Quote: @Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Wetlander said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
Kirk lead us to a 1-5 start?
The D gave up 32 a game!
Lol.
The defense actually had us a lead in the first half of the GB game despite an extremely lopsided TOP... then Kirk makes a terrible throw just before half and GB scores off it... the second half got out of hand, but our offense didn't really come alive until we were down like 16 points and we scored some garbage time points.
Week 2 the defense held us in the game against Indy, but Kirk and the offense sucked so bad they finally scores a TD late in the 4th quarter and Cousins was brutal. Not gonna blame the defense for that one.
We lost on a last second FG against a good Titans team.
Lost the Seattle game when the defense played really well and held the Seahawks to 20 points until the final minute. Our offense couldn't convert a 4th and 1 inside the 5 to seal the game so again, not really gonna blame the defense solely for that loss.
Cousins played like absolute dog shit against the Falcons.
I guess Kirk's 10 interceptions in those 6 games didn't contribute to any losses... it was all the defense. Lol
There's no denying that Cousins was awful the first six games of the season. Don't know why that was--communication, kubiak adjustment, could've been a lot of things.
But over the last 10 games, he was one of the best QBs in the NFL (he ranked 4th). What I'm getting at is this isn't a consistency thing. If those six games were sprinkled all over the season, that would be different. That would be a QB you couldn't count on. But whatever the problem was early on was fixed. And decidedly so.
Take your Kirk bias out of it and think about it another way: If a corner, for example, started the season with 6 straight bad games but finished with 10 straight where he was the 4th best CB in the league, would you be bullish on that corner? Of course you would.
I don't have a Kirk bias, I actually applauded the move at the time it happened (despite a vocal portion of the fan base not liking the move). I also don't think he's a bad QB. He's good most of the time, but has more bad games than the elite guys. I'm just looking at this through the lens of... did our window close? I'd say yes, considering we were coming off an NFCCG appearance when we signed Kirk. All we have from that window is magical season with Case Keenum and a satisfying playoff win against the Saints. We didn't make the playoffs the other two seasons with Kirk.
I like what we've done in FA this year and we have a chance to add a really good player at 14... but looking at the youth on this team, are we really expecting a Super Bowl contender? I don't know... it seems like we're trying to reload on the fly and we're stuck in this situation of being up against the cap (and likely will be again in 2022) continually.
I wouldn't be mad if the Vikings trade up to get a guy they like. Kirk has two years left... I don't think he's good enough that we should ignore an opportunity to get a good young QB we love... That's all I'm saying.
I don't know what you mean by Kirk having two years left. He's only 32. And, yes, of course we're a Super Bowl contender. Was listening to a conversation between two NFL people talking about the Peterson deal. One couldn't figure out why Peterson would sign with a team who "isn't a contender." The other disagreed. Using that logic, he shouldn't have signed with Tampa last year either. They were coming off 7-9 too. This isn't 1985.
What's more, I don't see us up against the cap at all. Not more than any other good team. Sounds like you've bought into Jimmy's alarmism. It's a myth. Cousins contract didn't stop us from giving big money to Thielen, Cook, Barr, Kendricks, Pierce, Tomlinson, Peterson...and it won't stop us from extending Harry and Hunter either.
The cap is going to rise significantly over the next two seasons. It's why teams are putting all these voidable years into contracts (Brady, Hill, Tomlinson) and spreading out bonus onto those years. It's also why veteran players are choosing to sign one-year contracts (Reddick, Peterson). They want to be on the market when the cap explodes.
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
@ Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Wetlander said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
Kirk lead us to a 1-5 start?
The D gave up 32 a game!
Lol.
The defense actually had us a lead in the first half of the GB game despite an extremely lopsided TOP... then Kirk makes a terrible throw just before half and GB scores off it... the second half got out of hand, but our offense didn't really come alive until we were down like 16 points and we scored some garbage time points.
Week 2 the defense held us in the game against Indy, but Kirk and the offense sucked so bad they finally scores a TD late in the 4th quarter and Cousins was brutal. Not gonna blame the defense for that one.
We lost on a last second FG against a good Titans team.
Lost the Seattle game when the defense played really well and held the Seahawks to 20 points until the final minute. Our offense couldn't convert a 4th and 1 inside the 5 to seal the game so again, not really gonna blame the defense solely for that loss.
Cousins played like absolute dog shit against the Falcons.
I guess Kirk's 10 interceptions in those 6 games didn't contribute to any losses... it was all the defense. Lol
There's no denying that Cousins was awful the first six games of the season. Don't know why that was--communication, kubiak adjustment, could've been a lot of things.
But over the last 10 games, he was one of the best QBs in the NFL (he ranked 4th). What I'm getting at is this isn't a consistency thing. If those six games were sprinkled all over the season, that would be different. That would be a QB you couldn't count on. But whatever the problem was early on was fixed. And decidedly so.
Take your Kirk bias out of it and think about it another way: If a corner, for example, started the season with 6 straight bad games but finished with 10 straight where he was the 4th best CB in the league, would you be bullish on that corner? Of course you would.
