49er's pushing hard to trade for Kirk Cousins

[Guest]

@Vikergirl said:

This stat should show the defense rankings and it should mention that Stafford only had a running back run for more than 100 yards, 11 times in his entire career.

[Guest]

I agree if we are not going after Watson forget trading Kirk.

[Guest]

@Wetlander said:

@Vanguard83 said:
maybe ask yourself, If Cousins such a liability at QB....why would SF want him?

Are Lynch and the niners TRYING to be mediocre?

The issue with  Cousins isnt his play...its his PAY

For me...  it's a little bit of both.  I'm not going to argue that he didn't play well during the last 10 games of the season (he did).  However, it seems like we're all back to excusing his brutally awful play from the first 6 games of the year.  He singlehandedly lost us the games against Green Bay, Indianapolis, and Atlanta.  Those 3 games combined with some tough last second losses during a 1-5 start basically set the tone for the rest of the season.  Great he played well when there was no pressure and little chance at the playoffs...  think about how much different the season could have been if we had started 3-3 with a really tough opening schedule?  I say this as a fan that was ecstatic when we got Kirk.  I guess now seeing him up close and personal for 3 seasons, I'm starting to see why Washington moved on.

He's a good, not great QB that has too many stretches of bad play.  Yes, even the elite guys like Rodgers, Brady, Wilson, etc. throw up some duds in awhile, but it's much less than Kirk and it doesn't prevent their team from making the playoffs or going on a Super Bowl run.

Add in the fact that Kirk is doing is no favors with what are essentially fully guaranteed deals...  Yeah, he's not being paid an exorbitant amount compared to other QBs (right in line with other guys) but he's not as good as the elite guys and he isn't giving us any cap flexibility by adding extra years with little to no dead money on them where we can be flexible with the cap in future years.  Need an example?  This last 2 year extension freed up what...  10 million in cap space, but we had to push his cap hit through the rough on those two years.  So we got a little short term relief, but not future relief without adding more guaranteed years when we're in the same situation heading into the 2022 season.

That's where I'm coming from...  honestly, I'd be fine keeping Kirk if he'd drop the mercenary attitude and let the Vikings structure his contract like they have done so successfully in the past (i.e. pay guys top 5 at their position in the first 3 years and leave room to extend or bump their pay in Year 4 or 5 if they've outperformed their contract).  The fact that he won't and his play isn't top 5 at his position...  I can see why fans are ready to move on and try a cost controlled rookie.

Just my two cents on this topic since it seems to be dominating the board.

THIS!!! absofuckinglutely this.  I

Nicely put Wet.

[Guest]

@Skodin said:

@MaroonBells said:

@Wetlander said:

@Vanguard83 said:
maybe ask yourself, If Cousins such a liability at QB....why would SF want him?

Are Lynch and the niners TRYING to be mediocre?

The issue with  Cousins isnt his play...its his PAY

For me...  it's a little bit of both.  I'm not going to argue that he didn't play well during the last 10 games of the season (he did).  However, it seems like we're all back to excusing his brutally awful play from the first 6 games of the year. 

But don't you have to ask why? Don't you have to acknowledge that whatever was causing the problem with Cousins early on was largely solved? No doubt he played great the last 10 games. He also played great last year. So why did he start out this year so poorly? I have no idea. But I suspect the team does. Could've been anything: an adjustment to changes Kubiak made, line calls, protections, stems, drops. Remember, there was no preseason.

It would be different if he played well, then like crap, then well again, then like crap. But you can pretty much divide bad Kirk and good Kirk at the bye.  And I use "pretty much"  loosely because I'm talking generally. 

I trade Cousins for no man....not named DeShaun. But don't think that's not in the back of Rick's head right now. You dangle Dalvin and Da Griddy in front of DeShaun you might convince him to play one-team hardball with Houston.

It's pressure, he's wound too tight, too analytical.  It crumbles around him and I haven't seen the team do much in response to his crumbling except join him in it.

Agreed. I would add that he's immobile and lacks ideal leadership skills, too. He's not without flaws. He's also one of the most accurate passers in football who consistently ranks near the top in passer rating from a clean pocket. 

I say give him a clean pocket and see what happens. And I don't think the answer there is personnel necessarily as much as it is scheme or coaching. Vikings have to do something there besides simply adding a guard or two. Bring in a pass pro specialist, a witchdoctor, something. Have that be the project of the offseason. 

[Guest]

@Wetlander said:

@Vanguard83 said:
maybe ask yourself, If Cousins such a liability at QB....why would SF want him?

Are Lynch and the niners TRYING to be mediocre?

