***Official 2021 Vikings***

MeowingCows

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2015
30,620
26,585
113
Iowa
The Vikings had 14 one score games this year. Where's all of this garbage time you're talking about?

Cousins isn't my favorite quarterback. I have no real affinity for him, but some people let their dislike of him shape the narrative.
Exactly. All of the Cousins blame is purely revisionist history. It's the same stuff we heard after his first year, except without the first year stats. Which have vastly improved across the board.
 

CycloneNorth

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2010
3,410
1,147
113
Nashville, TN
View attachment 94943

Saw this as an excuse to keep Cousins. This doesn't show his QBR (ESPN stat) is 15th in the league.

Kirk is a play it safe QB. He FEATS in garbage time which inflates his stats. No he is not the sole reason for Vikings underperformance. But he is a LARGE reason why.

Not fixing the interior line for Kirk was Zimm and Rick's downfall.

Maybe another team will trade a 1 if they have a good line and are in desperate need of a QB... Browns, Philly, Back to Washington?, Saints??? All of those teams have good PFF o-line play with worse QB's than Kirk. Only NO is in cap hell

How does 13-12 rank 22nd?
 

cyfan92

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2011
5,115
7,494
113
Augusta National Golf Club
The Vikings had 14 one score games this year. Where's all of this garbage time you're talking about?

Cousins isn't my favorite quarterback. I have no real affinity for him, but some people let their dislike of him shape the narrative.

 

JM4CY

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 23, 2012
21,956
39,536
113
America
Exactly. All of the Cousins blame is purely revisionist history. It's the same stuff we heard after his first year, except without the first year stats. Which have vastly improved across the board.
I agree with you. It’d be interesting to get a feel for what guys on that side of the ball on the team think of him.
 

PSYclone22

Visual Analytics Mercenary
SuperFanatic
Aug 15, 2012
4,057
2,201
113
Des Moines
I can see "expected points added" being high for Winston his last full season as a starter. He had a ton of yards, a lot of TDs, but also 30 picks. I'm guessing expected points added isn't a net factor that discounts turnovers? Because 30 Ints isn't a small thing. That's a number you simply aren't going to win with no matter what.
EPA accounts for turnovers, but the data behind turnovers reflect that they're not as bad as the general assumption
 

PSYclone22

Visual Analytics Mercenary
SuperFanatic
Aug 15, 2012
4,057
2,201
113
Des Moines
Kirk Cousins EPA per play 2019-2021: 0.192
Kirk Cousins EPA per play 2019-2021 in 4th Q / OT where team chance to win is between 20-80%: 0.186

There is a mild drop off but it's not as if he suddenly turns into Christian Ponder.
 

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
7,922
10,964
113
I agree with you. It’d be interesting to get a feel for what guys on that side of the ball on the team think of him.
The guys on the other side of the ball should love Kirk. They get to to be paid like a top 10 defense while being one of the worst in the league, and they take very little of the blame.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Acylum and JM4CY

clone52

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jun 27, 2006
6,143
1,755
113
This. If they're dumping Kirk, then they should let Mond have the reins. Ideally you don't want any more than 5 wins, maybe 6, in that scenario. Any more than that and you're out of the top 10 and you might as well have kept Cousins and try to plug the holes on the defense.

This is just a stupid idea. Tanking for a top QB rarely works. You are much more likely to miss on that QB pick than hit on it and the consequences of missing it are terrible. All of your offensive stars will want out, Cook will want out, Jefferson won't sign a 2nd contract, you won't attract the high end talent.

The Vikings are so far out from being a doormat, that their best bet is still to build the best team possible and try to make the playoffs, then trust your scouting department to find that franchise QB later in the draft.

