Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

A forum for the hard core Minnesota Vikings fan. Discuss upcoming games, opponents, trades, draft or what ever is on the minds of Viking fans!

Moderator: Moderators

vikeinmontana
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3121
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:23 pm
x 116

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by vikeinmontana »

StumpHunter wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 2:22 pm
vikeinmontana wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 1:52 pm

Why is that the only choice? Maybe they like what they see, and are excited about the opportunity to work with him under his current contract? Maybe they want to see how a fresh start and an offensive minded HC impacts his play this season? And then maybe at that time they'll decide whether he's worth extending or opt to go in another direction?

I don't see how a new HC saying he likes the current QB means they need to offer him a massive extension to prove "that's how they really feel" about him.

Personally, I'm excited to see how he plays under this new regime but that's just me. :govikes:
10 years in he should know what a QB really is, especially since he coached Cousins before, and prior to that, saw what McVay was able to get out of him (which was less than Zimmer).

If Cousins is a QB to be excited about coaching, and one worth paying 45 million to this year, then he is worth whatever contract demands he has. If he is worth 45 million this season, he is certainly worth 40 million in 2023 and 2024, right?
I wouldn't think so. If that's how it worked, than a guy making 30 million should be worth 40 million right? And a guy worth 40 million must warrant 50 million. Where does it stop. You're "worth" what a team is willing to pay. Just because they are willing to play out is contract, or even revamp his contract, doesn't mean they think he is the end-all-be-all of quarterbacks they will continue throwing massive amounts of money at. Life doesn't work that way. Even in the sports world.

And I guess if these guys were robots or we were playing video games your take on Cousins and what McVay was able to get out of him might be valid. But players, even those in the league for 10 years, have the ability to get better. They fit better in different systems. They may produce more in different schemes and different coaching. Same goes from coaches. It's why the greatest ever was fired from the Browns and won a million titles with the Patriots. He evolved and seems to have an eye for talent. But none of that is here nor there.

My point is just because a coach comments that he's excited to work with a current starter on a massive contract, why would that automatically mean said coach thinks he's the greatest and be willing to spend any amount of millions on him? Regardless of your feelings about Cousins, it just doesn't work that way. :confused:
i'm ready for a beer.
StumpHunter
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3399
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 580

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by StumpHunter »

vikeinmontana wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 2:52 pm
StumpHunter wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 2:22 pm

10 years in he should know what a QB really is, especially since he coached Cousins before, and prior to that, saw what McVay was able to get out of him (which was less than Zimmer).

If Cousins is a QB to be excited about coaching, and one worth paying 45 million to this year, then he is worth whatever contract demands he has. If he is worth 45 million this season, he is certainly worth 40 million in 2023 and 2024, right?
I wouldn't think so. If that's how it worked, than a guy making 30 million should be worth 40 million right? And a guy worth 40 million must warrant 50 million.
That isn't the same thing. He is likely looking for LESS than what he counts against the cap this year, not more like your examples. Should be an easy decision to pay him less than what he is currently costing the team if he is truly as good as O'Connell claims he thinks he is.
You're "worth" what a team is willing to pay.
No, you are worth what your play on the field dictates you are worth or the concept of overpaying for anything would not exist. If you pay the same for a QB as Aaron Rodgers and instead get what you get from Kirk, you overpaid.
Just because they are willing to play out is contract, or even revamp his contract, doesn't mean they think he is the end-all-be-all of quarterbacks they will continue throwing massive amounts of money at. Life doesn't work that way. Even in the sports world.
I mostly agree with this assuming by revamping his contract you mean adding a void year or two. If they let things play out it is probably because they didn't get any serious trade offers for him.
And I guess if these guys were robots or we were playing video games your take on Cousins and what McVay was able to get out of him might be valid. But players, even those in the league for 10 years, have the ability to get better. They fit better in different systems. They may produce more in different schemes and different coaching. Same goes from coaches. It's why the greatest ever was fired from the Browns and won a million titles with the Patriots. He evolved and seems to have an eye for talent. But none of that is here nor there.
Can you name a QB who improved significantly after 10 seasons simply because of a coaching change? So same team, pretty much the same players around him and they became elite? Heck, even QBs who switch teams after 10 seasons of mediocrity and win big are incredibly rare. 2 maybe in the past 3 decades?

