Quote: @greediron said:
@ FLVike said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Again, if there is no intention to retain him on an extension past this upcoming season, the smart thing to do is to trade his ass. Sorry but we aren't going to the Super Bowl this upcoming season with or without Kirk Cousins (attention Wilf family!) Geoff thinks we can still get a late 1st round pick or some type of package of picks in trade compensation for Cousins, so how does that not make sense to do that? Yes, you are essentially sacrificing the upcoming season and yes the optics may look bad to Jefferson, but if there's a long term plan...do it! The Kirk Cousin hostage train is annoying every offseason. It's become the Minnesota version of Aaron Rodgers and if he is going to come back and play or not. As much as I like Kirk, it's time for this GM to step up to the plate and put his own stamp on the organization and I think even he knows that he can't do that as long as we keep playing the Cousins extension game.
Vikings are not going to trade their QB without first having their QBOTF in the pipeline.
And by what means would they go about acquiring a QBOTF prior to trading Cousins? I also think if that were to happen first it lowers the trade value and would give other teams leverage in trade talks. There's really just no way to finesse this Cousins situation to where the pieces line up perfectly for the Vikings. If they want off the rollercoaster they just need to jump at some point and trust in their new front office to make the right decisions in addressing the QB position.
By drafting one. Confused by the question.
No team would ever trade their perfectly good veteran QB for a draft pick. It would just never happen. Draft one, see what he's got, then trade? Sure. QB for QB, OK, but the QB has to be proven.
But QB for a rookie? Never happen. Not in a million years. Imagine the egg on the face of the GM of a 13-win team trading one of the NFL's best QBs, who's still only 34, for a draft pick that turns out to be Dwayne Haskins or Baker Mayfield or Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen or Trubisky or Wentz or Winston or Mariota, or Bortles, Manziel, Manuel, RGIII, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder.........No, it would never happen.
I think for some of you, your hatred of Cousins has clouded your ability to see things clearly.
I personally love the "he's not clutch" trope as we went 13-3 this year with what, 8,9 come from behind clutch victories.
Yes, "clutch" is too broad and was the wrong word. It's more like usually when the pressure in his mind gets too great he checks down, panics with his throws, or just crumbles.
Like he did all last year? With a good offense and good offensive coaches, he thrived under pressure.
There were times that he did that in past years, but often I think the OC was in over his head and the plays just sucked when we couldn't run the ball.
To say the OC was in over his head is a little harsh. How often in the Zimmer era did we see the plays just suck when we couldn't run the ball. AS to the point of Cousins panicking with his throws and settling for check downs, that might be due to the suckage of the offensive line over the years and his desire to get rid of the ball instead of getting hit. Give him credit though many times he has stood in the pocket and delivered under pressure but after awhile getting rid of it on a checkdown instead of taking a hit is the right play.
Quote: @Greylock said:
@ greediron said:
@ FLVike said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Again, if there is no intention to retain him on an extension past this upcoming season, the smart thing to do is to trade his ass. Sorry but we aren't going to the Super Bowl this upcoming season with or without Kirk Cousins (attention Wilf family!) Geoff thinks we can still get a late 1st round pick or some type of package of picks in trade compensation for Cousins, so how does that not make sense to do that? Yes, you are essentially sacrificing the upcoming season and yes the optics may look bad to Jefferson, but if there's a long term plan...do it! The Kirk Cousin hostage train is annoying every offseason. It's become the Minnesota version of Aaron Rodgers and if he is going to come back and play or not. As much as I like Kirk, it's time for this GM to step up to the plate and put his own stamp on the organization and I think even he knows that he can't do that as long as we keep playing the Cousins extension game.
Vikings are not going to trade their QB without first having their QBOTF in the pipeline.
And by what means would they go about acquiring a QBOTF prior to trading Cousins? I also think if that were to happen first it lowers the trade value and would give other teams leverage in trade talks. There's really just no way to finesse this Cousins situation to where the pieces line up perfectly for the Vikings. If they want off the rollercoaster they just need to jump at some point and trust in their new front office to make the right decisions in addressing the QB position.
