of problems in a loss as people putting 100% of the blame on Cousins. That is on you, not us.

#2 Cousins is held to a higher standard than recent QBs because he is in his 5th year starting and making top 5 money. That is very different than a 2nd year QB and a backup making 1.5 million, and we expect more from him. I do not understand why you don't.

#3 There was a big difference between Flip and Shurmur. A valid excuse for a drop-off on offense, but a big upgrade at QB should have more than made up for it.

#4 The 4 games he won were against 2 of the worst teams in the NFL and 2 very average teams. All 4 had bad defenses. They are the type of games he typically wins. That helps his team get to the playoffs, but what about when we get there?

He just needs to win. That shuts everyone up. Your excuses for him will never do that, but winning will.

CharVike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:35 am Cousins is a good QB. Look at that Bear team that's a bad QB. That team can play some D though. When we had the 13-3 season people thought we were set. I looked at that schedule again and we had an easy road. The Steelers kicked our ####. Even the Pack didn't have Rodgers. We swept them. For us to win with Cousins we better play some D against good teams. We got a huge break for the Chief game. Some stiff beat us. If the real guy played how bad would it have been. 38-28 or something like that. They would have scored a #### load. And yes they are a good O. When the Eagles won with Foles, who I think isn't as good as Cousins, they played some D. In the champ game they laid the wood to Surmur's great O. We couldn't do anything. We have had much worse QBs than Cousins. IMO he's the best since Fran, outside of one year with a HOFer, and Cousins isn't that. Not even close. But he's good enough to win with but we need to play some D. We play Dallas next and supposedly they play D. There O isn't top shelf and there QB like ours isn't close to Rodgers. We should kick there #### based on talent but I get the feeling we won't. Especially if Dallas won't let us run the ball or our OC decides to open up trying to pass.

Best since Fran is interesting. Daunte had better seasons for us statistically and won a playoff game for us. Cunningham had a better season statistically and won a playoff game.

How can you argue Cousins is better than those guys were for us?

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:58 am

CharVike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:35 am Cousins is a good QB. Look at that Bear team that's a bad QB. That team can play some D though. When we had the 13-3 season people thought we were set. I looked at that schedule again and we had an easy road. The Steelers kicked our ####. Even the Pack didn't have Rodgers. We swept them. For us to win with Cousins we better play some D against good teams. We got a huge break for the Chief game. Some stiff beat us. If the real guy played how bad would it have been. 38-28 or something like that. They would have scored a #### load. And yes they are a good O. When the Eagles won with Foles, who I think isn't as good as Cousins, they played some D. In the champ game they laid the wood to Surmur's great O. We couldn't do anything. We have had much worse QBs than Cousins. IMO he's the best since Fran, outside of one year with a HOFer, and Cousins isn't that. Not even close. But he's good enough to win with but we need to play some D. We play Dallas next and supposedly they play D. There O isn't top shelf and there QB like ours isn't close to Rodgers. We should kick there #### based on talent but I get the feeling we won't. Especially if Dallas won't let us run the ball or our OC decides to open up trying to pass.

Best since Fran is interesting. Daunte had better seasons for us statistically and won a playoff game for us. Cunningham had a better season statistically and won a playoff game.

How can you argue Cousins is better than those guys were for us?

Culpepper was a beast until he hurt his knee. I think with the technology today, he could have returned to form, but we'll never know for sure. I know having Moss was a big boost for him, but still... he had a fricken cannon, and could run the ball too. I thought he had the skill to take us to the promised land.

Cunningham was fantastic in 1998. A few days ago, someone was calling him a bum in a different thread. I thought that was just weird. He was the perfect QB for that team, that year. But, he was definitely a one-hit wonder.... like Favre for us I suppose.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:58 am

CharVike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:35 am Cousins is a good QB. Look at that Bear team that's a bad QB. That team can play some D though. When we had the 13-3 season people thought we were set. I looked at that schedule again and we had an easy road. The Steelers kicked our ####. Even the Pack didn't have Rodgers. We swept them. For us to win with Cousins we better play some D against good teams. We got a huge break for the Chief game. Some stiff beat us. If the real guy played how bad would it have been. 38-28 or something like that. They would have scored a #### load. And yes they are a good O. When the Eagles won with Foles, who I think isn't as good as Cousins, they played some D. In the champ game they laid the wood to Surmur's great O. We couldn't do anything. We have had much worse QBs than Cousins. IMO he's the best since Fran, outside of one year with a HOFer, and Cousins isn't that. Not even close. But he's good enough to win with but we need to play some D. We play Dallas next and supposedly they play D. There O isn't top shelf and there QB like ours isn't close to Rodgers. We should kick there #### based on talent but I get the feeling we won't. Especially if Dallas won't let us run the ball or our OC decides to open up trying to pass.