vikeinmontana wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 2:52 pm My point is just because a coach comments that he's excited to work with a current starter on a massive contract, why would that automatically mean said coach thinks he's the greatest and be willing to spend any amount of millions on him? Regardless of your feelings about Cousins, it just doesn't work that way. :confused:
Correct, saying the things he did doesn't mean he is willing to spend any amount of millions to keep him. Feeling that way does. Those are two very different things and I intentionally said "If that is how the HC and GM truly feel about him" for a reason. If his quote is sincere and not really "I am excited to work with Kirk because he is all that I have, but I would really prefer a different QB", then he should be willing to pay Cousins like Mahomes, Allen and Prescott.
vikeinmontana
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3121
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:23 pm
x 116

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by vikeinmontana »

StumpHunter wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 6:03 pm
vikeinmontana wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 2:52 pm
I wouldn't think so. If that's how it worked, than a guy making 30 million should be worth 40 million right? And a guy worth 40 million must warrant 50 million.
That isn't the same thing. He is likely looking for LESS than what he counts against the cap this year, not more like your examples. Should be an easy decision to pay him less than what he is currently costing the team if he is truly as good as O'Connell claims he thinks he is.
You're "worth" what a team is willing to pay.
No, you are worth what your play on the field dictates you are worth or the concept of overpaying for anything would not exist. If you pay the same for a QB as Aaron Rodgers and instead get what you get from Kirk, you overpaid.
Just because they are willing to play out is contract, or even revamp his contract, doesn't mean they think he is the end-all-be-all of quarterbacks they will continue throwing massive amounts of money at. Life doesn't work that way. Even in the sports world.
I mostly agree with this assuming by revamping his contract you mean adding a void year or two. If they let things play out it is probably because they didn't get any serious trade offers for him.
And I guess if these guys were robots or we were playing video games your take on Cousins and what McVay was able to get out of him might be valid. But players, even those in the league for 10 years, have the ability to get better. They fit better in different systems. They may produce more in different schemes and different coaching. Same goes from coaches. It's why the greatest ever was fired from the Browns and won a million titles with the Patriots. He evolved and seems to have an eye for talent. But none of that is here nor there.
Can you name a QB who improved significantly after 10 seasons simply because of a coaching change? So same team, pretty much the same players around him and they became elite? Heck, even QBs who switch teams after 10 seasons of mediocrity and win big are incredibly rare. 2 maybe in the past 3 decades?

vikeinmontana wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 2:52 pm My point is just because a coach comments that he's excited to work with a current starter on a massive contract, why would that automatically mean said coach thinks he's the greatest and be willing to spend any amount of millions on him? Regardless of your feelings about Cousins, it just doesn't work that way. :confused:
Correct, saying the things he did doesn't mean he is willing to spend any amount of millions to keep him. Feeling that way does. Those are two very different things and I intentionally said "If that is how the HC and GM truly feel about him" for a reason. If his quote is sincere and not really "I am excited to work with Kirk because he is all that I have, but I would really prefer a different QB", then he should be willing to pay Cousins like Mahomes, Allen and Prescott.
Well we could argue till we’re blue in the face. Unlike most of the pissing matches on this board with so many people who should be GM’s; this one will be easy to solve….

If they give Cousins 2 more years and 80 million I’ll concede you were spot on with your assessment.

If they don’t do those things, I guess I’ll be correct on this one.

We’ll know in the coming months. :thumbsup:
i'm ready for a beer.
VikeFanInEagleLand
Veteran
Posts: 293
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:31 am
x 98

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by VikeFanInEagleLand »

StumpHunter wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 6:03 pm
Can you name a QB who improved significantly after 10 seasons simply because of a coaching change? So same team, pretty much the same players around him and they became elite? Heck, even QBs who switch teams after 10 seasons of mediocrity and win big are incredibly rare. 2 maybe in the past 3 decades?
You know I still don't see what's SO bad about Cousins. He certainly doesn't have to SIGNIFICANTLY improve. If not winning playoff games or a championship is the criteria, then again, all you need to do is look at Stafford as proof that a losing longtime losing QB can turn into a winner given the right situation.
StumpHunter
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3399
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 580