By drafting one. Confused by the question.
No team would ever trade their perfectly good veteran QB for a draft pick. It would just never happen. Draft one, see what he's got, then trade? Sure. QB for QB, OK, but the QB has to be proven.
But QB for a rookie? Never happen. Not in a million years. Imagine the egg on the face of the GM of a 13-win team trading one of the NFL's best QBs, who's still only 34, for a draft pick that turns out to be Dwayne Haskins or Baker Mayfield or Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen or Trubisky or Wentz or Winston or Mariota, or Bortles, Manziel, Manuel, RGIII, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder.........No, it would never happen.
I think for some of you, your hatred of Cousins has clouded your ability to see things clearly.
I personally love the "he's not clutch" trope as we went 13-3 this year with what, 8,9 come from behind clutch victories.
Yes, "clutch" is too broad and was the wrong word. It's more like usually when the pressure in his mind gets too great he checks down, panics with his throws, or just crumbles.
Like he did all last year? With a good offense and good offensive coaches, he thrived under pressure.
There were times that he did that in past years, but often I think the OC was in over his head and the plays just sucked when we couldn't run the ball.
To say the OC was in over his head is a little harsh. How often in the Zimmer era did we see the plays just suck when we couldn't run the ball. AS to the point of Cousins panicking with his throws and settling for check downs, that might be due to the suckage of the offensive line over the years and his desire to get rid of the ball instead of getting hit. Give him credit though many times he has stood in the pocket and delivered under pressure but after awhile getting rid of it on a checkdown instead of taking a hit is the right play.
Anyone remember flip? Yeah he was in over his head. I think the young Kubiak was also not ready for the job.
Yes the line wasn't great, but some games the whole offense was flat. And Kirk sucked. I think it was more the offensive plan didn't work, the calls weren't right and the offense couldn't get anything going. Hard to be a QB when the defense knows you have to throw.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ Greylock said:
@ greediron said:
@ FLVike said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Again, if there is no intention to retain him on an extension past this upcoming season, the smart thing to do is to trade his ass. Sorry but we aren't going to the Super Bowl this upcoming season with or without Kirk Cousins (attention Wilf family!) Geoff thinks we can still get a late 1st round pick or some type of package of picks in trade compensation for Cousins, so how does that not make sense to do that? Yes, you are essentially sacrificing the upcoming season and yes the optics may look bad to Jefferson, but if there's a long term plan...do it! The Kirk Cousin hostage train is annoying every offseason. It's become the Minnesota version of Aaron Rodgers and if he is going to come back and play or not. As much as I like Kirk, it's time for this GM to step up to the plate and put his own stamp on the organization and I think even he knows that he can't do that as long as we keep playing the Cousins extension game.
Vikings are not going to trade their QB without first having their QBOTF in the pipeline.
And by what means would they go about acquiring a QBOTF prior to trading Cousins? I also think if that were to happen first it lowers the trade value and would give other teams leverage in trade talks. There's really just no way to finesse this Cousins situation to where the pieces line up perfectly for the Vikings. If they want off the rollercoaster they just need to jump at some point and trust in their new front office to make the right decisions in addressing the QB position.
By drafting one. Confused by the question.
No team would ever trade their perfectly good veteran QB for a draft pick. It would just never happen. Draft one, see what he's got, then trade? Sure. QB for QB, OK, but the QB has to be proven.
But QB for a rookie? Never happen. Not in a million years. Imagine the egg on the face of the GM of a 13-win team trading one of the NFL's best QBs, who's still only 34, for a draft pick that turns out to be Dwayne Haskins or Baker Mayfield or Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen or Trubisky or Wentz or Winston or Mariota, or Bortles, Manziel, Manuel, RGIII, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder.........No, it would never happen.
I think for some of you, your hatred of Cousins has clouded your ability to see things clearly.
I personally love the "he's not clutch" trope as we went 13-3 this year with what, 8,9 come from behind clutch victories.
Yes, "clutch" is too broad and was the wrong word. It's more like usually when the pressure in his mind gets too great he checks down, panics with his throws, or just crumbles.