Best since Fran is interesting. Daunte had better seasons for us statistically and won a playoff game for us. Cunningham had a better season statistically and won a playoff game.

How can you argue Cousins is better than those guys were for us?

We all have opinion. Cunningham wasn't a great passer IMO. And eventually Denny woke up and benched him. Cunningham was finally let go from the Eagles after the '95 season because, simply put, after being undercoached for years in Buddy Ryan's offense, he wasn't able to master offensive coordinator Jon Gruden's complicated schemes. That sums it up.

Culpepper's play suffered as well. He threw SIX interceptions in the first two games of the 2005 season, with ZERO touchdowns. He managed to rebound with a three TD, 300 yard performance in week three, but by than, the damage had already been done.
The Vikings slid to a 2-4 record.
Culpepper was having another bad game against the Panthers in week 7, when a shot to the knee sent him writhing in pain on the turf of Bank of America stadium.

That was Culpeppers last year. He's only a legend in some Vikings fans minds. When Moss was traded he folded like a wet suite. No more than that. He was a one read guy and if that was covered he had no idea what to do. Not a smart QB. Found this.
The problem was that Daunte didn’t hit the books as hard as the weight room. A lazy student, he let his grades slip dangerously low. Heading into his senior year, Daunte’s GPA fell below 2.0. Recruiting interest in him almost disappeared. His home state’s Big Three—Florida State, Miami and Florida—had all been hot on his trail. But now all of them backed off.
That tells it all. No big time team wanted him. Not because of physical ability either. Couldn't comprehend the play book.

Those two guys like others rode Randy Moss coat tails. Nothing more than that.

Yes IMO Cousins is a better QB than those two.

There are not many QBs that the Vikings have had that are better than Kirk. Although, I'm not sure if that is a just a sad reflection on our team history, or an endorsement for Cousins. Probably a bit of both.

I don't think there are many posters here that have a true hatred for Cousins. Yep, we have some come and go that are irrational, and some where the initial reaction is to blame Cousins, but they're pretty rare from what I'm reading. And often, the "blamers" come around a bit after the initial reaction.

This thread though... PHP, you have a reputation of over-compensating when it comes to defending Cousins. It comes across like you are making excuses for his bad play even when he just flat-out sucked. So, you may point out that he didn't play well, but it's almost always followed up by a BUT. I'm not even saying that you are wrong in many cases, but sometimes it's okay to just say he sucked. It carries into all conversations regarding Cousins even when it's not warranted. A prime example was this week vs Chiefs. I don't think anyone said it was all Cousin's fault, but somehow you turned it into that part way thru the post-game thread.

Good or bad, the QB is a highly polarizing position for fans. Always has been, always will be... until the NFL dies. Cousins is paid like a top 5 QB, and even you can't really say he has fulfilled that yet. So, it's not hard to understand why he is so polarizing.

I'm pretty rational about Cousins, because hey, it's not my money, and I honestly don't think his signing has caused the Vikings to either lose any key players or miss out on any big FA signing. Plus, there was nobody available that was a better option. Everyone else was more of a gamble than Kirk, IMO.

I agree with a lot of what you say actually, but just know that you lose some credibility when you constantly defend him only.

CharVike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:18 am
Yes IMO Cousins is a better QB than those two.

You made some excellent points. I think regarding overall talent and intelligence, you are probably correct. But regarding success, Kirk has some to more prove. (Please be this year)

Dames wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:31 am

CharVike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:18 am
Yes IMO Cousins is a better QB than those two.

You made some excellent points. I think regarding overall talent and intelligence, you are probably correct. But regarding success, Kirk has some to more prove. (Please be this year)

Success versus passing stats are two very different things and I am glad you brought that up.

So far Cousins has had 0 successful seasons with the Vikings, and I bet even he would agree with that assessment. He has at least two more chances to have a successful season and I hope he does that this year and next.