I don't have a Kirk bias, I actually applauded the move at the time it happened (despite a vocal portion of the fan base not liking the move). I also don't think he's a bad QB. He's good most of the time, but has more bad games than the elite guys. I'm just looking at this through the lens of... did our window close? I'd say yes, considering we were coming off an NFCCG appearance when we signed Kirk. All we have from that window is magical season with Case Keenum and a satisfying playoff win against the Saints. We didn't make the playoffs the other two seasons with Kirk.
I like what we've done in FA this year and we have a chance to add a really good player at 14... but looking at the youth on this team, are we really expecting a Super Bowl contender? I don't know... it seems like we're trying to reload on the fly and we're stuck in this situation of being up against the cap (and likely will be again in 2022) continually.
I wouldn't be mad if the Vikings trade up to get a guy they like. Kirk has two years left... I don't think he's good enough that we should ignore an opportunity to get a good young QB we love... That's all I'm saying.
Excellent points!
Look at what GB just did last draft...And that's with a HOF'er @ QB
Is it though? I think most Packer watchers would vocally and vehemently disagree--and it would smell like beer...and cheese.
How might the Packers have done if they had simply added a player who could contribute rather than drafting a player who would sit on the bench all year? They almost beat Tampa in that championship game. Would they have if they had simply added, say, Chase Claypool or Tee Higgins to take some heat off of Davante Adams? Maybe so.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ purplefaithful said:
@ Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Wetlander said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
Kirk lead us to a 1-5 start?
The D gave up 32 a game!
Lol.
The defense actually had us a lead in the first half of the GB game despite an extremely lopsided TOP... then Kirk makes a terrible throw just before half and GB scores off it... the second half got out of hand, but our offense didn't really come alive until we were down like 16 points and we scored some garbage time points.
Week 2 the defense held us in the game against Indy, but Kirk and the offense sucked so bad they finally scores a TD late in the 4th quarter and Cousins was brutal. Not gonna blame the defense for that one.
We lost on a last second FG against a good Titans team.
Lost the Seattle game when the defense played really well and held the Seahawks to 20 points until the final minute. Our offense couldn't convert a 4th and 1 inside the 5 to seal the game so again, not really gonna blame the defense solely for that loss.
Cousins played like absolute dog shit against the Falcons.
I guess Kirk's 10 interceptions in those 6 games didn't contribute to any losses... it was all the defense. Lol
There's no denying that Cousins was awful the first six games of the season. Don't know why that was--communication, kubiak adjustment, could've been a lot of things.
But over the last 10 games, he was one of the best QBs in the NFL (he ranked 4th). What I'm getting at is this isn't a consistency thing. If those six games were sprinkled all over the season, that would be different. That would be a QB you couldn't count on. But whatever the problem was early on was fixed. And decidedly so.
Take your Kirk bias out of it and think about it another way: If a corner, for example, started the season with 6 straight bad games but finished with 10 straight where he was the 4th best CB in the league, would you be bullish on that corner? Of course you would.
I don't have a Kirk bias, I actually applauded the move at the time it happened (despite a vocal portion of the fan base not liking the move). I also don't think he's a bad QB. He's good most of the time, but has more bad games than the elite guys. I'm just looking at this through the lens of... did our window close? I'd say yes, considering we were coming off an NFCCG appearance when we signed Kirk. All we have from that window is magical season with Case Keenum and a satisfying playoff win against the Saints. We didn't make the playoffs the other two seasons with Kirk.
I like what we've done in FA this year and we have a chance to add a really good player at 14... but looking at the youth on this team, are we really expecting a Super Bowl contender? I don't know... it seems like we're trying to reload on the fly and we're stuck in this situation of being up against the cap (and likely will be again in 2022) continually.
I wouldn't be mad if the Vikings trade up to get a guy they like. Kirk has two years left... I don't think he's good enough that we should ignore an opportunity to get a good young QB we love... That's all I'm saying.
Excellent points!
Look at what GB just did last draft...And that's with a HOF'er @ QB
Is it though? I think most Packer watchers would vocally and vehemently disagree--and it would smell like beer...and cheese.
How might the Packers have done if they had simply added a player who could contribute rather than drafting a player who would sit on the bench all year? They almost beat Tampa in that championship game. Would they have if they had simply added, say, Chase Claypool or Tee Higgins to take some heat off of Davante Adams? Maybe so.
They have been a superbowl contender for nearly 25 years because they did take a QB even though they already had a HOFr at the position. Sure some would say it was a mistake last year, probably were plenty that would have said the same thing when they had Favre and took Rodgers., but I think history has proven them to be wrong, would you disagree?
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ purplefaithful said:
@ Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Wetlander said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
Kirk lead us to a 1-5 start?
The D gave up 32 a game!
Lol.
The defense actually had us a lead in the first half of the GB game despite an extremely lopsided TOP... then Kirk makes a terrible throw just before half and GB scores off it... the second half got out of hand, but our offense didn't really come alive until we were down like 16 points and we scored some garbage time points.
Week 2 the defense held us in the game against Indy, but Kirk and the offense sucked so bad they finally scores a TD late in the 4th quarter and Cousins was brutal. Not gonna blame the defense for that one.
We lost on a last second FG against a good Titans team.
Lost the Seattle game when the defense played really well and held the Seahawks to 20 points until the final minute. Our offense couldn't convert a 4th and 1 inside the 5 to seal the game so again, not really gonna blame the defense solely for that loss.