Like he did all last year? With a good offense and good offensive coaches, he thrived under pressure.
There were times that he did that in past years, but often I think the OC was in over his head and the plays just sucked when we couldn't run the ball.
To say the OC was in over his head is a little harsh. How often in the Zimmer era did we see the plays just suck when we couldn't run the ball. AS to the point of Cousins panicking with his throws and settling for check downs, that might be due to the suckage of the offensive line over the years and his desire to get rid of the ball instead of getting hit. Give him credit though many times he has stood in the pocket and delivered under pressure but after awhile getting rid of it on a checkdown instead of taking a hit is the right play.
Anyone remember flip? Yeah he was in over his head. I think the young Kubiak was also not ready for the job.
Yes the line wasn't great, but some games the whole offense was flat. And Kirk sucked. I think it was more the offensive plan didn't work, the calls weren't right and the offense couldn't get anything going. Hard to be a QB when the defense knows you have to throw.
I guess then you meant that Wes Philips was in over his head since you brought up Flip and little Kubiak. I thought you meant KOC was in over his head in your post.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
I think there's no way around it being a sacrifice at some point relating to moving on from Cousins
All Viking fans would be willing to make a one or two year sacrifice if it meant improving the team and going to the Super Bowl.
But you really have to consider the odds of that. They're not very good. The Bears have been looking for a QB for decades. In their entire history, they've never once had a QB season as good as Kirk Cousins worst season statistically. Washington thought they could do better. They've since started 14 different QBs. Jay Gruden called moving on from Cousins "a huge mistake." The Chiefs drafted 32 QBs before landing Mahomes.
In other words, you're just assuming it's going to be a short term sacrifice. You're assuming the QB who replaces him will be as good, or as durable, or even just capable of paying in the NFL, when the odds are stacked against it.
Personally, I think the odds of the Vikings winning a Super Bowl in the next 3 or 4 years are much better with Kirk Cousins than without him.
Well you have to take his age into the equation, how long you expect him to be playing at a high level, and just what are we willing to commit to money wise in an extension. All that plays into the equation. Everybody routinely on this forum caps on Matt Ryan, who has been a durable former league MVP who's play has fallen off a cliff the last couple years. That's common for a QB when they get into their mid 30's. Matt Ryan is 37 years old, Cousins will be 35 prior to the start of the season. So are you willing to continue to bet financially that Kirk doesn't fall off that cliff by giving him another extension? Kwesi is an analytics man and the analytics state over the course of NFL history that older QB's typically don't sustain their play and become more prone to injury. Reading between the lines leads me to believe the Vikings WILL NOT commit to the amount of guaranteed money Cousins wants in an extension. So when you combine all this it's reasonable to believe the Vikings want to move off of Kirk in the next year or two and when you bring in a completely new front office, you have to trust in their ability to identify that QBOTF. Doesn't mean it will happen, but if you are the Wilfs you can't be scared to let them take that swing because that's why you hired them.
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
I think there's no way around it being a sacrifice at some point relating to moving on from Cousins
All Viking fans would be willing to make a one or two year sacrifice if it meant improving the team and going to the Super Bowl.
But you really have to consider the odds of that. They're not very good. The Bears have been looking for a QB for decades. In their entire history, they've never once had a QB season as good as Kirk Cousins worst season statistically. Washington thought they could do better. They've since started 14 different QBs. Jay Gruden called moving on from Cousins "a huge mistake." The Chiefs drafted 32 QBs before landing Mahomes.
In other words, you're just assuming it's going to be a short term sacrifice. You're assuming the QB who replaces him will be as good, or as durable, or even just capable of paying in the NFL, when the odds are stacked against it.
Personally, I think the odds of the Vikings winning a Super Bowl in the next 3 or 4 years are much better with Kirk Cousins than without him.