I saw Cunningham play in Philly for years. He was never an intellectual QB. When the primary receiver was covered, he used his legs. By the time he got to Minnesota he wasn't as nifty on foot, BUT he learned very early on that if the primary receiver was covered, just throw to it in the direction of Moss. Didn't matter if he was covered, double covered or sometimes triple covered. Moss came down with the ball an unbelievable amount of the time. Any QB that had Moss, and trusted his contested ball abilities, benefited greatly. Cousins is the best technical QB that the Vikings have had in a long time, other than maybe Favre. But Favre had the gun slinging mentality. I personally like that in QB. No fear. I don't see that in Cousins. Can he still lead a team to the promised land? Maybe, but I don't think so.

You keep saying that everyone puts the losses on Cousins. I don't remember seeing one person that blamed him for the loss.

You keep saying that we wouldn't judge Bridgewater or Keenum the same way. That statement is only made because you read the posts through your Cousins Defending Glasses. Cousins came out of a stretch of 4 games where he threw 10 TD's and only 1 INT against questionable opponents. He had Delvin Cook running like a beast which can do nothing but help the passing game. So why when Keenum had a stretch of 4 games against questionable opponents in 2017, where he threw 11 TD's and 3 INT's is it SO different. Especially since Keenum continued that for a much longer stretch of games and had Murray as the running back?

It's great to have a different opinion. We all see things from different perspectives. I just think you're so locked into defending Cousins that you're not even seeing those different perspectives.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:45 am

Dames wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:31 am
You made some excellent points. I think regarding overall talent and intelligence, you are probably correct. But regarding success, Kirk has some to more prove. (Please be this year)

Success versus passing stats are two very different things and I am glad you brought that up.

So far Cousins has had 0 successful seasons with the Vikings, and I bet even he would agree with that assessment. He has at least two more chances to have a successful season and I hope he does that this year and next.

What is success in peoples minds. Like Culpepper leading us to a 41-0 #### kicking in the champ game. That's not a success in my book. I thought the team that made it to the Skins had success. They were left for dead and barley made the playoffs. What is success?? Super Bowl, wildcard, division title, wining record? If winning record is a success Cousins has that. Bottom line we either need to get an elite QB or build a better all around team. The QB stuff hasn't happened since Fran. He came back and lead us. We don't draft the right guy. Look it up. Johnson and Gannon had success, super bowl, with different teams.

CharVike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:37 am

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:45 am

Success versus passing stats are two very different things and I am glad you brought that up.

So far Cousins has had 0 successful seasons with the Vikings, and I bet even he would agree with that assessment. He has at least two more chances to have a successful season and I hope he does that this year and next.

What is success in peoples minds. Like Culpepper leading us to a 41-0 #### kicking in the champ game. That's not a success in my book. I thought the team that made it to the Skins had success. They were left for dead and barley made the playoffs. What is success?? Super Bowl, wildcard, division title, wining record? If winning record is a success Cousins has that. Bottom line we either need to get an elite QB or build a better all around team. The QB stuff hasn't happened since Fran. He came back and lead us. We don't draft the right guy. Look it up. Johnson and Gannon had success, super bowl, with different teams.

Beyond that I still think Kirk is good. But we need to play a little D against the top teams. Our D sucks when we play a decent team. Look it up. They sucked last week against a freaking joke QB. That guy is beyond bad. Shouldn't be in the league. They sucked against some stiff named...... I forget for the Bears. He looked great. You tear that stiff up. That falls on our D for doing nothing but letting these stiff backups do what they wanted. That's either talent or a crappy coaching job. Zim has been here how long? He's a defensive wizz supposedly. Yes a rank of No 3 or whatever is a lie. Some how it gets masked against the garbage we play. When we play a team it don't hold up at all. Like last year a Packer shut out. Who cares. Shut them out this year and we are in the lead. But the D let them bury us. That's the problem in a nut shell.

CharVike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:37 am

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:45 am

Success versus passing stats are two very different things and I am glad you brought that up.

So far Cousins has had 0 successful seasons with the Vikings, and I bet even he would agree with that assessment. He has at least two more chances to have a successful season and I hope he does that this year and next.

