Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ 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.
why would they have been forced to play a rookie QB, I would hope most intelligent fans can see the errors of rushing a young QB into the mix to soon, especially if there isnt a quality offensive line in front of the rookie. even if there was an uproar for benching Kirk in place of a rookie, I would hope that those running the team could have been able to put those demands down. hell the fans have been saying for ever that we need a more quality QB2, as well as improving other positions and they haven't responded to those whining's, why would they have been compelled to bench Kirk despite a horrid first 1/3 of the season?
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ 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.
I agree, don't think any of the top 4 fall to 14...And is KC that poor of a choice (short term or long) where they would mortgage a draft for someone else?
Watson could throw somewhat of a cog in things, but any trade for Deshaun means Houston is taking a QB before we do.
The one that might be there is Mac Jones...Don't know how they feel about him vs say an Edge or OT that might also be available.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
why would they have been forced to play a rookie QB, I would hope most intelligent fans can see the errors of rushing a young QB into the mix to soon, especially if there isnt a quality offensive line in front of the rookie. even if there was an uproar for benching Kirk in place of a rookie, I would hope that those running the team could have been able to put those demands down. hell the fans have been saying for ever that we need a more quality QB2, as well as improving other positions and they haven't responded to those whining's, why would they have been compelled to bench Kirk despite a horrid first 1/3 of the season?
Any fanbase understands why you want a rookie QB to sit a year but I haven't seen a single fanbase actually retrain from pushing for the rookie to play. People get antsy and the second there are struggles the rookie/backup QB is the most popular player on the roster. It works out fine when your bridge QB plays well (Alex Smith/Aaron Rodgers) but in most cases the rookie gets thrown into the fire for better or worse.
Its just not viable to expect fans to restrain.
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
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.
I agree, don't think any of the top 4 fall to 14...And is KC that poor of a choice (short term or long) where they would mortgage a draft for someone else?
Watson could throw somewhat of a cog in things, but any trade for Deshaun means Houston is taking a QB before we do.
The one that might be there is Mac Jones...Don't know how they feel about him vs say an Edge or OT that might also be available.
Crazy enough I think there is a chance Mac Jones along with the top 4 all go within the top 10 picks. If the top 4 fly off the board a team like Denver at #9 would probably love to move back allowing a QB needy team to select Jones.
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
why would they have been forced to play a rookie QB, I would hope most intelligent fans can see the errors of rushing a young QB into the mix to soon, especially if there isnt a quality offensive line in front of the rookie. even if there was an uproar for benching Kirk in place of a rookie, I would hope that those running the team could have been able to put those demands down. hell the fans have been saying for ever that we need a more quality QB2, as well as improving other positions and they haven't responded to those whining's, why would they have been compelled to bench Kirk despite a horrid first 1/3 of the season?
Any fanbase understands why you want a rookie QB to sit a year but I haven't seen a single fanbase actually retrain from pushing for the rookie to play. People get antsy and the second there are struggles the rookie/backup QB is the most popular player on the roster. It works out fine when your bridge QB plays well (Alex Smith/Aaron Rodgers) but in most cases the rookie gets thrown into the fire for better or worse.
Its just not viable to expect fans to restrain.
again though, that is why the front office and coaches run the teams and not the fans, of course the same could be said about not drafting a QB this year, but then again these are the same guys that have gotten us to the point of paying top dollar for an above average QB with no viable replacement in the pipeline.
Quote: @pattersaur said:
@ MaroonBells said:
We already have a top third QB--top 5 in several key metrics, including 2nd highest passer rating from a clean pocket.
Is this really a "key metric" though?
Yay, your Minnesota sports car drives great in perfect conditions with no one else on the road. How's it do in the snow?
For this season I agree the Vikings are probably best off sticking with Kirk at this point. But to not be trying to upgrade for the future at the most critical position in sports is negligent, in my opinion. This poll says move into the top 5-- ok fine don't do that. But what about 8? Or 10 if someone slips? Or *holy cow* 14? If that happens I hope the Vikings are prepared to make a big move.
Wait a sec... When has our offense had perfect cinditions? I would say kirk has not had perfect conditions here. Quite the opposite.
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
@ pattersaur said:
@ MaroonBells said:
We already have a top third QB--top 5 in several key metrics, including 2nd highest passer rating from a clean pocket.
Is this really a "key metric" though?
Yay, your Minnesota sports car drives great in perfect conditions with no one else on the road. How's it do in the snow?
For this season I agree the Vikings are probably best off sticking with Kirk at this point. But to not be trying to upgrade for the future at the most critical position in sports is negligent, in my opinion. This poll says move into the top 5-- ok fine don't do that. But what about 8? Or 10 if someone slips? Or *holy cow* 14? If that happens I hope the Vikings are prepared to make a big move.