Well you have to take his age into the equation, how long you expect him to be playing at a high level, and just what are we willing to commit to money wise in an extension. All that plays into the equation. Everybody routinely on this forum caps on Matt Ryan, who has been a durable former league MVP who's play has fallen off a cliff the last couple years. That's common for a QB when they get into their mid 30's. Matt Ryan is 37 years old, Cousins will be 35 prior to the start of the season. So are you willing to continue to bet financially that Kirk doesn't fall off that cliff by giving him another extension? Kwesi is an analytics man and the analytics state over the course of NFL history that older QB's typically don't sustain their play and become more prone to injury. Reading between the lines leads me to believe the Vikings WILL NOT commit to the amount of guaranteed money Cousins wants in an extension. So when you combine all this it's reasonable to believe the Vikings want to move off of Kirk in the next year or two and when you bring in a completely new front office, you have to trust in their ability to identify that QBOTF. Doesn't mean it will happen, but if you are the Wilfs you can't be scared to let them take that swing because that's why you hired them.
Fine, take the swing...as long as that swing happens before you lose your still very capable QB. As you know, there are a few folks who are advocating using Cousins to improve our place in the batting order. That is NOT an option.
Quote: @bigbone62 said:
@ FLVike said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Again, if there is no intention to retain him on an extension past this upcoming season, the smart thing to do is to trade his ass. Sorry but we aren't going to the Super Bowl this upcoming season with or without Kirk Cousins (attention Wilf family!) Geoff thinks we can still get a late 1st round pick or some type of package of picks in trade compensation for Cousins, so how does that not make sense to do that? Yes, you are essentially sacrificing the upcoming season and yes the optics may look bad to Jefferson, but if there's a long term plan...do it! The Kirk Cousin hostage train is annoying every offseason. It's become the Minnesota version of Aaron Rodgers and if he is going to come back and play or not. As much as I like Kirk, it's time for this GM to step up to the plate and put his own stamp on the organization and I think even he knows that he can't do that as long as we keep playing the Cousins extension game.
Vikings are not going to trade their QB without first having their QBOTF in the pipeline.
And by what means would they go about acquiring a QBOTF prior to trading Cousins? I also think if that were to happen first it lowers the trade value and would give other teams leverage in trade talks. There's really just no way to finesse this Cousins situation to where the pieces line up perfectly for the Vikings. If they want off the rollercoaster they just need to jump at some point and trust in their new front office to make the right decisions in addressing the QB position.
By drafting one. Confused by the question.
No team would ever trade their perfectly good veteran QB for a draft pick. It would just never happen. Draft one, see what he's got, then trade? Sure. QB for QB, OK, but the QB has to be proven.
But QB for a rookie? Never happen. Not in a million years. Imagine the egg on the face of the GM of a 13-win team trading one of the NFL's best QBs, who's still only 34, for a draft pick that turns out to be Dwayne Haskins or Baker Mayfield or Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen or Trubisky or Wentz or Winston or Mariota, or Bortles, Manziel, Manuel, RGIII, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder.........No, it would never happen.
I think for some of you, your hatred of Cousins has clouded your ability to see things clearly.
I personally love the "he's not clutch" trope as we went 13-3 this year with what, 8,9 come from behind clutch victories.
Yes, "clutch" is too broad and was the wrong word. It's more like usually when the pressure in his mind gets too great he checks down, panics with his throws, or just crumbles.
It amazes me the perpetually moving goal post with Cousins. The first few seasons "he's trash in the 4th quarter". Meanwhile starting half way through the 2020 season through the 2022 season he had been one of the best in the 4th. On to next narrative "ya well he's only good in 4th quarter garbage time. But he shrivels late when games are close". Fast forward 2021 season and Cousins repeatedly brought the team back late and a historically bad defense blows a record number of late leads. On to the next narrative, "he panics when down late and either checks down or throws stupid ints'".
2022 season he ties the record for most come from behind victories. The new, new, new, new narrative is "when the pressure in his mind gets too great he checks down, panics with his throws, or just crumbles". Lol, now we have fans reading minds and thinking they know when the pressure "in his mind" is too much. I am perfectly happy to move on from KC if it is on to legitimate alternative. However it seems many are scrambling to move on just to move on, not to move on to someone equal to or better than what KC provides. Lol, I saw one post advocating for somehow trading Cousins, moving up and drafting Levis and signing an absolutely wash Matt Ryan. Tell me thats not the pitch of someone desperate to to move on just to move on.