What is success in peoples minds. Like Culpepper leading us to a 41-0 #### kicking in the champ game. That's not a success in my book. I thought the team that made it to the Skins had success. They were left for dead and barley made the playoffs. What is success?? Super Bowl, wildcard, division title, wining record? If winning record is a success Cousins has that. Bottom line we either need to get an elite QB or build a better all around team. The QB stuff hasn't happened since Fran. He came back and lead us. We don't draft the right guy. Look it up. Johnson and Gannon had success, super bowl, with different teams.

Well, at least winning a couple playoff games this year would be a start, but let's be honest... We didn't bring in Cousins to help have a winning record. We brought him in to help us win the SB, and as unfair as that lofty expectation is, that's really the truth here. We brought him in to complete the team, not to build around him. The organization itself, if it's being honest, feels the same way. There's zero chance we pay a FA QB top dollar, if we didn't believe he was a huge missing piece of the puzzle.

So, yeah, I guess my expectation is the same with Cousins. If we fall short of a SB, it's probably a fail. We may look back some day, and think "he was a pretty good QB". If he wins it all, we'll forever love him. If he doesn't, we'll chalk it up as another failed attempt by the organization truthfully.

That's different than how we treated most of our previous QBs, but those were different circumstances too. We hoped Cunningham would put it together, but the expectations were lower. We were surprised by Cunningham and Keenum, but didn't expect them to get us there (until the very end at least).

We expect Cousins to do it, because that's why he was brought here.

Dames wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:03 pm

CharVike wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:37 am
What is success in peoples minds. Like Culpepper leading us to a 41-0 #### kicking in the champ game. That's not a success in my book. I thought the team that made it to the Skins had success. They were left for dead and barley made the playoffs. What is success?? Super Bowl, wildcard, division title, wining record? If winning record is a success Cousins has that. Bottom line we either need to get an elite QB or build a better all around team. The QB stuff hasn't happened since Fran. He came back and lead us. We don't draft the right guy. Look it up. Johnson and Gannon had success, super bowl, with different teams.

Well, at least winning a couple playoff games this year would be a start, but let's be honest... We didn't bring in Cousins to help have a winning record. We brought him in to help us win the SB, and as unfair as that lofty expectation is, that's really the truth here. We brought him in to complete the team, not to build around him. The organization itself, if it's being honest, feels the same way. There's zero chance we pay a FA QB top dollar, if we didn't believe he was a huge missing piece of the puzzle.

So, yeah, I guess my expectation is the same with Cousins. If we fall short of a SB, it's probably a fail. We may look back some day, and think "he was a pretty good QB". If he wins it all, we'll forever love him. If he doesn't, we'll chalk it up as another failed attempt by the organization truthfully.

That's different than how we treated most of our previous QBs, but those were different circumstances too. We hoped Cunningham would put it together, but the expectations were lower. We were surprised by Cunningham and Keenum, but didn't expect them to get us there (until the very end at least).

We expect Cousins to do it, because that's why he was brought here.

You're right that we and our FO thought we were a decent QB away from the promise land. 13-3 with a stiff QB gave us all hope.We all thought the team was built. That still may hold true and I hope it works. But I think our D has taken a few steps backward since 2017. We've been handed some gifts this year and didn't take advantage. Two of our tougher games we faced backup QBs. That's a blessing and our team couldn't take advantage. The OL is still a shambles. They suck and couldn't push KC off the ball and there rush D blows. We should have pushed them all over the field. We couldn't even use our bread and butter ground game because the Chief D shut it down. That's not a good sign at all. Did Andy and his crew discover something? I don't know. Were we out coached?

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:52 am I don't think this has anything to do with you feeling Cousins is being treated unfairly, and everything to do with you not wanting to be wrong.

