We Have 2 Shots

[Guest]

No team would ever trade their perfectly capable QB for a dice roll at the craps table. Matthew Coller has an article out this morning about how the Vikings shouldn't be afraid to trade Cousins and draft a QB simply because they struck out with Ponder. 

All of this is nonsense. It would never happen. The odds of this happening are not low. They're zero. 

Vikings might extend Cousins and draft a QB. The Vikings might trade Cousins for another QB and then draft a QB, though the odds of this happening are very low. But what absolutely won't happen is the Vikings--an offense with Cook and JJ and Thielen and ISJ, and a team without a reliable veteran backup QB--trading Cousins for a pick that becomes their ostensible starter in '22. 

[Guest]

@"MaroonBells" said:
No team would ever trade their perfectly capable QB for a dice roll at the craps table. Matthew Coller has an article out this morning about how the Vikings shouldn't be afraid to trade Cousins and draft a QB simply because they struck out with Ponder. 

All of this is nonsense. It would never happen. The odds of this happening are not low. They're zero. 

Vikings might extend Cousins and draft a QB. The Vikings might trade Cousins for another QB and then draft a QB, though the odds of this happening are very low. But what absolutely won't happen is the Vikings--an offense with Cook and JJ and Thielen and ISJ, and a team without a reliable veteran backup QB--trading Cousins for a pick that becomes their ostensible starter in '22. 

Agreed. The ridiculousness of all of these podcaster/online content sports Vikings people is so nuts now, we're saturated with speculation and crazy takes founded on nothing other than creating a buzz. Its nonsensical. I also think a decent portion of it is disingenuous, they don't even believe what they are saying, just putting out clickbait. Yawn.

[Guest]

@"mgobluevikes" said:
While our defense goes over the cliff...ummm...no

I get what you’re saying but 1. The D fell over the cliff a long time ago. 2. If your starting QB is on a rookie deal you can afford to reload the defense quickly. And 3. A Kirk trade will net us some extra picks.

My plan isn’t great but I’m just saying I’d rather take a shot (or 2) at a blue chipper than give Kirk 5 more years.

[Guest]

The odds of hitting on a QB are not good, no matter where you draft. Specially if your only goal is to win a Super Bowl. So spending 2 first round picks on a maybe when you have a very good one now is dumb.

A Joe Burrow comes around now and then, Ryan Leaf was a sure thing and no way he wasn’t going to be one of the best, right?
I’d rather ride it out with a proven QB.

[Guest]

Vikings are no way going to roll with Mond or a draft pick @ QB year 1 of KOC/KAM - ZERO CHANCE

@MB had a good articulation in another thread. I see it as...

22 Choices will be :
KC under current contract, not as much cap flex as we'd like, FA next year
KC extended, more cap flex to re-build a bad D
KC traded for a Tannehill caliber QB (at best) more cap flex to help re-build a bad D


I'll roll with door #2 if those are our choices...

[Guest]

@"purplefaithful" said:
Vikings are no way going to roll with Mond or a draft pick @ QB year 1 of KOC/KAM - ZERO CHANCE

@MB had a good articulation in another thread. I see it as...

22 Choices will be :
KC under current contract, not as much cap flex as we'd like, FA next year
KC extended, more cap flex to re-build a bad D
KC traded for a Tannehill caliber QB (at best) more cap flex to help re-build a bad D


I'll roll with door #2 if those are our choices...

Aw cmon pf, live a little!  :p

[Guest]

Did you drink two shots before posting this?

[Guest]

@"JustinTime18™" said:
Did you drink two shots before posting this?

Lol fair! The way I see it there aren’t any *great* solutions to this predicament. Thanks Rick! This plan, to me, would be the lesser of multiple evils. I do agree with MB that it’s very unlikely and we’ll probably extend KC. 

[Guest]

First off, if you want back to back 1st round QB picks go for it. We have a pick already in each round so I’m not sure exactly what you’re advocating here.

Getting rid of Cousins is not rational, it’s emotional. For those wanting to get rid of him, I’ve never seen a rational argument put forth as to why. What I typically hear is win/loss. That’s about the most ridiculous “argument” one could offer. Real world football doesn’t work that way when the QB and offense are performing well. It’s 100% a team sport. 
Cousins is as healthy as they come. If he wants to play 6 more years, I’d hardly be surprised if he did just that. I also expect his arm will stay strong. It often doesn’t drop much in the age range we are talking. Players can slow down running, but he’s a pocket QB through and through. It’s not a concern as he doesn’t rely on that to be good. 
In many ways, these arguments are similar to the decades of Packer fans wanting to get rid of Rodgers and Favre before that. Like with Rodgers, the only valid argument is that cap number. If that gets fixed, there’s nothing to stand on. 
Sign him for 5 years. It will give you several years to find a future franchise QB. It will offer a number of draft classes to find that right guy. 
I can’t wait until Cousins extension is done so we can move on and know how much cap relief it brings.