Look, I'm just going to put one game out there but it wasn't even his worst game last year. Before you respond go and watch the game. Vikings/Bills, watch the two picks he throws. One he panics and blindly throws it to the left flat when he still had time. For what he gets paid it is unacceptable.Finished with thread.
Quote: @Greylock said:
@ greediron said:
@ Greylock said:
@ greediron said:
@ FLVike said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Again, if there is no intention to retain him on an extension past this upcoming season, the smart thing to do is to trade his ass. Sorry but we aren't going to the Super Bowl this upcoming season with or without Kirk Cousins (attention Wilf family!) Geoff thinks we can still get a late 1st round pick or some type of package of picks in trade compensation for Cousins, so how does that not make sense to do that? Yes, you are essentially sacrificing the upcoming season and yes the optics may look bad to Jefferson, but if there's a long term plan...do it! The Kirk Cousin hostage train is annoying every offseason. It's become the Minnesota version of Aaron Rodgers and if he is going to come back and play or not. As much as I like Kirk, it's time for this GM to step up to the plate and put his own stamp on the organization and I think even he knows that he can't do that as long as we keep playing the Cousins extension game.
Vikings are not going to trade their QB without first having their QBOTF in the pipeline.
And by what means would they go about acquiring a QBOTF prior to trading Cousins? I also think if that were to happen first it lowers the trade value and would give other teams leverage in trade talks. There's really just no way to finesse this Cousins situation to where the pieces line up perfectly for the Vikings. If they want off the rollercoaster they just need to jump at some point and trust in their new front office to make the right decisions in addressing the QB position.
By drafting one. Confused by the question.
No team would ever trade their perfectly good veteran QB for a draft pick. It would just never happen. Draft one, see what he's got, then trade? Sure. QB for QB, OK, but the QB has to be proven.
But QB for a rookie? Never happen. Not in a million years. Imagine the egg on the face of the GM of a 13-win team trading one of the NFL's best QBs, who's still only 34, for a draft pick that turns out to be Dwayne Haskins or Baker Mayfield or Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen or Trubisky or Wentz or Winston or Mariota, or Bortles, Manziel, Manuel, RGIII, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder.........No, it would never happen.
I think for some of you, your hatred of Cousins has clouded your ability to see things clearly.
I personally love the "he's not clutch" trope as we went 13-3 this year with what, 8,9 come from behind clutch victories.
Yes, "clutch" is too broad and was the wrong word. It's more like usually when the pressure in his mind gets too great he checks down, panics with his throws, or just crumbles.
Like he did all last year? With a good offense and good offensive coaches, he thrived under pressure.
There were times that he did that in past years, but often I think the OC was in over his head and the plays just sucked when we couldn't run the ball.
To say the OC was in over his head is a little harsh. How often in the Zimmer era did we see the plays just suck when we couldn't run the ball. AS to the point of Cousins panicking with his throws and settling for check downs, that might be due to the suckage of the offensive line over the years and his desire to get rid of the ball instead of getting hit. Give him credit though many times he has stood in the pocket and delivered under pressure but after awhile getting rid of it on a checkdown instead of taking a hit is the right play.
Anyone remember flip? Yeah he was in over his head. I think the young Kubiak was also not ready for the job.
Yes the line wasn't great, but some games the whole offense was flat. And Kirk sucked. I think it was more the offensive plan didn't work, the calls weren't right and the offense couldn't get anything going. Hard to be a QB when the defense knows you have to throw.
I guess then you meant that Wes Philips was in over his head since you brought up Flip and little Kubiak. I thought you meant KOC was in over his head in your post.
I was being sarcastic with the last year comment. As you can clearly see, I said he thrived under pressure last year, going 13-3 and having over half of those wins as comebacks.
And then I switch to "past years" when I say the OCs were over their head so it obviously wasn't KOC or Wes.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
I think there's no way around it being a sacrifice at some point relating to moving on from Cousins
All Viking fans would be willing to make a one or two year sacrifice if it meant improving the team and going to the Super Bowl.