How many of today's Franchise altering QBs were Top 10 picks?
Josh Allen (yup)
Joe Burrow (yup)
Rothelisberger (nope, 11th)
Lamar (nope, 30th)
Andrew Luck (yup) - counting him because he could still be playing if he wanted to
Watson (nope, 12th) - would be franchise altering if he wasn't an idiot
Mahomes (yup, but 10th is all and after Trubisky)
Prescott (nope, 4th round)
Rodgers (nope, 20ish?)
Ryan (yup)
Newton (yup)
Herbert (yup)
Murray (yup)
Wilson (nope, 3rd round)

So I see 14 QBs currently with the team that drafted them that could be franchise altering. Almost half of them were not in the Top 10 picks. It can be done without tanking.

Now lets look at Top 10 QBs the last 10 years.
2021 - Too early to tell, but I'd have more confidence in Fields and Jones becoming franchise QBs than the Top 10 guys like Wilson, Lance and Lawrence.
2020 - Burrow and Herbert look like massive hits. Tua is a miss.
2019 - Murray is a hit, Daniel Jones, not so much.
2018 - Josh Allen is huge. Baker Mayfield, not franchise altering, Rosen and Darnold, hell no.
2017 - Mahomes huge, Trubisky nope
2016 - Goff and Wentz are good, but not franchise altering
2015 - Winston and Mariota are not franchise altering.
2014 - Bortles nope
2013 - none in top 10
2012 - Luck and Griffen yup, Tannehill no
2011 - Cam yup, Locker and Gabbert no

So if your goal to fall into the Top 10 is to get a franchise altering QB, you're looking at a about a 1 out of 3 chance of getting what you want. Sure a better chance than anywhere else in the draft, but you can still get a franchise one later, not alienate your fans by tanking, not alienate your good players by sucking and not miss out on a top flight OL, pass rusher, LB or WR in the Top 10 if you do get there.
 

clone52

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jun 27, 2006
6,143
1,755
113
Cousins hasn't been the reason the Vikings have disappointed the last 2 years. Its their old, expensive, injured defense. Their top defensive players have missed a ton of time due to injuries. Sure, Cousins has a big cap hit, but has it really caused them to not sign other players to big contracts? The found ways to keep their own key guys (Smith, Cook, Hunter, Barr, Kendricks, O'Neill). The found big money for Paterson, Dalvin Tomlinson and Michael Pierce. You can't really say anybody they lost do to a cap situation was that big of a deal. Xavier Rhoads would be it. You could argue that they should have spent more money on OL, but they did try with Riley Reiff to decent, but not great results.

If it were my decision, I'd probably trade Cousins. But I'd be okay with them keeping and extending him. Extend him a few years, reduce his cap hit to $25M, Cut Hunter. Cut Pierce. If you do those 3 things and you are $33M under the cap. I'd sign Woods for sure. Do that and you can find a way to field a playoff team.
 

Mr Janny

Welcome to the Office of Secret Intelligence
Staff member
Bookie
SuperFanatic
Mar 27, 2006
37,605
20,761
113
This is just a stupid idea. Tanking for a top QB rarely works. You are much more likely to miss on that QB pick than hit on it and the consequences of missing it are terrible. All of your offensive stars will want out, Cook will want out, Jefferson won't sign a 2nd contract, you won't attract the high end talent.

The Vikings are so far out from being a doormat, that their best bet is still to build the best team possible and try to make the playoffs, then trust your scouting department to find that franchise QB later in the draft.

How many of today's Franchise altering QBs were Top 10 picks?
Josh Allen (yup)
Joe Burrow (yup)
Rothelisberger (nope, 11th)
Lamar (nope, 30th)
Andrew Luck (yup) - counting him because he could still be playing if he wanted to
Watson (nope, 12th) - would be franchise altering if he wasn't an idiot
Mahomes (yup, but 10th is all and after Trubisky)
Prescott (nope, 4th round)
Rodgers (nope, 20ish?)
Ryan (yup)
Newton (yup)
Herbert (yup)
Murray (yup)
Wilson (nope, 3rd round)

So I see 14 QBs currently with the team that drafted them that could be franchise altering. Almost half of them were not in the Top 10 picks. It can be done without tanking.

