Quote: @FLVike said:
@ CFIAvike said:
@ FLVike said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
@ FLVike said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
@ FLVike said:
@ comet52 said:
When a mediocrity like Daniel Jones gets 40 mil/yr it's hardly a stretch to think Kirk wants more than that. I hear the argument here that he's so amazingly great but that he'll somehow play for a below market deal, which makes zero sense given his amazing greatness not to mention contract history, and what qb plays for a below market deal anyway?
Maybe he realized that no other QB in history has been paid so much for accomplishing so little
Kind of like Dan Marino, and Jim Kelly...Would you be saying this about Cousins if he had been playing for the 49ers for the last 6 yrs.?
Why are you comparing Cousins to Hall-Of-Fame QBs that have played in Superbowls?
Because it takes a lot more pieces than a QB to get to the HOF or super bowls. Why didn't either of them win? Marino threw 50 times in his super bowl loss with 2 picks, 1 TD and they only scored 16 pts. Kelly's offenses scored 13, 17, 19 and 24 pts. Did they just pad their stats their whole careers? You didn't answer my question about the 49ers. What if Cousins played on the Rams team instead of Stafford when they won a SB with Aaron Donald?
Here's my answer to your question, you may want to sit down before you read it;
Even if Cousins had the '85 Bears defense and the '98 Vikings offense he still would not get to the Superbowl.
All-time TERRIBLE take right here. Absolutely legendary.
Well it can't be, because comparing Cousins to Hall of Fame QBs has to be number one.
.....I'll give you Terry Bradshaw and Dan Fouts to chew on too...lol...
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
When a mediocrity like Daniel Jones gets 40 mil/yr it's hardly a stretch to think Kirk wants more than that. I hear the argument here that he's so amazingly great but that he'll somehow play for a below market deal, which makes zero sense given his amazing greatness not to mention contract history, and what qb plays for a below market deal anyway?
Maybe one who's coming off an achilles injury? I don't think his age plays a big part in this, but I do think the injury keeps him just under market.
I think his market value had he not been hurt would have easily been in the 45 mil for 3 yr. fully guaranteed. With the situation now, I think 2 yrs. at 38-40ish mil is his market value knowing that his mobility/running was never a key component to his game. Could go a little higher if SF gets involved.
Without the injury, I think it would've been a helluva lot higher than that. There are 4 QBs over 50 and 8 over 45.
How many of those 12 are going to be 36yrs old?
Quote: @mgobluevikes said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
When a mediocrity like Daniel Jones gets 40 mil/yr it's hardly a stretch to think Kirk wants more than that. I hear the argument here that he's so amazingly great but that he'll somehow play for a below market deal, which makes zero sense given his amazing greatness not to mention contract history, and what qb plays for a below market deal anyway?
Maybe one who's coming off an achilles injury? I don't think his age plays a big part in this, but I do think the injury keeps him just under market.
I think his market value had he not been hurt would have easily been in the 45 mil for 3 yr. fully guaranteed. With the situation now, I think 2 yrs. at 38-40ish mil is his market value knowing that his mobility/running was never a key component to his game. Could go a little higher if SF gets involved.
Without the injury, I think it would've been a helluva lot higher than that. There are 4 QBs over 50 and 8 over 45.
How many of those 12 are going to be 36yrs old?
Honestly, I think in terms of just money (not term), Kirk's age is irrelevant. The injury not so much.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
When a mediocrity like Daniel Jones gets 40 mil/yr it's hardly a stretch to think Kirk wants more than that. I hear the argument here that he's so amazingly great but that he'll somehow play for a below market deal, which makes zero sense given his amazing greatness not to mention contract history, and what qb plays for a below market deal anyway?
Maybe one who's coming off an achilles injury? I don't think his age plays a big part in this, but I do think the injury keeps him just under market.
I think his market value had he not been hurt would have easily been in the 45 mil for 3 yr. fully guaranteed. With the situation now, I think 2 yrs. at 38-40ish mil is his market value knowing that his mobility/running was never a key component to his game. Could go a little higher if SF gets involved.
Without the injury, I think it would've been a helluva lot higher than that. There are 4 QBs over 50 and 8 over 45.
How many of those 12 are going to be 36yrs old?
Honestly, I think in terms of just money (not term), Kirk's age is irrelevant. The injury not so much.
...but in terms of what I think the market was/is, my guess is that NFL GMs aren't likely to give a 36 yr. old the same deal as a guy going on his second contract that looks to be the next big thing or at least top 10 material. Certainly not in terms of guarantees or length.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
When a mediocrity like Daniel Jones gets 40 mil/yr it's hardly a stretch to think Kirk wants more than that. I hear the argument here that he's so amazingly great but that he'll somehow play for a below market deal, which makes zero sense given his amazing greatness not to mention contract history, and what qb plays for a below market deal anyway?
Maybe one who's coming off an achilles injury? I don't think his age plays a big part in this, but I do think the injury keeps him just under market.