And this is what kills me with you....who wants to be wrong about something? But you can ask anyone on this board about me when it comes to being wrong about a player. If they end up busting (after they are given TIME), I have no problem admitting it. I did it with Treadwell, I did it with Ponder, etc. I'm not going to sit here and tell you Cousins was great last year. But he certainly wasnt bad and there was plenty of things that had a play in that 8-7-1 record. But the difference between me and some fans on here is that I will give guys TIME. I'm not going to call Trae Waynes a bust year 1, or hell even year 2 for that matter. Use to battle with PurpleKoolaid until the sun rose about Waynes. Same with Treadwell. I use to argue with Demi when he was calling Joseph and Munnerlyn bust FA signings year one. Neither played great but both were key pieces come year 2. Hell Joseph is still here and playing at a high level. Whether they are a rookie or a veteran it doesnt matter. Cris Carter said it best, you dont just come into a new team, new scheme, etc and just pick up where you left off a year ago. It just doesnt work that way. That is unrealistic. But many fans CANT get past that. They look at the surface of things and say, we were 13-3 in 2017 how are we not as good now? Because every year is a new year. Your schedule only gets tougher after going 13-3. Your coaches change when you have good years like that. New players come in. Some players leave. Hell look at the Eagles. Barely squeaked into the playoffs last year (simply because we blew the game vs Chicago) after winning a SB. What changed on their team? Hmmm well they lost their OC to a HC job (just like we did), they lost Flip (who only did so much being a QB coach) and swapped some players here and there. They didnt even go through a drastic QB change. It was Foles and Wentz just like it has been. And they go 9-7 and were out of the playoffs if we win week 17. Or hell, even made a FG in OT vs the Packers. That's a team that won the damn SB and took the Patriots of all teams to the cleaners. They had less change than we had and had a 9-7 season.

#1 You see people having Cousins as part of the problem in a list of problems in a loss as people putting 100% of the blame on Cousins. That is on you, not us.

Oh no. Like I mentioned in my original post, there are others that have discussed non-Cousins issues. But you of all people are going to sit here and tell me that the majority of the talk and criticism hasnt been directed at Kirk Cousins? Each loss we've had the last two years, the majority of the criticism hasnt been directed at Kirk Cousins?? I havent seen many "lists" of problems. I've seen many Kirk Cousins problems. And the leader of that pack has been you. Yeah guys are concerned about the D, concerned about the OL, concerned about the coaches. But please, go find me a thread on here that doesnt mention Cousins name at all that's more than a page or two long.... We could have a thread on here titled "Vikings waterboy" and someone along the way is going to mention Cousins one way or another. The majority of the blame, the majority of the finger pointing, the majority of the complaining is not over Xavier Rhodes, or Pat Elflein, or Kevin Stefanski, it's over Kirk Cousins. You know that and I know that.

#2 Cousins is held to a higher standard than recent QBs because he is in his 5th year starting and making top 5 money. That is very different than a 2nd year QB and a backup making 1.5 million, and we expect more from him. I do not understand why you don't.

It doesnt matter whether he is a 5th year or a 1st year. It's a new team, new scheme, new players, etc. That isnt something you just walk into and are a super star. How often in the NFL have we seen stud players go to new teams and flop?? Leveon Bell, Odell Beckham, Ndamukong Suh, Stephon Gilmore, etc. It happens all the time. You dont just walk into a new team and everything is the same. No less at the QB position. Sure it happens but there are many times it doesnt as well. As for the money aspect, I dont care what he is making. Last year the top 6 highest paid QBs missed the playoffs. Aaron Rodgers went 6-9-1 last year. What was their excuse? Nothing to do with Aaron Rodgers and how he was playing? Or is he allowed to lose because he won a SB 9 years ago? It must mean all 6 fan bases were upset with their QBs last year and were blaming their QBs as to why they didnt make the playoffs. I guess that's how it worked. Funny that I didnt hear near the criticism Cousins took for any of those other QBs. Hmm...

#3 There was a big difference between Flip and Shurmur. A valid excuse for a drop-off on offense, but a big upgrade at QB should have more than made up for it.

Again, the NFL just DOESNT WORK THAT WAY. Just because you "upgrade" a position doesnt translate to you "upgrading" your record from the previous year. Year after year teams are upgrading their rosters. And year after year teams have worse years than the did the year prior. That is reality. You have sunk right into the same mindset of the...I call them, "highlight fans" (fans that have a "favorite team" but could tell you nothing about them, the players, coaches, etc and base their opinions off what the media and highlights show). Now I am NOT saying you are one of these fans because clearly you actually watch Vikings games and know a lot about the team. But you do have a similar mindset that's for sure. Basing everything off record, looking at the surface of things and mainly thinking that since we "upgraded" our QB that means we should automatically "upgrade" our record. It just doesnt work that way. That is usually the "attempt" but never is it that easy to change one player and surround that player with completely new players, schemes, etc and think it's going to win you a SB. It takes time, it takes a team, it takes staying healthy, it takes (at times) catching a good schedule, it takes excellent coaching on all sides of the ball, it takes excellent play calling and game planning, it takes the majority of the players doing their job day in and day out, hell sometimes (in Keenums situation) it takes a whole lot of luck, etc. Kirk Cousins is just a small, little piece of what a team needs to win it all. Whether you were 0-16 or 16-0 the year before that doesnt matter. Everyone is still required to do their job and do it at a high level. Because once you upgrade one position, another position could just as easily falter and that includes coaches, players, etc. Nothing is guaranteed. It's not like having an empty wallet, working and then getting handed $1,000...a guaranteed upgrade. Everything is still a crap shoot until everyone doesnt their job at a high level and executes at a high level. Period.