Now lets look at Top 10 QBs the last 10 years.
2021 - Too early to tell, but I'd have more confidence in Fields and Jones becoming franchise QBs than the Top 10 guys like Wilson, Lance and Lawrence.
2020 - Burrow and Herbert look like massive hits. Tua is a miss.
2019 - Murray is a hit, Daniel Jones, not so much.
2018 - Josh Allen is huge. Baker Mayfield, not franchise altering, Rosen and Darnold, hell no.
2017 - Mahomes huge, Trubisky nope
2016 - Goff and Wentz are good, but not franchise altering
2015 - Winston and Mariota are not franchise altering.
2014 - Bortles nope
2013 - none in top 10
2012 - Luck and Griffen yup, Tannehill no
2011 - Cam yup, Locker and Gabbert no

So if your goal to fall into the Top 10 is to get a franchise altering QB, you're looking at a about a 1 out of 3 chance of getting what you want. Sure a better chance than anywhere else in the draft, but you can still get a franchise one later, not alienate your fans by tanking, not alienate your good players by sucking and not miss out on a top flight OL, pass rusher, LB or WR in the Top 10 if you do get there.
I don't disagree with you at all. I think they should try to run it back with Cousins. But if they get rid of him, then the tank needs to be on to maximize their options with the available quarterbacks in the draft. I'd hate to go 6-11/7-10 with some mediocre starter and then sit at the 10th pick and hope that the 3rd best quarterback on your board falls to you.
 

Kurttr

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2006
419
548
93
I'm shocked to see the Cousins support. Here's what I see by watching almost every game he's played here -- finally couldn't watch late this year b/c I was done w/ Zimmer and the whole thing ---> Cousins looks great in warm-ups and on any plays that work exactly as planned. But, that's not how things play out in most big games. Cousins is severely lacking in the things that make a big-time QB a big-time QB:
- No pocket feel/sense, whatsoever; he's literally a zombie back there, the OL is not good, but blocking for Cousins does not help - rarely steps up into the pocket, doesn't feel/flow to open space... basically, a sitting duck, unless a rollout is called... he's a robot;
- No leadership at all -- if you've watched the games, you know Kirk mostly stands on the sidelines by himself, on the field he just calls the play, they don't give him any flexibility to audible... the guys' been in the league for almost 10 years... ok, you want to say it's b/c the coaches stink - what QB with any moxie would just take this and not be on fire? Kirk wants to be in the back row where no one can see him... even when he gets himself to try to manufacture some fire, it's so awkward that it just makes things worse.

Some of you will apparently say that he has nice stats, even in some 4th quarters, but, actually watch him. I don't know how you can and come away with any confidence that he's a leader of men with the moxie to make things happen. He seems like a great guy who you'd want to babysit your kids, but he's not a big-time QB. If he had Brock Purdy's moxie and pocket sense, he'd be a top 5 QB with the skills he has. But, he's a talented robot. That's what he is.
 

clone52

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jun 27, 2006
6,143
1,755
113
I don't disagree with you at all. I think they should try to run it back with Cousins. But if they get rid of him, then the tank needs to be on to maximize their options with the available quarterbacks in the draft. I'd hate to go 6-11/7-10 with some mediocre starter and then sit at the 10th pick and hope that the 3rd best quarterback on your board falls to you.

I completely disagree with the idea of tanking. Name one situation where purposely ruining your team has worked out well for a team?

We might turn into the Jaguars who've drafted 3 QBs in the Top 10 in the last decade with nothing to show for it.