The issue with  Cousins isnt his play...its his PAY

For me...  it's a little bit of both.  I'm not going to argue that he didn't play well during the last 10 games of the season (he did).  However, it seems like we're all back to excusing his brutally awful play from the first 6 games of the year.  He singlehandedly lost us the games against Green Bay, Indianapolis, and Atlanta.  Those 3 games combined with some tough last second losses during a 1-5 start basically set the tone for the rest of the season.  Great he played well when there was no pressure and little chance at the playoffs...  think about how much different the season could have been if we had started 3-3 with a really tough opening schedule?  I say this as a fan that was ecstatic when we got Kirk.  I guess now seeing him up close and personal for 3 seasons, I'm starting to see why Washington moved on.

He's a good, not great QB that has too many stretches of bad play.  Yes, even the elite guys like Rodgers, Brady, Wilson, etc. throw up some duds in awhile, but it's much less than Kirk and it doesn't prevent their team from making the playoffs or going on a Super Bowl run.

Add in the fact that Kirk is doing is no favors with what are essentially fully guaranteed deals...  Yeah, he's not being paid an exorbitant amount compared to other QBs (right in line with other guys) but he's not as good as the elite guys and he isn't giving us any cap flexibility by adding extra years with little to no dead money on them where we can be flexible with the cap in future years.  Need an example?  This last 2 year extension freed up what...  10 million in cap space, but we had to push his cap hit through the rough on those two years.  So we got a little short term relief, but not future relief without adding more guaranteed years when we're in the same situation heading into the 2022 season.

That's where I'm coming from...  honestly, I'd be fine keeping Kirk if he'd drop the mercenary attitude and let the Vikings structure his contract like they have done so successfully in the past (i.e. pay guys top 5 at their position in the first 3 years and leave room to extend or bump their pay in Year 4 or 5 if they've outperformed their contract).  The fact that he won't and his play isn't top 5 at his position...  I can see why fans are ready to move on and try a cost controlled rookie.

Just my two cents on this topic since it seems to be dominating the board.

First, you are completely right to remind everyone he was terrible at the beginning of the season. I would argue he was nearly as bad for a stretch early in 2019. We've had a couple years where there was talk of literally waiving Cousins midway through the season, people swearing they are convinced he is a flop, but then he gets hot and a month after the season ends, everyone just reads his stats and convinces themselves he is worth a couple of first-round picks.

But regarding the idea Cousins should take a pay cut voluntarily...OK, it would be nice for the team, but from Cousins' perspective: why would he?? 

Hey, I want the Vikings to get a championship, I really do. But some people act like the players should make sacrifices "for a cause". Come on, they are not fighting Al Qaeda. The NFL is a big entertainment industry, and it's healthier to think of it that way. How often do you hear of a star actor reducing their salary so another actor can be hired to join a film or show? It's the same thing. 

These athletes all won a lottery ticket in getting big NFL contracts. Some of them are stupid and don't realize it, and think the money will continue forever. Cousins doesn't seem to fall into that category.

Also, Cousins was "mercenary" in Washington: he refused to sign contracts and forced the team to franchise him twice. He wanted a large, fully guaranteed contract when he left Washington - and the Vikings management gave it to him. They knew exactly what his motivations were before signing Cousins, and they also gave him the current contract extension many people are mad about. Why do so many people sing the praises of Brez and Spielman when they squeeze an extra million of cap space by pushing dead money into the future, but when they dislike the contract Vikings management gave Cousins, it's his fault for "being mercenary"?

Fans quickly forget how badly he plays at times, but the Vikings management is just as oblivious. 

[Guest]

@Jor-El said:

@Wetlander said:

@Vanguard83 said:
maybe ask yourself, If Cousins such a liability at QB....why would SF want him?

Are Lynch and the niners TRYING to be mediocre?

The issue with  Cousins isnt his play...its his PAY

For me...  it's a little bit of both.  I'm not going to argue that he didn't play well during the last 10 games of the season (he did).  However, it seems like we're all back to excusing his brutally awful play from the first 6 games of the year.  He singlehandedly lost us the games against Green Bay, Indianapolis, and Atlanta.  Those 3 games combined with some tough last second losses during a 1-5 start basically set the tone for the rest of the season.  Great he played well when there was no pressure and little chance at the playoffs...  think about how much different the season could have been if we had started 3-3 with a really tough opening schedule?  I say this as a fan that was ecstatic when we got Kirk.  I guess now seeing him up close and personal for 3 seasons, I'm starting to see why Washington moved on.

He's a good, not great QB that has too many stretches of bad play.  Yes, even the elite guys like Rodgers, Brady, Wilson, etc. throw up some duds in awhile, but it's much less than Kirk and it doesn't prevent their team from making the playoffs or going on a Super Bowl run.

Add in the fact that Kirk is doing is no favors with what are essentially fully guaranteed deals...  Yeah, he's not being paid an exorbitant amount compared to other QBs (right in line with other guys) but he's not as good as the elite guys and he isn't giving us any cap flexibility by adding extra years with little to no dead money on them where we can be flexible with the cap in future years.  Need an example?  This last 2 year extension freed up what...  10 million in cap space, but we had to push his cap hit through the rough on those two years.  So we got a little short term relief, but not future relief without adding more guaranteed years when we're in the same situation heading into the 2022 season.

That's where I'm coming from...  honestly, I'd be fine keeping Kirk if he'd drop the mercenary attitude and let the Vikings structure his contract like they have done so successfully in the past (i.e. pay guys top 5 at their position in the first 3 years and leave room to extend or bump their pay in Year 4 or 5 if they've outperformed their contract).  The fact that he won't and his play isn't top 5 at his position...  I can see why fans are ready to move on and try a cost controlled rookie.

Just my two cents on this topic since it seems to be dominating the board.

First, you are completely right to remind everyone he was terrible at the beginning of the season. I would argue he was nearly as bad for a stretch early in 2019. We've had a couple years where there was talk of literally waiving Cousins midway through the season, people swearing they are convinced he is a flop, but then he gets hot and a month after the season ends, everyone just reads his stats and convinces themselves he is worth a couple of first-round picks.

But regarding the idea Cousins should take a pay cut voluntarily...OK, it would be nice for the team, but from Cousins' perspective: why would he?? 

Hey, I want the Vikings to get a championship, I really do. But some people act like the players should make sacrifices "for a cause". Come on, they are not fighting Al Qaeda. The NFL is a big entertainment industry, and it's healthier to think of it that way. How often do you hear of a star actor reducing their salary so another actor can be hired to join a film or show? It's the same thing. 

These athletes all won a lottery ticket in getting big NFL contracts. Some of them are stupid and don't realize it, and think the money will continue forever. Cousins doesn't seem to fall into that category.

Also, Cousins was "mercenary" in Washington: he refused to sign contracts and forced the team to franchise him twice. He wanted a large, fully guaranteed contract when he left Washington - and the Vikings management gave it to him. They knew exactly what his motivations were before signing Cousins, and they also gave him the current contract extension many people are mad about. Why do so many people sing the praises of Brez and Spielman when they squeeze an extra million of cap space by pushing dead money into the future, but when they dislike the contract Vikings management gave Cousins, it's his fault for "being mercenary"?

Fans quickly forget how badly he plays at times, but the Vikings management is just as oblivious. 

Yup.  Paycuts, lol.  Where do people get that from?  Tom Brady, the goat with a billionaire wife?  What NFL players are taking pay cuts voluntarily?  What NFL agents are calling a g.m. and going "Hey my guy wants a pay..." and the g.m.cuts him off and says "Raise?" And the agent is like, "No, a CUT!"

Then they both have a good laugh, ask how the family is doing, etc. and hang up.

[Guest]

@ Jor-el....

Who said anything about a pay cut?  If I read my post, I simply said I think Kirk could do more to help the Vikings manage their cap, not get paid less.  The Vikings have been masters of signing or extending guys like Everson, Linval, Rhodes, Harry, Diggs, etc where the AAV is in the top 5 of their position, but the player gets guarantees in the first 3 years that pay them at or near the top of their position.  It allows the player to get paid market value in the first 3 years of the deal, but helps spread the cap hits and dead money over 4 or 5 years.  Then the Vikings can easily redo their contract at Year 3 or 4 if they have outperformed it (or other similar players are getting paid more) and can guarantee more money upfront in an extension because the cap hit isn't prohibitive.

All I'm saying is these short 2-3 year fully guaranteed deals hurt the Vikings cap flexibility.  Geoff pointed out earlier that some of the moves the Vikings made impacted the cap this year (it's true), but you also have to look at the impact of Kirk's contract on the cap.  If he would have initially signed a 5 year deal with his guarantees paid out in the first 3 years (paid the same as what he's gotten already), we would have had more flexibility to move money around with a new extension...  Pay him market value, but lower his cap hits and create more space in future years.  But since he didn't... We were forced to add two more fully guaranteed years to create some short term cap space and have some much larger cap hits in 2022 and 2023 instead.

Make sense?

[Guest]

For what it's worth, if we don't trade him, I expect his next extension to include a few voidable years, which are handy for aging players. The other side of that argument is that he's almost never hurt, which makes him seem like the kind of player who could feasibly play another 4-6 years without decline. 

[Guest]

@comet52 said:

@Jor-El said:

@Wetlander said:

@Vanguard83 said:
maybe ask yourself, If Cousins such a liability at QB....why would SF want him?

Are Lynch and the niners TRYING to be mediocre?