But you really have to consider the odds of that. They're not very good. The Bears have been looking for a QB for decades. In their entire history, they've never once had a QB season as good as Kirk Cousins worst season statistically. Washington thought they could do better. They've since started 14 different QBs. Jay Gruden called moving on from Cousins "a huge mistake." The Chiefs drafted 32 QBs before landing Mahomes.
In other words, you're just assuming it's going to be a short term sacrifice. You're assuming the QB who replaces him will be as good, or as durable, or even just capable of paying in the NFL, when the odds are stacked against it.
Personally, I think the odds of the Vikings winning a Super Bowl in the next 3 or 4 years are much better with Kirk Cousins than without him.
Well you have to take his age into the equation, how long you expect him to be playing at a high level, and just what are we willing to commit to money wise in an extension. All that plays into the equation. Everybody routinely on this forum caps on Matt Ryan, who has been a durable former league MVP who's play has fallen off a cliff the last couple years. That's common for a QB when they get into their mid 30's. Matt Ryan is 37 years old, Cousins will be 35 prior to the start of the season. So are you willing to continue to bet financially that Kirk doesn't fall off that cliff by giving him another extension? Kwesi is an analytics man and the analytics state over the course of NFL history that older QB's typically don't sustain their play and become more prone to injury. Reading between the lines leads me to believe the Vikings WILL NOT commit to the amount of guaranteed money Cousins wants in an extension. So when you combine all this it's reasonable to believe the Vikings want to move off of Kirk in the next year or two and when you bring in a completely new front office, you have to trust in their ability to identify that QBOTF. Doesn't mean it will happen, but if you are the Wilfs you can't be scared to let them take that swing because that's why you hired them.
Fine, take the swing...as long as that swing happens before you lose your still very capable QB. As you know, there are a few folks who are advocating using Cousins to improve our place in the batting order. That is NOT an option.
But at what end are you keeping said very capable QB? He is under contract for one more season and we can't come to terms on an extension agreement. So you want to keep him for what, so we can be mediocre and he walks in free agency after the season for nothing? I can see the logic if you think we are legit Super Bowl contenders but we were clearly the 4th or 5th best team in the conference last season despite our record and nothing I've seen this offseason has really changed that. So I'd say anything is on the table at this point including moving said capable QB, who we can't come to a contract agreement with, if it helps us acquire our QBOTF to build around
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
I think there's no way around it being a sacrifice at some point relating to moving on from Cousins
All Viking fans would be willing to make a one or two year sacrifice if it meant improving the team and going to the Super Bowl.
But you really have to consider the odds of that. They're not very good. The Bears have been looking for a QB for decades. In their entire history, they've never once had a QB season as good as Kirk Cousins worst season statistically. Washington thought they could do better. They've since started 14 different QBs. Jay Gruden called moving on from Cousins "a huge mistake." The Chiefs drafted 32 QBs before landing Mahomes.
In other words, you're just assuming it's going to be a short term sacrifice. You're assuming the QB who replaces him will be as good, or as durable, or even just capable of paying in the NFL, when the odds are stacked against it.
Personally, I think the odds of the Vikings winning a Super Bowl in the next 3 or 4 years are much better with Kirk Cousins than without him.
Well you have to take his age into the equation, how long you expect him to be playing at a high level, and just what are we willing to commit to money wise in an extension. All that plays into the equation. Everybody routinely on this forum caps on Matt Ryan, who has been a durable former league MVP who's play has fallen off a cliff the last couple years. That's common for a QB when they get into their mid 30's. Matt Ryan is 37 years old, Cousins will be 35 prior to the start of the season. So are you willing to continue to bet financially that Kirk doesn't fall off that cliff by giving him another extension? Kwesi is an analytics man and the analytics state over the course of NFL history that older QB's typically don't sustain their play and become more prone to injury. Reading between the lines leads me to believe the Vikings WILL NOT commit to the amount of guaranteed money Cousins wants in an extension. So when you combine all this it's reasonable to believe the Vikings want to move off of Kirk in the next year or two and when you bring in a completely new front office, you have to trust in their ability to identify that QBOTF. Doesn't mean it will happen, but if you are the Wilfs you can't be scared to let them take that swing because that's why you hired them.