Cousins played like absolute dog shit against the Falcons.
I guess Kirk's 10 interceptions in those 6 games didn't contribute to any losses... it was all the defense. Lol
There's no denying that Cousins was awful the first six games of the season. Don't know why that was--communication, kubiak adjustment, could've been a lot of things.
But over the last 10 games, he was one of the best QBs in the NFL (he ranked 4th). What I'm getting at is this isn't a consistency thing. If those six games were sprinkled all over the season, that would be different. That would be a QB you couldn't count on. But whatever the problem was early on was fixed. And decidedly so.
Take your Kirk bias out of it and think about it another way: If a corner, for example, started the season with 6 straight bad games but finished with 10 straight where he was the 4th best CB in the league, would you be bullish on that corner? Of course you would.
I don't have a Kirk bias, I actually applauded the move at the time it happened (despite a vocal portion of the fan base not liking the move). I also don't think he's a bad QB. He's good most of the time, but has more bad games than the elite guys. I'm just looking at this through the lens of... did our window close? I'd say yes, considering we were coming off an NFCCG appearance when we signed Kirk. All we have from that window is magical season with Case Keenum and a satisfying playoff win against the Saints. We didn't make the playoffs the other two seasons with Kirk.
I like what we've done in FA this year and we have a chance to add a really good player at 14... but looking at the youth on this team, are we really expecting a Super Bowl contender? I don't know... it seems like we're trying to reload on the fly and we're stuck in this situation of being up against the cap (and likely will be again in 2022) continually.
I wouldn't be mad if the Vikings trade up to get a guy they like. Kirk has two years left... I don't think he's good enough that we should ignore an opportunity to get a good young QB we love... That's all I'm saying.
Excellent points!
Look at what GB just did last draft...And that's with a HOF'er @ QB
Is it though? I think most Packer watchers would vocally and vehemently disagree--and it would smell like beer...and cheese.
How might the Packers have done if they had simply added a player who could contribute rather than drafting a player who would sit on the bench all year? They almost beat Tampa in that championship game. Would they have if they had simply added, say, Chase Claypool or Tee Higgins to take some heat off of Davante Adams? Maybe so.
They have been a superbowl contender for nearly 25 years because they did take a QB even though they already had a HOFr at the position. Sure some would say it was a mistake last year, probably were plenty that would have said the same thing when they had Favre and took Rodgers., but I think history has proven them to be wrong, would you disagree?
Not at all. It's pretty hard to argue with taking a QB many thought would be the #1 overall pick, who fell into their laps at, what was it, #25? That's a Randy Moss pick. A BPA pick. Not so, Jordan Love, who was a reach in the late 1st.
So, yes, if Wilson and/or Lawrence fall to #14, we will probably take one. We would be fools if we didn't. I'm not necessarily anti-drafting a QB. I'm anti-mortgaging the future to move up to take one. Because that's what it's going to take.
But it's a fluid situation. If we trade for Brown, sign a guard and a safety, then I'm much more open to the idea...but still, only if one falls.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Wetlander said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
Kirk lead us to a 1-5 start?
The D gave up 32 a game!
Lol.
The defense actually had us a lead in the first half of the GB game despite an extremely lopsided TOP... then Kirk makes a terrible throw just before half and GB scores off it... the second half got out of hand, but our offense didn't really come alive until we were down like 16 points and we scored some garbage time points.
Week 2 the defense held us in the game against Indy, but Kirk and the offense sucked so bad they finally scores a TD late in the 4th quarter and Cousins was brutal. Not gonna blame the defense for that one.
We lost on a last second FG against a good Titans team.
Lost the Seattle game when the defense played really well and held the Seahawks to 20 points until the final minute. Our offense couldn't convert a 4th and 1 inside the 5 to seal the game so again, not really gonna blame the defense solely for that loss.
Cousins played like absolute dog shit against the Falcons.
I guess Kirk's 10 interceptions in those 6 games didn't contribute to any losses... it was all the defense. Lol
There's no denying that Cousins was awful the first six games of the season. Don't know why that was--communication, kubiak adjustment, could've been a lot of things.
But over the last 10 games, he was one of the best QBs in the NFL (he ranked 4th). What I'm getting at is this isn't a consistency thing. If those six games were sprinkled all over the season, that would be different. That would be a QB you couldn't count on. But whatever the problem was early on was fixed. And decidedly so.
Take your Kirk bias out of it and think about it another way: If a corner, for example, started the season with 6 straight bad games but finished with 10 straight where he was the 4th best CB in the league, would you be bullish on that corner? Of course you would.
I don't have a Kirk bias, I actually applauded the move at the time it happened (despite a vocal portion of the fan base not liking the move). I also don't think he's a bad QB. He's good most of the time, but has more bad games than the elite guys. I'm just looking at this through the lens of... did our window close? I'd say yes, considering we were coming off an NFCCG appearance when we signed Kirk. All we have from that window is magical season with Case Keenum and a satisfying playoff win against the Saints. We didn't make the playoffs the other two seasons with Kirk.
I like what we've done in FA this year and we have a chance to add a really good player at 14... but looking at the youth on this team, are we really expecting a Super Bowl contender? I don't know... it seems like we're trying to reload on the fly and we're stuck in this situation of being up against the cap (and likely will be again in 2022) continually.