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by StumpHunter »

VikeFanInEagleLand wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 8:20 am
StumpHunter wrote: Thu Mar 03, 2022 6:03 pm
Can you name a QB who improved significantly after 10 seasons simply because of a coaching change? So same team, pretty much the same players around him and they became elite? Heck, even QBs who switch teams after 10 seasons of mediocrity and win big are incredibly rare. 2 maybe in the past 3 decades?
You know I still don't see what's SO bad about Cousins. He certainly doesn't have to SIGNIFICANTLY improve. If not winning playoff games or a championship is the criteria, then again, all you need to do is look at Stafford as proof that a losing longtime losing QB can turn into a winner given the right situation.
The thing that is SO bad about Cousins is that going into a season with him at QB ensures we have no shot at winning the SB. He is not Matt Stafford, and we know this because when he was given a similar opportunity to the one Matt Stafford got last season he won 8 games.

Matt Stafford does not prove that we can win it all with Cousins, he proves what a complete and utter failure the Cousins signing was.
User avatar
halfgiz
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:38 pm
x 92

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by halfgiz »

Sounds like Kirk isn’t giving no discounts. I don’t think Vikings will cave to his demands.


https://thespun.com/nfl/nfc-north/minne ... n-discount.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... -discount/
CharVike
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 467

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by CharVike »

StumpHunter wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 8:33 am
VikeFanInEagleLand wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 8:20 am

You know I still don't see what's SO bad about Cousins. He certainly doesn't have to SIGNIFICANTLY improve. If not winning playoff games or a championship is the criteria, then again, all you need to do is look at Stafford as proof that a losing longtime losing QB can turn into a winner given the right situation.
The thing that is SO bad about Cousins is that going into a season with him at QB ensures we have no shot at winning the SB. He is not Matt Stafford, and we know this because when he was given a similar opportunity to the one Matt Stafford got last season he won 8 games.

Matt Stafford does not prove that we can win it all with Cousins, he proves what a complete and utter failure the Cousins signing was.
Similar opportunity. That Ram team under their HC was in the Super Bowl prior to Stafford. Our team under our HC had a miracle home playoff win and then were totally destroyed in the conference champ game by a bum QB. Zim's D could never hold up against the good teams. In the playoffs they never played ball. That Ram team only gave up 13 to Brady in the Super Bowl. That's playing D. That's not close to similar and more close to the complete opposite. Now people think Stafford's leadership and elevating skills lead them to the Super Bowl. That's a bunch of BS. Darnold was a dam good player before Stafford. Stafford didn't turn him from a bum to a great player with his elevating skills as some fans think. Jalen Ramsey wasn't a good player because of Stafford's elevating skills either. He was a good player before Stafford worked his magic or elevating. Kupp was a good player. He wasn't some bum laying around doing nothing. Ask Lion fans about Stafford their opinion will be much different than the media claiming that he elevated these bums to great players in a few months.He didn't elevate a single Lion player. Cousins isn't going to turn Brabury into a HOF center. The guy sucks. Cousins did help JJ and some will say it had nothing to do with him. That's wrong. He threw the ball.
StumpHunter
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3399
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 580

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by StumpHunter »

CharVike wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 11:17 am
StumpHunter wrote: Fri Mar 04, 2022 8:33 am
The thing that is SO bad about Cousins is that going into a season with him at QB ensures we have no shot at winning the SB. He is not Matt Stafford, and we know this because when he was given a similar opportunity to the one Matt Stafford got last season he won 8 games.

Matt Stafford does not prove that we can win it all with Cousins, he proves what a complete and utter failure the Cousins signing was.
Similar opportunity. That Ram team under their HC was in the Super Bowl prior to Stafford. Our team under our HC had a miracle home playoff win and then were totally destroyed in the conference champ game by a bum QB. Zim's D could never hold up against the good teams. In the playoffs they never played ball. That Ram team only gave up 13 to Brady in the Super Bowl. That's playing D. That's not close to similar and more close to the complete opposite. Now people think Stafford's leadership and elevating skills lead them to the Super Bowl. That's a bunch of BS. Darnold was a dam good player before Stafford. Stafford didn't turn him from a bum to a great player with his elevating skills as some fans think. Jalen Ramsey wasn't a good player because of Stafford's elevating skills either. He was a good player before Stafford worked his magic or elevating. Kupp was a good player. He wasn't some bum laying around doing nothing. Ask Lion fans about Stafford their opinion will be much different than the media claiming that he elevated these bums to great players in a few months.He didn't elevate a single Lion player. Cousins isn't going to turn Brabury into a HOF center. The guy sucks. Cousins did help JJ and some will say it had nothing to do with him. That's wrong. He threw the ball.
The Rams were in the SB in 2018 not 2020. Stafford joined them in 2021 after they were blown out in the divisional round...
CharVike
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 467