I think his market value had he not been hurt would have easily been in the 45 mil for 3 yr. fully guaranteed. With the situation now, I think 2 yrs. at 38-40ish mil is his market value knowing that his mobility/running was never a key component to his game. Could go a little higher if SF gets involved.
Without the injury, I think it would've been a helluva lot higher than that. There are 4 QBs over 50 and 8 over 45.
How many of those 12 are going to be 36yrs old?
Honestly, I think in terms of just money (not term), Kirk's age is irrelevant. The injury not so much.
I don't agree. I think age plays a role. I think injury plays a role. Lastly, I think age recovering from an injury plays a role in determining salary. All three play a role IMO.
I think the injury at his age should be a clear sign to move on unless he gives us a sweet deal, which he won't. Time for Kwesi and the brass to make some big boy decisions.
Quote: @mgobluevikes said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ comet52 said:
When a mediocrity like Daniel Jones gets 40 mil/yr it's hardly a stretch to think Kirk wants more than that. I hear the argument here that he's so amazingly great but that he'll somehow play for a below market deal, which makes zero sense given his amazing greatness not to mention contract history, and what qb plays for a below market deal anyway?
Maybe one who's coming off an achilles injury? I don't think his age plays a big part in this, but I do think the injury keeps him just under market.
I think his market value had he not been hurt would have easily been in the 45 mil for 3 yr. fully guaranteed. With the situation now, I think 2 yrs. at 38-40ish mil is his market value knowing that his mobility/running was never a key component to his game. Could go a little higher if SF gets involved.
Without the injury, I think it would've been a helluva lot higher than that. There are 4 QBs over 50 and 8 over 45.
How many of those 12 are going to be 36yrs old?
Honestly, I think in terms of just money (not term), Kirk's age is irrelevant. The injury not so much.
...but in terms of what I think the market was/is, my guess is that NFL GMs aren't likely to give a 36 yr. old the same deal as a guy going on his second contract that looks to be the next big thing or at least top 10 material. Certainly not in terms of guarantees or length.
I think history disagrees with that. If you look at contracts given to long-term starters in their middle 30s (Rodgers, Ben, Brees, Rivers) the length of term goes down drastically, but not so much the money.
Quote: @CFIAvike said:
@ FLVike said:
@ CFIAvike said:
@ FLVike said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
@ FLVike said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
@ FLVike said:
@ comet52 said:
When a mediocrity like Daniel Jones gets 40 mil/yr it's hardly a stretch to think Kirk wants more than that. I hear the argument here that he's so amazingly great but that he'll somehow play for a below market deal, which makes zero sense given his amazing greatness not to mention contract history, and what qb plays for a below market deal anyway?
Maybe he realized that no other QB in history has been paid so much for accomplishing so little
Kind of like Dan Marino, and Jim Kelly...Would you be saying this about Cousins if he had been playing for the 49ers for the last 6 yrs.?
Why are you comparing Cousins to Hall-Of-Fame QBs that have played in Superbowls?
Because it takes a lot more pieces than a QB to get to the HOF or super bowls. Why didn't either of them win? Marino threw 50 times in his super bowl loss with 2 picks, 1 TD and they only scored 16 pts. Kelly's offenses scored 13, 17, 19 and 24 pts. Did they just pad their stats their whole careers? You didn't answer my question about the 49ers. What if Cousins played on the Rams team instead of Stafford when they won a SB with Aaron Donald?
Here's my answer to your question, you may want to sit down before you read it;
Even if Cousins had the '85 Bears defense and the '98 Vikings offense he still would not get to the Superbowl.
All-time TERRIBLE take right here. Absolutely legendary.
Well it can't be, because comparing Cousins to Hall of Fame QBs has to be number one.
Equally as ludicrous. But if you don’t think Cousins is talented enough to be quarterbacking a Super Bowl winning team, you’re breathtakingly wrong.
Cousins is easily as talented as Stafford, Flacco, Jimmy G, Jared Goff, Nick Foles, Matt Ryan, and Russell Wilson. All of whom appeared in Super Bowls in the last ten years. Half of whom who WON one. And every one of these QBs outside of Foles and Goff took up a major portion of their teams’ salary cap space.
Then people like you will point to how those QB’s were surrounded by great teams and that’s why they could get to a Super Bowl. But in the same breath turn around and say Kirk Cousins is the SOLE reason the Vikings can’t win a chip.
Me? You won't find a post from me mentioning anything of the sort.My take is that great QBs are what determines the outcome 90% of the time. QBs like Montana, Manning, Marino, Favre, Rodgers, Mahomes, Warner, are there almost every season fighting for the Superbowl no matter who the receivers are, their RBs, or their linemen. Year after year supporting players get changed and it doesn't matter. Even if these QBs change teams they are right there one step away from the Superbowl.
This is why I am all for getting a QB in the draft, because if we don't then we won't have a chance to get there for a while.
|