I wouldn't be mad if the Vikings trade up to get a guy they like. Kirk has two years left... I don't think he's good enough that we should ignore an opportunity to get a good young QB we love... That's all I'm saying.
I don't know what you mean by Kirk having two years left. He's only 32. And, yes, of course we're a Super Bowl contender. Was listening to a conversation between two NFL people talking about the Peterson deal. One couldn't figure out why Peterson would sign with a team who "isn't a contender." The other disagreed. Using that logic, he shouldn't have signed with Tampa last year either. They were coming off 7-9 too. This isn't 1985.
What's more, I don't see us up against the cap at all. Not more than any other good team. Sounds like you've bought into Jimmy's alarmism. It's a myth. Cousins contract didn't stop us from giving big money to Thielen, Cook, Barr, Kendricks, Pierce, Tomlinson, Peterson...and it won't stop us from extending Harry and Hunter either.
The cap is going to rise significantly over the next two seasons. It's why teams are putting all these voidable years into contracts (Brady, Hill, Tomlinson) and spreading out bonus onto those years. It's also why veteran players are choosing to sign one-year contracts (Reddick, Peterson). They want to be on the market when the cap explodes.
Kirk has two years left on his deal. What I'm trying to say is that there seem to be two schools of thought... one thinks our window is still open and you keep riding Kirk while we're "reloading"... the other sees our window closed (for right now) and sees an opportunity where the Vikings might be able to make a move for a rookie QB in this draft to sync up with our next window like we tried to do with Teddy. I fall into the latter, doesn't mean I'm right... that's just what I think makes sense given where the roster is at and the loaded rookie class this season.
I guess I don't see what's so confusing about my position. The rest (cap concerns, is Kirk good or not, etc.) is just meaningless back and forth.
Quote: @Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Wetlander said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
Kirk lead us to a 1-5 start?
The D gave up 32 a game!
Lol.
The defense actually had us a lead in the first half of the GB game despite an extremely lopsided TOP... then Kirk makes a terrible throw just before half and GB scores off it... the second half got out of hand, but our offense didn't really come alive until we were down like 16 points and we scored some garbage time points.
Week 2 the defense held us in the game against Indy, but Kirk and the offense sucked so bad they finally scores a TD late in the 4th quarter and Cousins was brutal. Not gonna blame the defense for that one.
We lost on a last second FG against a good Titans team.
Lost the Seattle game when the defense played really well and held the Seahawks to 20 points until the final minute. Our offense couldn't convert a 4th and 1 inside the 5 to seal the game so again, not really gonna blame the defense solely for that loss.
Cousins played like absolute dog shit against the Falcons.
I guess Kirk's 10 interceptions in those 6 games didn't contribute to any losses... it was all the defense. Lol
There's no denying that Cousins was awful the first six games of the season. Don't know why that was--communication, kubiak adjustment, could've been a lot of things.
But over the last 10 games, he was one of the best QBs in the NFL (he ranked 4th). What I'm getting at is this isn't a consistency thing. If those six games were sprinkled all over the season, that would be different. That would be a QB you couldn't count on. But whatever the problem was early on was fixed. And decidedly so.
Take your Kirk bias out of it and think about it another way: If a corner, for example, started the season with 6 straight bad games but finished with 10 straight where he was the 4th best CB in the league, would you be bullish on that corner? Of course you would.
I don't have a Kirk bias, I actually applauded the move at the time it happened (despite a vocal portion of the fan base not liking the move). I also don't think he's a bad QB. He's good most of the time, but has more bad games than the elite guys. I'm just looking at this through the lens of... did our window close? I'd say yes, considering we were coming off an NFCCG appearance when we signed Kirk. All we have from that window is magical season with Case Keenum and a satisfying playoff win against the Saints. We didn't make the playoffs the other two seasons with Kirk.
I like what we've done in FA this year and we have a chance to add a really good player at 14... but looking at the youth on this team, are we really expecting a Super Bowl contender? I don't know... it seems like we're trying to reload on the fly and we're stuck in this situation of being up against the cap (and likely will be again in 2022) continually.
I wouldn't be mad if the Vikings trade up to get a guy they like. Kirk has two years left... I don't think he's good enough that we should ignore an opportunity to get a good young QB we love... That's all I'm saying.
I don't know what you mean by Kirk having two years left. He's only 32. And, yes, of course we're a Super Bowl contender. Was listening to a conversation between two NFL people talking about the Peterson deal. One couldn't figure out why Peterson would sign with a team who "isn't a contender." The other disagreed. Using that logic, he shouldn't have signed with Tampa last year either. They were coming off 7-9 too. This isn't 1985.
What's more, I don't see us up against the cap at all. Not more than any other good team. Sounds like you've bought into Jimmy's alarmism. It's a myth. Cousins contract didn't stop us from giving big money to Thielen, Cook, Barr, Kendricks, Pierce, Tomlinson, Peterson...and it won't stop us from extending Harry and Hunter either.
The cap is going to rise significantly over the next two seasons. It's why teams are putting all these voidable years into contracts (Brady, Hill, Tomlinson) and spreading out bonus onto those years. It's also why veteran players are choosing to sign one-year contracts (Reddick, Peterson). They want to be on the market when the cap explodes.