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by CharVike »

StumpHunter wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 6:08 pm
CharVike wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 11:17 am
Similar opportunity. That Ram team under their HC was in the Super Bowl prior to Stafford. Our team under our HC had a miracle home playoff win and then were totally destroyed in the conference champ game by a bum QB. Zim's D could never hold up against the good teams. In the playoffs they never played ball. That Ram team only gave up 13 to Brady in the Super Bowl. That's playing D. That's not close to similar and more close to the complete opposite. Now people think Stafford's leadership and elevating skills lead them to the Super Bowl. That's a bunch of BS. Darnold was a dam good player before Stafford. Stafford didn't turn him from a bum to a great player with his elevating skills as some fans think. Jalen Ramsey wasn't a good player because of Stafford's elevating skills either. He was a good player before Stafford worked his magic or elevating. Kupp was a good player. He wasn't some bum laying around doing nothing. Ask Lion fans about Stafford their opinion will be much different than the media claiming that he elevated these bums to great players in a few months.He didn't elevate a single Lion player. Cousins isn't going to turn Brabury into a HOF center. The guy sucks. Cousins did help JJ and some will say it had nothing to do with him. That's wrong. He threw the ball.
The Rams were in the SB in 2018 not 2020. Stafford joined them in 2021 after they were blown out in the divisional round...
I know what the year was. It was the same HC. But we were never similar to that team.
StumpHunter
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3399
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 580

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by StumpHunter »

CharVike wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 11:28 pm
StumpHunter wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 6:08 pm
The Rams were in the SB in 2018 not 2020. Stafford joined them in 2021 after they were blown out in the divisional round...
I know what the year was. It was the same HC. But we were never similar to that team.
The Vikings had the 3rd best scoring defense compared to the 8th, both had a WR capable of leading the league in receiving paired up with another great WR, both had a solid TE and the Vikings had a great RB compared to the Rams solid one. Oline was obviously very different, but the Bengals just went to the SB with a much worse Oline than the one the Vikings had in 2018.
CharVike
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 467

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by CharVike »

StumpHunter wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 8:12 am
CharVike wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 11:28 pm
I know what the year was. It was the same HC. But we were never similar to that team.
The Vikings had the 3rd best scoring defense compared to the 8th, both had a WR capable of leading the league in receiving paired up with another great WR, both had a solid TE and the Vikings had a great RB compared to the Rams solid one. Oline was obviously very different, but the Bengals just went to the SB with a much worse Oline than the one the Vikings had in 2018.
We played that Ram team in 2018 and got beat. We scored 31 but this great D you keep talking about allowed Goff to throw 5 TDs. When 31 is scored and you have a great D that should be easy. It was a defeat. 38 points given up. That sucks. Yes we held the great Stafford down as he put up a grand total of 18 points in two games. Not much elevating in those two. He throw for a grand total 315 yards in 2 games. That was with 68 attempts. We gave up 29 to the Packers for a tie in OT. We scored 22 in quarter 4 to tie. Our stiff FG kicker missed 3. Our O did suck against Seahawks/Bills/ as we only scored 13 in two games. That's as bad as it gets. I don't know how our D was rated so high when the good teams never struggled. That's the problem with the regular season ratings. You have a few great games against bad teams and it changes things.
Pondering Her Percy
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8840
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 am
Location: Watertown, NY
x 1001

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by Pondering Her Percy »