Look at the teams who have a Franchise QB.
The Chiefs didn't tank to get Mahomes.
The Packers didn't tank to get Rodgers.
The Seahawks didn't tank to get Wilson.
The Bills didn't tank to get Josh Allen.
The Ravens didn't tank to get Lamar Jackson.
The Cowboys didn't tank to get Josh Allen.
The Colts didn't tank to get Andrew Luck. Manning got hurt and they lucked out with a 1-15 season.
The Chargers didn't tank to get Justin Herbert.


The Bengals kind of tank, I guess, but its not like they gutted their roster. They just were on a continuous decline with a bad roster. The certainly didn't tank on purpose.

The Cardinals blew their first Top 10 pick to try and grab a franchise QB (Josh Rosen) and he was so bad they got a second chance. Again, not an on purpose tank.

It looks like the Raiders purposely to get Derek Carr. Terrell Pryor was their leading passer and I don't even recognize the name of their leading rusher and leading receiver. All that for a "franchise" QB with Kirk Cousins type success.

The Falcons didn't purposely tank to get Matt Ryan, unless you think the plan was to get Michael Vick indicted for an illegal dog fighting ring.

The Jaguars are great at tanking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Malty Flannel

MeowingCows

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2015
30,620
26,585
113
Iowa
I'm shocked to see the Cousins support. Here's what I see by watching almost every game he's played here -- finally couldn't watch late this year b/c I was done w/ Zimmer and the whole thing ---> Cousins looks great in warm-ups and on any plays that work exactly as planned. But, that's not how things play out in most big games. Cousins is severely lacking in the things that make a big-time QB a big-time QB:
- No pocket feel/sense, whatsoever; he's literally a zombie back there, the OL is not good, but blocking for Cousins does not help - rarely steps up into the pocket, doesn't feel/flow to open space... basically, a sitting duck, unless a rollout is called... he's a robot;
- No leadership at all -- if you've watched the games, you know Kirk mostly stands on the sidelines by himself, on the field he just calls the play, they don't give him any flexibility to audible... the guys' been in the league for almost 10 years... ok, you want to say it's b/c the coaches stink - what QB with any moxie would just take this and not be on fire? Kirk wants to be in the back row where no one can see him... even when he gets himself to try to manufacture some fire, it's so awkward that it just makes things worse.

Some of you will apparently say that he has nice stats, even in some 4th quarters, but, actually watch him. I don't know how you can and come away with any confidence that he's a leader of men with the moxie to make things happen. He seems like a great guy who you'd want to babysit your kids, but he's not a big-time QB. If he had Brock Purdy's moxie and pocket sense, he'd be a top 5 QB with the skills he has. But, he's a talented robot. That's what he is.
My counter to this is that we still don't know much much of all of this is coaching. We know Zimmer has out his thumb on the offensive scale many times, we know their goal was not to design the offense around Cousins (it was around Cook), and we know Cousins has had a new offensive coordinator every single year he's spent in MN. Including next year, now. There has to be some kind of connection between stats and overall skills and tons of staff turnover do not aid any of this. How many successful offenses out there have a new OC every year?

As has been said many times, if you reasonably can let Cousins go, then do it -- but at that point, you're committed to a tank for a QB because all that's available out there for him is a massive downgrade everywhere except the checkbook. That's fine and more or less the type of thing you expect with a GM and HC overhaul, but it's still a serious commitment. It appears that "next guy up" is not currently on our roster and it'll take time to draft and develop that guy. Multiple years.
 

Neptune78

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2020
3,248
3,161
113
East of Neptune, IA.
I completely disagree with the idea of tanking. Name one situation where purposely ruining your team has worked out well for a team?

We might turn into the Jaguars who've drafted 3 QBs in the Top 10 in the last decade with nothing to show for it.

Look at the teams who have a Franchise QB.
The Chiefs didn't tank to get Mahomes.
The Packers didn't tank to get Rodgers.
The Seahawks didn't tank to get Wilson.
The Bills didn't tank to get Josh Allen.
The Ravens didn't tank to get Lamar Jackson.
The Cowboys didn't tank to get Josh Allen.
The Colts didn't tank to get Andrew Luck. Manning got hurt and they lucked out with a 1-15 season.
The Chargers didn't tank to get Justin Herbert.