Fine, take the swing...as long as that swing happens before you lose your still very capable QB. As you know, there are a few folks who are advocating using Cousins to improve our place in the batting order. That is NOT an option.
But at what end are you keeping said very capable QB? He is under contract for one more season and we can't come to terms on an extension agreement. So you want to keep him for what, so we can be mediocre and he walks in free agency after the season for nothing? I can see the logic if you think we are legit Super Bowl contenders but we were clearly the 4th or 5th best team in the conference last season despite our record and nothing I've seen this offseason has really changed that. So I'd say anything is on the table at this point including moving said capable QB, who we can't come to a contract agreement with, if it helps us acquire our QBOTF to build around
Trading Cousins for a rookie is not on the table. Nobody would be that stupid.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
I think there's no way around it being a sacrifice at some point relating to moving on from Cousins
All Viking fans would be willing to make a one or two year sacrifice if it meant improving the team and going to the Super Bowl.
But you really have to consider the odds of that. They're not very good. The Bears have been looking for a QB for decades. In their entire history, they've never once had a QB season as good as Kirk Cousins worst season statistically. Washington thought they could do better. They've since started 14 different QBs. Jay Gruden called moving on from Cousins "a huge mistake." The Chiefs drafted 32 QBs before landing Mahomes.
In other words, you're just assuming it's going to be a short term sacrifice. You're assuming the QB who replaces him will be as good, or as durable, or even just capable of paying in the NFL, when the odds are stacked against it.
Personally, I think the odds of the Vikings winning a Super Bowl in the next 3 or 4 years are much better with Kirk Cousins than without him.
Well you have to take his age into the equation, how long you expect him to be playing at a high level, and just what are we willing to commit to money wise in an extension. All that plays into the equation. Everybody routinely on this forum caps on Matt Ryan, who has been a durable former league MVP who's play has fallen off a cliff the last couple years. That's common for a QB when they get into their mid 30's. Matt Ryan is 37 years old, Cousins will be 35 prior to the start of the season. So are you willing to continue to bet financially that Kirk doesn't fall off that cliff by giving him another extension? Kwesi is an analytics man and the analytics state over the course of NFL history that older QB's typically don't sustain their play and become more prone to injury. Reading between the lines leads me to believe the Vikings WILL NOT commit to the amount of guaranteed money Cousins wants in an extension. So when you combine all this it's reasonable to believe the Vikings want to move off of Kirk in the next year or two and when you bring in a completely new front office, you have to trust in their ability to identify that QBOTF. Doesn't mean it will happen, but if you are the Wilfs you can't be scared to let them take that swing because that's why you hired them.
Fine, take the swing...as long as that swing happens before you lose your still very capable QB. As you know, there are a few folks who are advocating using Cousins to improve our place in the batting order. That is NOT an option.
But at what end are you keeping said very capable QB? He is under contract for one more season and we can't come to terms on an extension agreement. So you want to keep him for what, so we can be mediocre and he walks in free agency after the season for nothing? I can see the logic if you think we are legit Super Bowl contenders but we were clearly the 4th or 5th best team in the conference last season despite our record and nothing I've seen this offseason has really changed that. So I'd say anything is on the table at this point including moving said capable QB, who we can't come to a contract agreement with, if it helps us acquire our QBOTF to build around
Trading Cousins for a rookie is not on the table. Nobody would be that stupid.
So you wouldn't trade Cousins if it meant you could then move up to draft, say...Will Levis this year? You'd rather continue to roll with Cousins, bet against his play falling off, and either give him the money he wants on an extension or let him walk in free agency after the season ends? Because those are the options by standing pat and doing nothing. If we can't agree on an extension this offseason, what makes you think either side becomes more reasonable next offseason when he is a year older? I think both the latter options suck and make the least sense when considering possible options. If there's no agreement on a reasonable extension before the draft that gives the team some cap flexibility, then trading him is the sensible thing to do. I'll just agree to disagree with you
|