Kirk has two years left on his deal. What I'm trying to say is that there seem to be two schools of thought... one thinks our window is still open and you keep riding Kirk while we're "reloading"... the other sees our window closed (for right now) and sees an opportunity where the Vikings might be able to make a move for a rookie QB in this draft to sync up with our next window like we tried to do with Teddy. I fall into the latter, doesn't mean I'm right... that's just what I think makes sense given where the roster is at and the loaded rookie class this season.
I guess I don't see what's so confusing about my position. The rest (cap concerns, is Kirk good or not, etc.) is just meaningless back and forth.
I'm not confused by your position. I just disagree with it. Like I said, this isn't 1985. With the exception of maybe 6 to 10 teams, every team in the NFL is a contender. If you don't believe that, you haven't watched the NFL for the last 20 years. A half dozen teams flip flop their records every season.
There is a trending school of thought among NFL executives that the best way to win a championship is by fielding playoff caliber teams as often as possible. And I couldn't agree with it more. The notion that teams who win Super Bowls are "super" teams is a myth. It's simply the playoff team that gets hot and healthy at the right time. Bucs cruised through the playoffs not because they were the best team. They were the healthiest team. In the Super Bowl, for example, Chiefs were banged up all over the place. Bucs didn't have a single injury. Not one.
Vikings were a game away from the playoffs last year despite starting 1-5 and losing 6 of their front 7 to injury. Vikings already have a playoff caliber offense. You don't think adding Hunter, Pierce, Tomlinson, and Peterson is going to make a couple games difference?
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ purplefaithful said:
@ Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Wetlander said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
Kirk lead us to a 1-5 start?
The D gave up 32 a game!
Lol.
The defense actually had us a lead in the first half of the GB game despite an extremely lopsided TOP... then Kirk makes a terrible throw just before half and GB scores off it... the second half got out of hand, but our offense didn't really come alive until we were down like 16 points and we scored some garbage time points.
Week 2 the defense held us in the game against Indy, but Kirk and the offense sucked so bad they finally scores a TD late in the 4th quarter and Cousins was brutal. Not gonna blame the defense for that one.
We lost on a last second FG against a good Titans team.
Lost the Seattle game when the defense played really well and held the Seahawks to 20 points until the final minute. Our offense couldn't convert a 4th and 1 inside the 5 to seal the game so again, not really gonna blame the defense solely for that loss.
Cousins played like absolute dog shit against the Falcons.
I guess Kirk's 10 interceptions in those 6 games didn't contribute to any losses... it was all the defense. Lol
There's no denying that Cousins was awful the first six games of the season. Don't know why that was--communication, kubiak adjustment, could've been a lot of things.
But over the last 10 games, he was one of the best QBs in the NFL (he ranked 4th). What I'm getting at is this isn't a consistency thing. If those six games were sprinkled all over the season, that would be different. That would be a QB you couldn't count on. But whatever the problem was early on was fixed. And decidedly so.
Take your Kirk bias out of it and think about it another way: If a corner, for example, started the season with 6 straight bad games but finished with 10 straight where he was the 4th best CB in the league, would you be bullish on that corner? Of course you would.
I don't have a Kirk bias, I actually applauded the move at the time it happened (despite a vocal portion of the fan base not liking the move). I also don't think he's a bad QB. He's good most of the time, but has more bad games than the elite guys. I'm just looking at this through the lens of... did our window close? I'd say yes, considering we were coming off an NFCCG appearance when we signed Kirk. All we have from that window is magical season with Case Keenum and a satisfying playoff win against the Saints. We didn't make the playoffs the other two seasons with Kirk.
I like what we've done in FA this year and we have a chance to add a really good player at 14... but looking at the youth on this team, are we really expecting a Super Bowl contender? I don't know... it seems like we're trying to reload on the fly and we're stuck in this situation of being up against the cap (and likely will be again in 2022) continually.
I wouldn't be mad if the Vikings trade up to get a guy they like. Kirk has two years left... I don't think he's good enough that we should ignore an opportunity to get a good young QB we love... That's all I'm saying.
Excellent points!
Look at what GB just did last draft...And that's with a HOF'er @ QB
Is it though? I think most Packer watchers would vocally and vehemently disagree--and it would smell like beer...and cheese.
How might the Packers have done if they had simply added a player who could contribute rather than drafting a player who would sit on the bench all year? They almost beat Tampa in that championship game. Would they have if they had simply added, say, Chase Claypool or Tee Higgins to take some heat off of Davante Adams? Maybe so.
They have been a superbowl contender for nearly 25 years because they did take a QB even though they already had a HOFr at the position. Sure some would say it was a mistake last year, probably were plenty that would have said the same thing when they had Favre and took Rodgers., but I think history has proven them to be wrong, would you disagree?
Not at all. It's pretty hard to argue with taking a QB many thought would be the #1 overall pick, who fell into their laps at, what was it, #25? That's a Randy Moss pick. A BPA pick. Not so, Jordan Love, who was a reach in the late 1st.
So, yes, if Wilson and/or Lawrence fall to #14, we will probably take one. We would be fools if we didn't. I'm not necessarily anti-drafting a QB. I'm anti-mortgaging the future to move up to take one. Because that's what it's going to take.