The Bengals kind of tank, I guess, but its not like they gutted their roster. They just were on a continuous decline with a bad roster. The certainly didn't tank on purpose.

The Cardinals blew their first Top 10 pick to try and grab a franchise QB (Josh Rosen) and he was so bad they got a second chance. Again, not an on purpose tank.

It looks like the Raiders purposely to get Derek Carr. Terrell Pryor was their leading passer and I don't even recognize the name of their leading rusher and leading receiver. All that for a "franchise" QB with Kirk Cousins type success.

The Falcons didn't purposely tank to get Matt Ryan, unless you think the plan was to get Michael Vick indicted for an illegal dog fighting ring.

The Jaguars are great at tanking.

You forgot one (and probably for good reason)-- the Vikings didn't tank to get Kirk Cousins.
 

clone52

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jun 27, 2006
6,143
1,755
113
You forgot one (and probably for good reason)-- the Vikings didn't tank to get Kirk Cousins.

What's your point? Because the plan to get Kirk Cousins didn't work, the Vikings should purposely tank and hope they become the first NFL team ever where that worked?
 

cyIclSoneU

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2016
2,432
3,087
113
I completely disagree with the idea of tanking. Name one situation where purposely ruining your team has worked out well for a team?

We might turn into the Jaguars who've drafted 3 QBs in the Top 10 in the last decade with nothing to show for it.

Look at the teams who have a Franchise QB.
The Chiefs didn't tank to get Mahomes.
The Packers didn't tank to get Rodgers.
The Seahawks didn't tank to get Wilson.
The Bills didn't tank to get Josh Allen.
The Ravens didn't tank to get Lamar Jackson.
The Cowboys didn't tank to get Josh Allen.
The Colts didn't tank to get Andrew Luck. Manning got hurt and they lucked out with a 1-15 season.
The Chargers didn't tank to get Justin Herbert.


The Bengals kind of tank, I guess, but its not like they gutted their roster. They just were on a continuous decline with a bad roster. The certainly didn't tank on purpose.

The Cardinals blew their first Top 10 pick to try and grab a franchise QB (Josh Rosen) and he was so bad they got a second chance. Again, not an on purpose tank.

It looks like the Raiders purposely to get Derek Carr. Terrell Pryor was their leading passer and I don't even recognize the name of their leading rusher and leading receiver. All that for a "franchise" QB with Kirk Cousins type success.

The Falcons didn't purposely tank to get Matt Ryan, unless you think the plan was to get Michael Vick indicted for an illegal dog fighting ring.

The Jaguars are great at tanking.

Mahomes was a 1st round pick
Rodgers was a 1st round pick
Wilson is the outlier here.
Allen was a 1st round pick
Jackson was a 1st round pick
I assume you mean Dak for the Cowboys, who I do not think is an elite QB anyway
Luck was literally the 1st overall pick
Herbert was a 1st round pick
Burrow was a 1st round pick
Kyler was a 1st round pick
Carr is a younger Cousins and is not elite either
Ryan was a 1st round pick
Lawrence was a 1st round pick

I don't think your list of teams says what you think it says. If the Vikings pay Cousins and stick with him to try to win, they will not (and should not) draft a 1st round QB. And we will not have the chance to see if we could get lucky on one of those picks and get an elite QB on a rookie contract.

It's not that tanking guarantees you an elite QB; it's that starting over gives the Vikings some chips in the QB casino, but sticking with Cousins gives you exactly what you know you have.

For the record I think Cousins is an above average QB but I just don't know if paying the 12th best QB the 12th-most money is a viable strategy to win in the NFL. I think maybe you either need (1) a truly elite QB and you pay him whatever he wants or (2) a solid-or-better QB on a rookie contract and you build a team around him.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron