I'm all for moving off KC. But some of the proposals to do so in this thread reek of pure and utter desperation for people to finally get their wet dream of KC bouncing.
During Cousins 5 years with us he has had a couple losing seasons. So if we bring in our future QB and only have a 500 season for a 1/4 of the price, I’m ok with that. we have a lot of talent on offense! Lets see if Kewsi and Koc can get it done.
I think there's no way around it being a sacrifice at some point relating to moving on from Cousins
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
I think there's no way around it being a sacrifice at some point relating to moving on from Cousins
All Viking fans would be willing to make a one or two year sacrifice if it meant improving the team and going to the Super Bowl.
But you really have to consider the odds of that. They're not very good. The Bears have been looking for a QB for decades. In their entire history, they've never once had a QB season as good as Kirk Cousins worst season statistically. Washington thought they could do better. They've since started 14 different QBs. Jay Gruden called moving on from Cousins "a huge mistake." The Chiefs drafted 32 QBs before landing Mahomes.
In other words, you're just assuming it's going to be a short term sacrifice. You're assuming the QB who replaces him will be as good, or as durable, or even just capable of paying in the NFL, when the odds are stacked against it.
Personally, I think the odds of the Vikings winning a Super Bowl in the next 3 or 4 years are much better with Kirk Cousins than without him.
I think QB success is part who you draft and part how they
are developed. For teams that have
abnormally bad luck at finding QBs, especially the ones that hover at the top
of the draft every year, I lean towards the organization being a clusterfuck,
more than them being really unlucky. The
Chiefs who you cited, I think maybe a good example of a team who had a good
coaching staff in place. They had a good
veteran QB who was above average. They
then bring in a guy that had the tools, but some questions, and they were able to
bring him in and mold him into the guy he is now. Obviously, some guys, like Manning or Luck,
are just good enough to be put on whatever crap team and make things happen,
but I think the odds of a QB hitting are different for shit teams than it is
for good teams.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Again, if there is no intention to retain him on an extension past this upcoming season, the smart thing to do is to trade his ass. Sorry but we aren't going to the Super Bowl this upcoming season with or without Kirk Cousins (attention Wilf family!) Geoff thinks we can still get a late 1st round pick or some type of package of picks in trade compensation for Cousins, so how does that not make sense to do that? Yes, you are essentially sacrificing the upcoming season and yes the optics may look bad to Jefferson, but if there's a long term plan...do it! The Kirk Cousin hostage train is annoying every offseason. It's become the Minnesota version of Aaron Rodgers and if he is going to come back and play or not. As much as I like Kirk, it's time for this GM to step up to the plate and put his own stamp on the organization and I think even he knows that he can't do that as long as we keep playing the Cousins extension game.
Vikings are not going to trade their QB without first having their QBOTF in the pipeline.
And by what means would they go about acquiring a QBOTF prior to trading Cousins? I also think if that were to happen first it lowers the trade value and would give other teams leverage in trade talks. There's really just no way to finesse this Cousins situation to where the pieces line up perfectly for the Vikings. If they want off the rollercoaster they just need to jump at some point and trust in their new front office to make the right decisions in addressing the QB position.
By drafting one. Confused by the question.
No team would ever trade their perfectly good veteran QB for a draft pick. It would just never happen. Draft one, see what he's got, then trade? Sure. QB for QB, OK, but the QB has to be proven.
But QB for a rookie? Never happen. Not in a million years. Imagine the egg on the face of the GM of a 13-win team trading one of the NFL's best QBs, who's still only 34, for a draft pick that turns out to be Dwayne Haskins or Baker Mayfield or Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen or Trubisky or Wentz or Winston or Mariota, or Bortles, Manziel, Manuel, RGIII, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder.........No, it would never happen.
I think for some of you, your hatred of Cousins has clouded your ability to see things clearly.
I personally love the "he's not clutch" trope as we went 13-3 this year with what, 8,9 come from behind clutch victories.
Yes, "clutch" is too broad and was the wrong word. It's more like usually when the pressure in his mind gets too great he checks down, panics with his throws, or just crumbles.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
I think there's no way around it being a sacrifice at some point relating to moving on from Cousins
All Viking fans would be willing to make a one or two year sacrifice if it meant improving the team and going to the Super Bowl.
But you really have to consider the odds of that. They're not very good. The Bears have been looking for a QB for decades. In their entire history, they've never once had a QB season as good as Kirk Cousins worst season statistically. Washington thought they could do better. They've since started 14 different QBs. Jay Gruden called moving on from Cousins "a huge mistake." The Chiefs drafted 32 QBs before landing Mahomes.
In other words, you're just assuming it's going to be a short term sacrifice. You're assuming the QB who replaces him will be as good, or as durable, or even just capable of paying in the NFL, when the odds are stacked against it.
Personally, I think the odds of the Vikings winning a Super Bowl in the next 3 or 4 years are much better with Kirk Cousins than without him.
You're assuming that the team is going to continue to get the same level of play from Kirko that they have for the past 6 years, but as he ages his play is going to decline. A rookie QB isn't going to come into the league & have the same success as Kirko in the passing game. That's not just realistic. But hopefully, that rookie can make plays with his feet as he continues to develop as a passer.
Quote: @FLVike said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Again, if there is no intention to retain him on an extension past this upcoming season, the smart thing to do is to trade his ass. Sorry but we aren't going to the Super Bowl this upcoming season with or without Kirk Cousins (attention Wilf family!) Geoff thinks we can still get a late 1st round pick or some type of package of picks in trade compensation for Cousins, so how does that not make sense to do that? Yes, you are essentially sacrificing the upcoming season and yes the optics may look bad to Jefferson, but if there's a long term plan...do it! The Kirk Cousin hostage train is annoying every offseason. It's become the Minnesota version of Aaron Rodgers and if he is going to come back and play or not. As much as I like Kirk, it's time for this GM to step up to the plate and put his own stamp on the organization and I think even he knows that he can't do that as long as we keep playing the Cousins extension game.
Vikings are not going to trade their QB without first having their QBOTF in the pipeline.
And by what means would they go about acquiring a QBOTF prior to trading Cousins? I also think if that were to happen first it lowers the trade value and would give other teams leverage in trade talks. There's really just no way to finesse this Cousins situation to where the pieces line up perfectly for the Vikings. If they want off the rollercoaster they just need to jump at some point and trust in their new front office to make the right decisions in addressing the QB position.
By drafting one. Confused by the question.
No team would ever trade their perfectly good veteran QB for a draft pick. It would just never happen. Draft one, see what he's got, then trade? Sure. QB for QB, OK, but the QB has to be proven.
But QB for a rookie? Never happen. Not in a million years. Imagine the egg on the face of the GM of a 13-win team trading one of the NFL's best QBs, who's still only 34, for a draft pick that turns out to be Dwayne Haskins or Baker Mayfield or Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen or Trubisky or Wentz or Winston or Mariota, or Bortles, Manziel, Manuel, RGIII, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder.........No, it would never happen.
I think for some of you, your hatred of Cousins has clouded your ability to see things clearly.
I personally love the "he's not clutch" trope as we went 13-3 this year with what, 8,9 come from behind clutch victories.
Yes, "clutch" is too broad and was the wrong word. It's more like usually when the pressure in his mind gets too great he checks down, panics with his throws, or just crumbles.
Like he did all last year? With a good offense and good offensive coaches, he thrived under pressure.
There were times that he did that in past years, but often I think the OC was in over his head and the plays just sucked when we couldn't run the ball.
Quote: @FLVike said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Again, if there is no intention to retain him on an extension past this upcoming season, the smart thing to do is to trade his ass. Sorry but we aren't going to the Super Bowl this upcoming season with or without Kirk Cousins (attention Wilf family!) Geoff thinks we can still get a late 1st round pick or some type of package of picks in trade compensation for Cousins, so how does that not make sense to do that? Yes, you are essentially sacrificing the upcoming season and yes the optics may look bad to Jefferson, but if there's a long term plan...do it! The Kirk Cousin hostage train is annoying every offseason. It's become the Minnesota version of Aaron Rodgers and if he is going to come back and play or not. As much as I like Kirk, it's time for this GM to step up to the plate and put his own stamp on the organization and I think even he knows that he can't do that as long as we keep playing the Cousins extension game.
Vikings are not going to trade their QB without first having their QBOTF in the pipeline.
And by what means would they go about acquiring a QBOTF prior to trading Cousins? I also think if that were to happen first it lowers the trade value and would give other teams leverage in trade talks. There's really just no way to finesse this Cousins situation to where the pieces line up perfectly for the Vikings. If they want off the rollercoaster they just need to jump at some point and trust in their new front office to make the right decisions in addressing the QB position.
By drafting one. Confused by the question.
No team would ever trade their perfectly good veteran QB for a draft pick. It would just never happen. Draft one, see what he's got, then trade? Sure. QB for QB, OK, but the QB has to be proven.
But QB for a rookie? Never happen. Not in a million years. Imagine the egg on the face of the GM of a 13-win team trading one of the NFL's best QBs, who's still only 34, for a draft pick that turns out to be Dwayne Haskins or Baker Mayfield or Sam Darnold or Josh Rosen or Trubisky or Wentz or Winston or Mariota, or Bortles, Manziel, Manuel, RGIII, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder.........No, it would never happen.
I think for some of you, your hatred of Cousins has clouded your ability to see things clearly.
I personally love the "he's not clutch" trope as we went 13-3 this year with what, 8,9 come from behind clutch victories.
Yes, "clutch" is too broad and was the wrong word. It's more like usually when the pressure in his mind gets too great he checks down, panics with his throws, or just crumbles.
It amazes me the perpetually moving goal post with Cousins. The first few seasons "he's trash in the 4th quarter". Meanwhile starting half way through the 2020 season through the 2022 season he had been one of the best in the 4th. On to next narrative "ya well he's only good in 4th quarter garbage time. But he shrivels late when games are close". Fast forward 2021 season and Cousins repeatedly brought the team back late and a historically bad defense blows a record number of late leads. On to the next narrative, "he panics when down late and either checks down or throws stupid ints'".
2022 season he ties the record for most come from behind victories. The new, new, new, new narrative is "when the pressure in his mind gets too great he checks down, panics with his throws, or just crumbles". Lol, now we have fans reading minds and thinking they know when the pressure "in his mind" is too much. I am perfectly happy to move on from KC if it is on to legitimate alternative. However it seems many are scrambling to move on just to move on, not to move on to someone equal to or better than what KC provides. Lol, I saw one post advocating for somehow trading Cousins, moving up and drafting Levis and signing an absolutely wash Matt Ryan. Tell me thats not the pitch of someone desperate to to move on just to move on.
Quote: @Knucklehead said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
I think there's no way around it being a sacrifice at some point relating to moving on from Cousins
All Viking fans would be willing to make a one or two year sacrifice if it meant improving the team and going to the Super Bowl.
But you really have to consider the odds of that. They're not very good. The Bears have been looking for a QB for decades. In their entire history, they've never once had a QB season as good as Kirk Cousins worst season statistically. Washington thought they could do better. They've since started 14 different QBs. Jay Gruden called moving on from Cousins "a huge mistake." The Chiefs drafted 32 QBs before landing Mahomes.
In other words, you're just assuming it's going to be a short term sacrifice. You're assuming the QB who replaces him will be as good, or as durable, or even just capable of paying in the NFL, when the odds are stacked against it.
Personally, I think the odds of the Vikings winning a Super Bowl in the next 3 or 4 years are much better with Kirk Cousins than without him.
You're assuming that the team is going to continue to get the same level of play from Kirko that they have for the past 6 years, but as he ages his play is going to decline. A rookie QB isn't going to come into the league & have the same success as Kirko in the passing game. That's not just realistic. But hopefully, that rookie can make plays with his feet as he continues to develop as a passer.
His age (and contract) is why I'm not opposed to finding a QBOTF this year or the next, whether that's a veteran like Jackson or a draft pick. However, Kirk is currently 34 and will be 35 when the season starts. Based on precedent, I think he's a couple years away from age-related decline.
|