But it's a fluid situation. If we trade for Brown, sign a guard and a safety, then I'm much more open to the idea...but still, only if one falls.
who thought rodgers was a #1 overall pick? IIRC it was pretty well known that Smith was going #1 weeks/month prior to the draft. I dont remember Rodgers being a legit talker at #1. I would say this year the #2 QB has been a mess, while I personally like Wilson, there are others that have said Lance, or others as the presumed #2 off the board so it should be fair to say that with no consensus as far as who should be #2 that taking any of those top 4 or 5 should be in play at 14 as BPA in a QB driven league.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ purplefaithful said:
@ Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Wetlander said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
Kirk lead us to a 1-5 start?
The D gave up 32 a game!
Lol.
The defense actually had us a lead in the first half of the GB game despite an extremely lopsided TOP... then Kirk makes a terrible throw just before half and GB scores off it... the second half got out of hand, but our offense didn't really come alive until we were down like 16 points and we scored some garbage time points.
Week 2 the defense held us in the game against Indy, but Kirk and the offense sucked so bad they finally scores a TD late in the 4th quarter and Cousins was brutal. Not gonna blame the defense for that one.
We lost on a last second FG against a good Titans team.
Lost the Seattle game when the defense played really well and held the Seahawks to 20 points until the final minute. Our offense couldn't convert a 4th and 1 inside the 5 to seal the game so again, not really gonna blame the defense solely for that loss.
Cousins played like absolute dog shit against the Falcons.
I guess Kirk's 10 interceptions in those 6 games didn't contribute to any losses... it was all the defense. Lol
There's no denying that Cousins was awful the first six games of the season. Don't know why that was--communication, kubiak adjustment, could've been a lot of things.
But over the last 10 games, he was one of the best QBs in the NFL (he ranked 4th). What I'm getting at is this isn't a consistency thing. If those six games were sprinkled all over the season, that would be different. That would be a QB you couldn't count on. But whatever the problem was early on was fixed. And decidedly so.
Take your Kirk bias out of it and think about it another way: If a corner, for example, started the season with 6 straight bad games but finished with 10 straight where he was the 4th best CB in the league, would you be bullish on that corner? Of course you would.
I don't have a Kirk bias, I actually applauded the move at the time it happened (despite a vocal portion of the fan base not liking the move). I also don't think he's a bad QB. He's good most of the time, but has more bad games than the elite guys. I'm just looking at this through the lens of... did our window close? I'd say yes, considering we were coming off an NFCCG appearance when we signed Kirk. All we have from that window is magical season with Case Keenum and a satisfying playoff win against the Saints. We didn't make the playoffs the other two seasons with Kirk.
I like what we've done in FA this year and we have a chance to add a really good player at 14... but looking at the youth on this team, are we really expecting a Super Bowl contender? I don't know... it seems like we're trying to reload on the fly and we're stuck in this situation of being up against the cap (and likely will be again in 2022) continually.
I wouldn't be mad if the Vikings trade up to get a guy they like. Kirk has two years left... I don't think he's good enough that we should ignore an opportunity to get a good young QB we love... That's all I'm saying.
Excellent points!
Look at what GB just did last draft...And that's with a HOF'er @ QB
Is it though? I think most Packer watchers would vocally and vehemently disagree--and it would smell like beer...and cheese.
How might the Packers have done if they had simply added a player who could contribute rather than drafting a player who would sit on the bench all year? They almost beat Tampa in that championship game. Would they have if they had simply added, say, Chase Claypool or Tee Higgins to take some heat off of Davante Adams? Maybe so.
They have been a superbowl contender for nearly 25 years because they did take a QB even though they already had a HOFr at the position. Sure some would say it was a mistake last year, probably were plenty that would have said the same thing when they had Favre and took Rodgers., but I think history has proven them to be wrong, would you disagree?
Not at all. It's pretty hard to argue with taking a QB many thought would be the #1 overall pick, who fell into their laps at, what was it, #25? That's a Randy Moss pick. A BPA pick. Not so, Jordan Love, who was a reach in the late 1st.
So, yes, if Wilson and/or Lawrence fall to #14, we will probably take one. We would be fools if we didn't. I'm not necessarily anti-drafting a QB. I'm anti-mortgaging the future to move up to take one. Because that's what it's going to take.
But it's a fluid situation. If we trade for Brown, sign a guard and a safety, then I'm much more open to the idea...but still, only if one falls.
who thought rodgers was a #1 overall pick? IIRC it was pretty well known that Smith was going #1 weeks/month prior to the draft. I dont remember Rodgers being a legit talker at #1. I would say this year the #2 QB has been a mess, while I personally like Wilson, there are others that have said Lance, or others as the presumed #2 off the board so it should be fair to say that with no consensus as far as who should be #2 that taking any of those top 4 or 5 should be in play at 14 as BPA in a QB driven league.
Oh I remember the talk and prognostications of him going #1...I dont know when Rogers fell out of favor and what caused the precipitous drop, but ultimately it was the football gods smiling on GB and taking a big dump on the Vikings (as we drafted Williamson and Erasmus James).
Talk about 1 draft changing the course of 2 franchises...
Essentially giving them 30 years of HOF QB'ing in a row. 19/20 from Favre and 10+ from Rogers
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ purplefaithful said:
@ Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Wetlander said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
Kirk lead us to a 1-5 start?