StumpHunter wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 6:08 pm
CharVike wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 11:17 am
Similar opportunity. That Ram team under their HC was in the Super Bowl prior to Stafford. Our team under our HC had a miracle home playoff win and then were totally destroyed in the conference champ game by a bum QB. Zim's D could never hold up against the good teams. In the playoffs they never played ball. That Ram team only gave up 13 to Brady in the Super Bowl. That's playing D. That's not close to similar and more close to the complete opposite. Now people think Stafford's leadership and elevating skills lead them to the Super Bowl. That's a bunch of BS. Darnold was a dam good player before Stafford. Stafford didn't turn him from a bum to a great player with his elevating skills as some fans think. Jalen Ramsey wasn't a good player because of Stafford's elevating skills either. He was a good player before Stafford worked his magic or elevating. Kupp was a good player. He wasn't some bum laying around doing nothing. Ask Lion fans about Stafford their opinion will be much different than the media claiming that he elevated these bums to great players in a few months.He didn't elevate a single Lion player. Cousins isn't going to turn Brabury into a HOF center. The guy sucks. Cousins did help JJ and some will say it had nothing to do with him. That's wrong. He threw the ball.
The Rams were in the SB in 2018 not 2020. Stafford joined them in 2021 after they were blown out in the divisional round...
Regardless, Cousins joined a completely different coaching regime. Maybe similar situation roster wise but nowhere near coaching wise.

Zimmer was a hard-headed, conservative, defensive minded head coach that actually wanted nothing to do with signing him. And paired him with John DeFilippo who failed everywhere he went after the Eagles SB run.

Matt Stafford was paired with Sean McVay...enough said
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent and the choices you make will shape your life forever.
-Chazz Palminteri
StumpHunter
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3399
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 580

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by StumpHunter »

Pondering Her Percy wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 2:47 pm
StumpHunter wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 6:08 pm
The Rams were in the SB in 2018 not 2020. Stafford joined them in 2021 after they were blown out in the divisional round...
Regardless, Cousins joined a completely different coaching regime. Maybe similar situation roster wise but nowhere near coaching wise.

Zimmer was a hard-headed, conservative, defensive minded head coach that actually wanted nothing to do with signing him. And paired him with John DeFilippo who failed everywhere he went after the Eagles SB run.

Matt Stafford was paired with Sean McVay...enough said
So was Cousins in 2015 and 2016 and it resulted in 9 and 8 wins.
CharVike
Career Elite Player
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:28 pm
x 467

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by CharVike »

StumpHunter wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:17 pm
Pondering Her Percy wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 2:47 pm

Regardless, Cousins joined a completely different coaching regime. Maybe similar situation roster wise but nowhere near coaching wise.

Zimmer was a hard-headed, conservative, defensive minded head coach that actually wanted nothing to do with signing him. And paired him with John DeFilippo who failed everywhere he went after the Eagles SB run.

Matt Stafford was paired with Sean McVay...enough said
So was Cousins in 2015 and 2016 and it resulted in 9 and 8 wins.
Plus in 2018 Everson basically lost his marbles and X Rhodes who was a top cover corner sucked and sucked the following season then Zim decided to get rid of him. It took two years of crap play before he decided to move on. That was talked about on this board. A good HC knows when a guy sucks.
StumpHunter
Hall of Fame Candidate
Posts: 3399
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:55 am
x 580

Re: Vikings "a good quarterback on a cheaper contract away from being dangerous"

Post by StumpHunter »

CharVike wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 12:24 am
StumpHunter wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:17 pm
So was Cousins in 2015 and 2016 and it resulted in 9 and 8 wins.
Plus in 2018 Everson basically lost his marbles and X Rhodes who was a top cover corner sucked and sucked the following season then Zim decided to get rid of him. It took two years of crap play before he decided to move on. That was talked about on this board. A good HC knows when a guy sucks.
Neither Rhodes or Griffen "sucked" in 2018. 2018 the Vikings had arguably the best pass defense in the NFL and were 3rd in YPG given up and 1st in TDs given up against the pass. There isn't a logical explanation for how the #1 CB could suck on a defense that gives up so few passing yards and passing TDs, but I am sure you will attempt an illogical one anyway. Griffen had a mental breakdown, but his on the field production was still pretty good. PFF credits him with as many pressures and more sacks than Kahlil Mack in 2019. Rhodes' play dropped off significantly in 2019, but it turns out he was still a better option than the guys behind him.