Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 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.
Nothing confusing about it. We are on a time restriction with Cousin's playing out the last year of his deal with the Vikings unwilling to budge on the guaranteed money he wants in an extension. So do we simply let him play out the last year of his contract and let him walk for nothing at the end of the year, or do you recoup what you can now in a trade pre-draft and use the assets acquired to try to move up in the draft to land a young franchise QB? To me the latter makes much more sense. I like Kirk, I just don't like playing the contract/extension game with Kirk every offseason and understand his time is coming to an end, whether this year or next
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think the team wants to see what he does in year two of the offense. And how he performs in '23 will dictate what happens with the contract.
Of course, if they have a chance to land a much younger, proven veteran like Lamar Jackson, they might just do that. And I would not be opposed to that at all. See, for me, it's not as much about the QB as it is about avoiding the crapshoot and getting a proven vet. I think any time you have a chance to get one--whether it's Cousins in '18 or Jackson in '23 or Brady in '21 or even Russell Wilson in '22--you gotta do that. But it's not going to be for a QB who's never played a down in the NFL. Unless someone has gone off the wails on a Kwesi twain. :-) A lot may depend on how the draft plays out, but continue to think they will try to identify if there is a QB worth moving up for or if they feel strongly enough about Hooker or McKee. That may or may not work out but their approach to this point leaves that option open. While Kirk doesn't deserve the questioning he is now getting I think two points really are driving home the decision.
1. Winning with a QB on a rookie scale contract is the single most significant advantage in the NFL
2. New FO/Coaches nearly always draft "their guy" at QB. They've already done this in a minor way retaining Hicks
I tend to think the current plan is to move off Kirk if they can secure an alternative. It just doesn't make much sense to see what happens in 2023. If he doesn't take another step you're left with no QB. If he's successful you have no leverage and potentially no QB. Due to the 3rd tag rules and Kirk's early void date he can force his way to FA. The Vikings can simply do nothing if he wants to see the market.
My guess is they aggressively try to draft a QB. If they do he plays out the contract. If they can't secure a QB I tend to think they will circle-back on extension talks prior to the season.
If your guess is right I really hope they're able to land "their guy" in the Draft. Kirk is fine but honestly not sure my heart can take another 3-4 years of these Kirk debates. Ready to move on.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 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.
Nothing confusing about it. We are on a time restriction with Cousin's playing out the last year of his deal with the Vikings unwilling to budge on the guaranteed money he wants in an extension. So do we simply let him play out the last year of his contract and let him walk for nothing at the end of the year, or do you recoup what you can now in a trade pre-draft and use the assets acquired to try to move up in the draft to land a young franchise QB? To me the latter makes much more sense. I like Kirk, I just don't like playing the contract/extension game with Kirk every offseason and understand his time is coming to an end, whether this year or next
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think the team wants to see what he does in year two of the offense. And how he performs in '23 will dictate what happens with the contract.
Of course, if they have a chance to land a much younger, proven veteran like Lamar Jackson, they might just do that. And I would not be opposed to that at all. See, for me, it's not as much about the QB as it is about avoiding the crapshoot and getting a proven vet. I think any time you have a chance to get one--whether it's Cousins in '18 or Jackson in '23 or Brady in '21 or even Russell Wilson in '22--you gotta do that. But it's not going to be for a QB who's never played a down in the NFL. Unless someone has gone off the wails on a Kwesi twain. :-) A lot may depend on how the draft plays out, but continue to think they will try to identify if there is a QB worth moving up for or if they feel strongly enough about Hooker or McKee. That may or may not work out but their approach to this point leaves that option open. While Kirk doesn't deserve the questioning he is now getting I think two points really are driving home the decision.
1. Winning with a QB on a rookie scale contract is the single most significant advantage in the NFL
2. New FO/Coaches nearly always draft "their guy" at QB. They've already done this in a minor way retaining Hicks
I tend to think the current plan is to move off Kirk if they can secure an alternative. It just doesn't make much sense to see what happens in 2023. If he doesn't take another step you're left with no QB. If he's successful you have no leverage and potentially no QB. Due to the 3rd tag rules and Kirk's early void date he can force his way to FA. The Vikings can simply do nothing if he wants to see the market.