The D gave up 32 a game!
Lol.
The defense actually had us a lead in the first half of the GB game despite an extremely lopsided TOP... then Kirk makes a terrible throw just before half and GB scores off it... the second half got out of hand, but our offense didn't really come alive until we were down like 16 points and we scored some garbage time points.
Week 2 the defense held us in the game against Indy, but Kirk and the offense sucked so bad they finally scores a TD late in the 4th quarter and Cousins was brutal. Not gonna blame the defense for that one.
We lost on a last second FG against a good Titans team.
Lost the Seattle game when the defense played really well and held the Seahawks to 20 points until the final minute. Our offense couldn't convert a 4th and 1 inside the 5 to seal the game so again, not really gonna blame the defense solely for that loss.
Cousins played like absolute dog shit against the Falcons.
I guess Kirk's 10 interceptions in those 6 games didn't contribute to any losses... it was all the defense. Lol
There's no denying that Cousins was awful the first six games of the season. Don't know why that was--communication, kubiak adjustment, could've been a lot of things.
But over the last 10 games, he was one of the best QBs in the NFL (he ranked 4th). What I'm getting at is this isn't a consistency thing. If those six games were sprinkled all over the season, that would be different. That would be a QB you couldn't count on. But whatever the problem was early on was fixed. And decidedly so.
Take your Kirk bias out of it and think about it another way: If a corner, for example, started the season with 6 straight bad games but finished with 10 straight where he was the 4th best CB in the league, would you be bullish on that corner? Of course you would.
I don't have a Kirk bias, I actually applauded the move at the time it happened (despite a vocal portion of the fan base not liking the move). I also don't think he's a bad QB. He's good most of the time, but has more bad games than the elite guys. I'm just looking at this through the lens of... did our window close? I'd say yes, considering we were coming off an NFCCG appearance when we signed Kirk. All we have from that window is magical season with Case Keenum and a satisfying playoff win against the Saints. We didn't make the playoffs the other two seasons with Kirk.
I like what we've done in FA this year and we have a chance to add a really good player at 14... but looking at the youth on this team, are we really expecting a Super Bowl contender? I don't know... it seems like we're trying to reload on the fly and we're stuck in this situation of being up against the cap (and likely will be again in 2022) continually.
I wouldn't be mad if the Vikings trade up to get a guy they like. Kirk has two years left... I don't think he's good enough that we should ignore an opportunity to get a good young QB we love... That's all I'm saying.
Excellent points!
Look at what GB just did last draft...And that's with a HOF'er @ QB
Is it though? I think most Packer watchers would vocally and vehemently disagree--and it would smell like beer...and cheese.
How might the Packers have done if they had simply added a player who could contribute rather than drafting a player who would sit on the bench all year? They almost beat Tampa in that championship game. Would they have if they had simply added, say, Chase Claypool or Tee Higgins to take some heat off of Davante Adams? Maybe so.
They have been a superbowl contender for nearly 25 years because they did take a QB even though they already had a HOFr at the position. Sure some would say it was a mistake last year, probably were plenty that would have said the same thing when they had Favre and took Rodgers., but I think history has proven them to be wrong, would you disagree?
Not at all. It's pretty hard to argue with taking a QB many thought would be the #1 overall pick, who fell into their laps at, what was it, #25? That's a Randy Moss pick. A BPA pick. Not so, Jordan Love, who was a reach in the late 1st.
So, yes, if Wilson and/or Lawrence fall to #14, we will probably take one. We would be fools if we didn't. I'm not necessarily anti-drafting a QB. I'm anti-mortgaging the future to move up to take one. Because that's what it's going to take.
But it's a fluid situation. If we trade for Brown, sign a guard and a safety, then I'm much more open to the idea...but still, only if one falls.
who thought rodgers was a #1 overall pick? IIRC it was pretty well known that Smith was going #1 weeks/month prior to the draft. I dont remember Rodgers being a legit talker at #1.
Ummm...no. In the months and weeks leading up to that draft, Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith were thought to be neck and neck for who goes #1 overall. It wasn't until a couple days before that the 49ers started giving signals that Smith was their guy. but many thought it was a smokescreen. Look, I may not remember where I put my keys, but when it comes to the draft, I'm like Pepperidge Fahm.
Alex Smith and Rodgers were considered the top two quarterback prospects in the draft. One of them was going to go with the first pick. Heading into the draft, it kept changing between Rodgers and Smith. Different NFL analysts changed their tune on who would go first overall all the way up to the draft.
https://clutchpoints.com/the-story-of-ho...nfl-draft/
Smith and Rodgers had emerged as the top two quarterbacks in the 2005 NFL draft, and in the days leading up to April 24, the question of who would be selected first was at the forefront of the NFL discussion. Which quarterback was a product of his system? Which had the right mentality to lead a winning team? There was no consensus to these borderline-unanswerable questions...
In the winter and early spring of 2005, Rodgers, a Chico, Calif. native, was seen as the popular hometown pick for the 49ers, who had finished with a miserable 2-14 record in 2004. As the pre-draft process began to churn, many believed Rodgers’s northern California roots would push the Niners to choose him first over Smith. As the draft approached, the 49ers started dropping hints that Smith was their guy, although other teams and scouts viewed those hints as potential smoke screens.
https://www.si.com/nfl/2015/04/24/aaron-...-nfl-draft
Quote: @Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Wetlander said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Wetlander said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
Kirk lead us to a 1-5 start?