Wait a sec... When has our offense had perfect cinditions? I would say kirk has not had perfect conditions here. Quite the opposite.
It has been the opposite. He's got a good running game and some good receivers, but his offensive line ranks 29th in pass pro. Despite all this "snow," he threw for 4300 yards and 35 TDs. In the red zone: 25 TDs, 0 picks. How would he perform in perfect conditions? If only we knew...
Wait, we do know: In those instances where he was given time (a clean pocket), he ranked best in the NFL over the last two seasons.
Original OP Poll with 11 votes.
5 votes for moving up to 5 if "our" guy is there.
6 votes for not moving up.
I just don't see a move up, if our guy is there, as an indictment on Kirk Cousins at all. So we are committed to him for 2 more years at a high cost no matter what we do in the draft. I think Kirk is very capable of getting us to the Super Bowl and winning. But is contract and numbers for the next 2 years is a sunk cost and should not influence the rare opportunity to think beyond 2 years at the most important position.
But for those that are saying they would draft one of the QB's that fall at 14 but not move up I actually don't understand that thinking. Unless the Viking brass does all it's due diligence on all Top4/5 QB's and they are equal so we just sit and wait for one of them to fall? What I have been proposing is to evaluate all of the Top 4/5/6 and commit to the guy you want because he jumps out at you. Now I am not just saying willy nilly give it all up for Lawrence at #1 or even get closer then pick 5 because we don't have enough capital to give up to get higher and Cincy is in the 5 spot and not drafting a QB. So my thought process/proposal is to target pick 5 if...if...the QB you have identified falls to 5 and you know won't fall to 14. That is my premise: 1: only give up capital to get 5 and 2: only if your guy is there. For me, it remains Wilson. But for Spelly and the brass it might be Fields or Lance IDK.
I can see many don't want to "sacrifice" the capital because with that capital given up to get to 5 they hope to draft a couple starters that could put us over the top instead.
But do we know what Capital we would have to give up?
Let's use the Chiefs moving up for Mahomes to 10 from 27.
Chiefs gave up pick 27, 3rd round pick in 2017, 1st round pick in 2018
I would think we might have to give up a little more to go from 14 to pick 5 and not sure of how much.
I have run an ton of mock drafts mostly on PFF and have been able to move up to pick 5 with a couple different scenarios. I am very curious to see how many folks would move up to pick 5 (again with my 2 requirements above).
Each scenario is without giving up our 14 pick this year and they accepted by Cincy:
1 scenario give up: 2020 pick 78 and 119 and 2021 2nd rounder.
2 scenario give up: 2020 78 and 119 and 5th rounder 2021 and 4th rounder 2023.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ Mike Olson said:
@ pattersaur said:
@ MaroonBells said:
We already have a top third QB--top 5 in several key metrics, including 2nd highest passer rating from a clean pocket.
Is this really a "key metric" though?
Yay, your Minnesota sports car drives great in perfect conditions with no one else on the road. How's it do in the snow?
For this season I agree the Vikings are probably best off sticking with Kirk at this point. But to not be trying to upgrade for the future at the most critical position in sports is negligent, in my opinion. This poll says move into the top 5-- ok fine don't do that. But what about 8? Or 10 if someone slips? Or *holy cow* 14? If that happens I hope the Vikings are prepared to make a big move.
Wait a sec... When has our offense had perfect cinditions? I would say kirk has not had perfect conditions here. Quite the opposite.
It has been the opposite. He's got a good running game and some good receivers, but his offensive line ranks 29th in pass pro. Despite all this "snow," he threw for 4300 yards and 35 TDs. In the red zone: 25 TDs, 0 picks. How would he perform in perfect conditions? If only we knew...
Wait, we do know: In those instances where he was given time (a clean pocket), he ranked best in the NFL over the last two seasons.
Our offense never has perfect conditions, that’s my point. It’s been 3 straight offseasons of “let’s fix the OL and see what we got!” and guess what— we are sitting here today STILL needing at least one G for sure, and probably another OT/OG.
So while the argument that Kirk is great with a clean pocket is fine and dandy, if we can’t consistently give him that when the game is in the line, then who cares?
If you want to blame coaching for this predicament be my guest. The GM? Go right ahead. Players? Fine. Clearly this is someone’s fault that we keep going round and round year after year.
My solution is find a QB who doesn’t require perfect conditions. It sounds like you guys have a different proposed solution. I respect that too. All I really care about is that the Vikings fix it.
|