#4 The 4 games he won were against 2 of the worst teams in the NFL and 2 very average teams. All 4 had bad defenses. They are the type of games he typically wins. That helps his team get to the playoffs, but what about when we get there?

Ughhh this drives me insane! Guys say "he needs to win" or "he needs to win a big game". The biggest problem here is that people want to count it when he loses a big game but not count it when he wins a big game. They also like to decide what they think is a "big game" and not a big game. You in particular.

I dont care what anyone says that Detroit game was just as big as any of them. It's a divisional game. They were 2-2-1 going into that game with us. They lost 2 games by a total of 5 points. They had KC beat WITH Mahomes. Had GB beat. They could have easily been undefeated when it was our turn to play them.

How is the KC game any bigger than the Philly game?? How is the KC game "him losing a big game" but Philly not him winning a big game? Now all of the sudden Philly is a "very average team"?? Dude give me a break. No less the Eagles dont have a "bad defense". The pass defense might not be great but overall they still have a good defense. This is where you turn into the one that doesnt want to be wrong. The Eagles have beat the Packers on the road, whooped a solid Bills team and just handled a Chicago team we got worked by. AND they are a winning team. But thats not a "big game" because you dont want it to be. If anything the Philly game was more important because they are in our conference and will be in the playoff hunt.

But what kills me, is that if we LOST to Philly.....that game would 110% get brought up when fans talked about him "not beating a winning team" or a "winning a big game". I can also 110% guarantee that if we did indeed BEAT KC, you would be sitting on here saying "well they didnt have Mahomes, they have a bad defense (like you said above about Philly), they are an average at best team without Mahomes" and so on. And to top it off, I'll even jump ahead to this week. Because I know that if we beat Dallas you'll go down the line of them being average and how they lost to the Jets and that it's not a "big game or good team". You make that decision of what is and what isnt a big game based off what Kirk does which is an absolute joke. This is where I say again, this is Kirk not getting a fair shot. Whose to sit there and say, "yup KC was a big game and he didnt win but Philly wasnt a big game they are just average". Like, what? Dont even bother trying to defend it. You're flat out wrong. No other way around it. You're going to keep putting down every team he beats with any stupid little stat you can find saying they arent a "good team" but the second he loses one, no matter who it is, you're all over it. And another way he gets an unfair shot, his fricken wins arent even counting with some fans now. This is how he is currently judged by you....and others:

Praise Kirk
-When he beats a great team

Rip Kirk
-When he beats average to weak teams (all of which are based on your discretion)
-When he loses to winning teams
-When he loses against losing teams


^^ Somebody tell me how the f*** that is a fair shot?? It's not. At all

He just needs to win. That shuts everyone up. Your excuses for him will never do that, but winning will.

That's literally what he's doing!!! He's 6-3, and not a soul has shut up. Come on you know all about looking at records....if a QB is 6-3 this year are they not winning? Oh right, he's winning but not beating teams that are up to your standards. So I guess that means he's....not winning?

A win is a win and we currently have 6 of them. I dont care who we beat. Should we not count Tom Brady's wins this year because he's had the easiest schedule you could ask for and beat several BAD teams? No. Nobody is going to shut up when Cousins wins because you along with others are going to find excuses as to why any win he has isnt good enough and every loss he has ruins our season. Your hatred runs so deep for him that you've brought yourself to the point where you're defending a bad OL, defending a defense that has dropped off quite a bit from 2017, defending poor coaching, defending KC (w/ Moore) to dogging Philly, to defending Oaklands D line. A.n.y.t.h.i.n.g. you can to make Cousins look bad. It has became an obsession that you're so far invested in that there is no escaping. It is what it is. But it's sad that some fans go SO FAR with it that it causes others to question your knowledge of the game. All because....you dont want to be wrong.