The D gave up 32 a game!
Lol.
The defense actually had us a lead in the first half of the GB game despite an extremely lopsided TOP... then Kirk makes a terrible throw just before half and GB scores off it... the second half got out of hand, but our offense didn't really come alive until we were down like 16 points and we scored some garbage time points.
Week 2 the defense held us in the game against Indy, but Kirk and the offense sucked so bad they finally scores a TD late in the 4th quarter and Cousins was brutal. Not gonna blame the defense for that one.
We lost on a last second FG against a good Titans team.
Lost the Seattle game when the defense played really well and held the Seahawks to 20 points until the final minute. Our offense couldn't convert a 4th and 1 inside the 5 to seal the game so again, not really gonna blame the defense solely for that loss.
Cousins played like absolute dog shit against the Falcons.
I guess Kirk's 10 interceptions in those 6 games didn't contribute to any losses... it was all the defense. Lol
There's no denying that Cousins was awful the first six games of the season. Don't know why that was--communication, kubiak adjustment, could've been a lot of things.
But over the last 10 games, he was one of the best QBs in the NFL (he ranked 4th). What I'm getting at is this isn't a consistency thing. If those six games were sprinkled all over the season, that would be different. That would be a QB you couldn't count on. But whatever the problem was early on was fixed. And decidedly so.
Take your Kirk bias out of it and think about it another way: If a corner, for example, started the season with 6 straight bad games but finished with 10 straight where he was the 4th best CB in the league, would you be bullish on that corner? Of course you would.
I don't have a Kirk bias, I actually applauded the move at the time it happened (despite a vocal portion of the fan base not liking the move). I also don't think he's a bad QB. He's good most of the time, but has more bad games than the elite guys. I'm just looking at this through the lens of... did our window close? I'd say yes, considering we were coming off an NFCCG appearance when we signed Kirk. All we have from that window is magical season with Case Keenum and a satisfying playoff win against the Saints. We didn't make the playoffs the other two seasons with Kirk.
I like what we've done in FA this year and we have a chance to add a really good player at 14... but looking at the youth on this team, are we really expecting a Super Bowl contender? I don't know... it seems like we're trying to reload on the fly and we're stuck in this situation of being up against the cap (and likely will be again in 2022) continually.
I wouldn't be mad if the Vikings trade up to get a guy they like. Kirk has two years left... I don't think he's good enough that we should ignore an opportunity to get a good young QB we love... That's all I'm saying.
I don't know what you mean by Kirk having two years left. He's only 32. And, yes, of course we're a Super Bowl contender. Was listening to a conversation between two NFL people talking about the Peterson deal. One couldn't figure out why Peterson would sign with a team who "isn't a contender." The other disagreed. Using that logic, he shouldn't have signed with Tampa last year either. They were coming off 7-9 too. This isn't 1985.
What's more, I don't see us up against the cap at all. Not more than any other good team. Sounds like you've bought into Jimmy's alarmism. It's a myth. Cousins contract didn't stop us from giving big money to Thielen, Cook, Barr, Kendricks, Pierce, Tomlinson, Peterson...and it won't stop us from extending Harry and Hunter either.
The cap is going to rise significantly over the next two seasons. It's why teams are putting all these voidable years into contracts (Brady, Hill, Tomlinson) and spreading out bonus onto those years. It's also why veteran players are choosing to sign one-year contracts (Reddick, Peterson). They want to be on the market when the cap explodes.
Kirk has two years left on his deal. What I'm trying to say is that there seem to be two schools of thought... one thinks our window is still open and you keep riding Kirk while we're "reloading"... the other sees our window closed (for right now) and sees an opportunity where the Vikings might be able to make a move for a rookie QB in this draft to sync up with our next window like we tried to do with Teddy. I fall into the latter, doesn't mean I'm right... that's just what I think makes sense given where the roster is at and the loaded rookie class this season.
I guess I don't see what's so confusing about my position. The rest (cap concerns, is Kirk good or not, etc.) is just meaningless back and forth.
You have both options right. The Vikings committed to "reloading"/competing when they extended Kirk's deal last off-season. The way they've been operating is to see where they are at going into next season. So you're handcuffing the strategy trading up for a QB this off-season. Not saying they couldn't conceivably ditch Kirk next off-season, but its much more straightforward doing that in 2023. Point is if you draft Wilson, Lance, or Fields its not a fair position to put Kirk in. Yes, its good for guys not to get too comfortable. But looking at last season they would have basically been backed into the corner of benching Kirk after week 6. Without the 2nd half of the season Kirk would have been a negative asset and nobody would have come calling to trade for him. Same can be said for next season, outside of an injury if they replace Kirk with a rookie nobody is helping them out of the last year of his deal.
Kirk may not be the long-term solution at QB. But he isn't some bottom of the barrel holdover either and rookie QB deals are gold, so why burn a year of that advantage taking one now? All signs point to revisiting this next off-season unless a QB falls into their lap at #14. That is an entirely different conversation although its a pipe dream.
|