The issue with  Cousins isnt his play...its his PAY

For me...  it's a little bit of both.  I'm not going to argue that he didn't play well during the last 10 games of the season (he did).  However, it seems like we're all back to excusing his brutally awful play from the first 6 games of the year.  He singlehandedly lost us the games against Green Bay, Indianapolis, and Atlanta.  Those 3 games combined with some tough last second losses during a 1-5 start basically set the tone for the rest of the season.  Great he played well when there was no pressure and little chance at the playoffs...  think about how much different the season could have been if we had started 3-3 with a really tough opening schedule?  I say this as a fan that was ecstatic when we got Kirk.  I guess now seeing him up close and personal for 3 seasons, I'm starting to see why Washington moved on.

He's a good, not great QB that has too many stretches of bad play.  Yes, even the elite guys like Rodgers, Brady, Wilson, etc. throw up some duds in awhile, but it's much less than Kirk and it doesn't prevent their team from making the playoffs or going on a Super Bowl run.

Add in the fact that Kirk is doing is no favors with what are essentially fully guaranteed deals...  Yeah, he's not being paid an exorbitant amount compared to other QBs (right in line with other guys) but he's not as good as the elite guys and he isn't giving us any cap flexibility by adding extra years with little to no dead money on them where we can be flexible with the cap in future years.  Need an example?  This last 2 year extension freed up what...  10 million in cap space, but we had to push his cap hit through the rough on those two years.  So we got a little short term relief, but not future relief without adding more guaranteed years when we're in the same situation heading into the 2022 season.

That's where I'm coming from...  honestly, I'd be fine keeping Kirk if he'd drop the mercenary attitude and let the Vikings structure his contract like they have done so successfully in the past (i.e. pay guys top 5 at their position in the first 3 years and leave room to extend or bump their pay in Year 4 or 5 if they've outperformed their contract).  The fact that he won't and his play isn't top 5 at his position...  I can see why fans are ready to move on and try a cost controlled rookie.

Just my two cents on this topic since it seems to be dominating the board.

First, you are completely right to remind everyone he was terrible at the beginning of the season. I would argue he was nearly as bad for a stretch early in 2019. We've had a couple years where there was talk of literally waiving Cousins midway through the season, people swearing they are convinced he is a flop, but then he gets hot and a month after the season ends, everyone just reads his stats and convinces themselves he is worth a couple of first-round picks.

But regarding the idea Cousins should take a pay cut voluntarily...OK, it would be nice for the team, but from Cousins' perspective: why would he?? 

Hey, I want the Vikings to get a championship, I really do. But some people act like the players should make sacrifices "for a cause". Come on, they are not fighting Al Qaeda. The NFL is a big entertainment industry, and it's healthier to think of it that way. How often do you hear of a star actor reducing their salary so another actor can be hired to join a film or show? It's the same thing. 

These athletes all won a lottery ticket in getting big NFL contracts. Some of them are stupid and don't realize it, and think the money will continue forever. Cousins doesn't seem to fall into that category.

Also, Cousins was "mercenary" in Washington: he refused to sign contracts and forced the team to franchise him twice. He wanted a large, fully guaranteed contract when he left Washington - and the Vikings management gave it to him. They knew exactly what his motivations were before signing Cousins, and they also gave him the current contract extension many people are mad about. Why do so many people sing the praises of Brez and Spielman when they squeeze an extra million of cap space by pushing dead money into the future, but when they dislike the contract Vikings management gave Cousins, it's his fault for "being mercenary"?

Fans quickly forget how badly he plays at times, but the Vikings management is just as oblivious. 

Yup.  Paycuts, lol.  Where do people get that from?  Tom Brady, the goat with a billionaire wife?  What NFL players are taking pay cuts voluntarily?  What NFL agents are calling a g.m. and going "Hey my guy wants a pay..." and the g.m.cuts him off and says "Raise?" And the agent is like, "No, a CUT!"

Then they both have a good laugh, ask how the family is doing, etc. and hang up.

Even in Brady's case - he played for Robert Kraft, so it would not surprise me if there were some "arrangements" that would never show on the salary cap.

[Guest]

@MaroonBells said:
For what it's worth, if we don't trade him, I expect his next extension to include a few voidable years, which are handy for aging players. The other side of that argument is that he's almost never hurt, which makes him seem like the kind of player who could feasibly play another 4-6 years without decline. 

I don't think it will...  Cousins bent Washington over playing on the franchise tag because he didn't feel the love from them.  Then the Vikings showed him the love by giving him an essentially fully guaranteed 3 year deal.  This past off-season, he could have easily asked for a longer extension with some fluff years tacked on to help the Vikings out with their cap after we showed him the love, but he didn't...  he wanted another 2 year extension that became fully guaranteed within days after the end of his original 3 year deal.

I think Cousins likes these short fully guaranteed deals and I don't see it changing.