My guess is they aggressively try to draft a QB. If they do he plays out the contract. If they can't secure a QB I tend to think they will circle-back on extension talks prior to the season.
Totally agree. Assuming there's nothing to the Jackson rumors, I think the odds of the Vikings taking a QB in this draft are very high. My only point is just that we won't use Cousins to do that, effectively trading Cousins for a rookie. No GM in the NFL would ever do that.
Imagine the potential media narrative: New GM trades 4-time Pro Bowl, 13-win QB for....Dwayne Haskins...or Josh Rosen. It would just never happen.
Except that 90% of the media thinks Cousins is an overpaid mediocre QB, has been for years, and routinely mock the Vikings for continuing to pay him the big money that they have. You wouldn't see the media bat an eye if he were to be traded and the Vikings take a swing at a young QB
Quote: @"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 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.
Nothing confusing about it. We are on a time restriction with Cousin's playing out the last year of his deal with the Vikings unwilling to budge on the guaranteed money he wants in an extension. So do we simply let him play out the last year of his contract and let him walk for nothing at the end of the year, or do you recoup what you can now in a trade pre-draft and use the assets acquired to try to move up in the draft to land a young franchise QB? To me the latter makes much more sense. I like Kirk, I just don't like playing the contract/extension game with Kirk every offseason and understand his time is coming to an end, whether this year or next
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think the team wants to see what he does in year two of the offense. And how he performs in '23 will dictate what happens with the contract.
Of course, if they have a chance to land a much younger, proven veteran like Lamar Jackson, they might just do that. And I would not be opposed to that at all. See, for me, it's not as much about the QB as it is about avoiding the crapshoot and getting a proven vet. I think any time you have a chance to get one--whether it's Cousins in '18 or Jackson in '23 or Brady in '21 or even Russell Wilson in '22--you gotta do that. But it's not going to be for a QB who's never played a down in the NFL. Unless someone has gone off the wails on a Kwesi twain. :-) A lot may depend on how the draft plays out, but continue to think they will try to identify if there is a QB worth moving up for or if they feel strongly enough about Hooker or McKee. That may or may not work out but their approach to this point leaves that option open. While Kirk doesn't deserve the questioning he is now getting I think two points really are driving home the decision.
1. Winning with a QB on a rookie scale contract is the single most significant advantage in the NFL
2. New FO/Coaches nearly always draft "their guy" at QB. They've already done this in a minor way retaining Hicks
I tend to think the current plan is to move off Kirk if they can secure an alternative. It just doesn't make much sense to see what happens in 2023. If he doesn't take another step you're left with no QB. If he's successful you have no leverage and potentially no QB. Due to the 3rd tag rules and Kirk's early void date he can force his way to FA. The Vikings can simply do nothing if he wants to see the market.
My guess is they aggressively try to draft a QB. If they do he plays out the contract. If they can't secure a QB I tend to think they will circle-back on extension talks prior to the season.
I just don't see the Vikings landing one of the perceived elite QB prospects in this draft without doing what the 49ers did and mortgaging a good part of our future draft capital to move up into position to do it. So it will likely be back to the bargaining table with Kirko once again calling the shots
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 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.
Nothing confusing about it. We are on a time restriction with Cousin's playing out the last year of his deal with the Vikings unwilling to budge on the guaranteed money he wants in an extension. So do we simply let him play out the last year of his contract and let him walk for nothing at the end of the year, or do you recoup what you can now in a trade pre-draft and use the assets acquired to try to move up in the draft to land a young franchise QB? To me the latter makes much more sense. I like Kirk, I just don't like playing the contract/extension game with Kirk every offseason and understand his time is coming to an end, whether this year or next
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think the team wants to see what he does in year two of the offense. And how he performs in '23 will dictate what happens with the contract.
Of course, if they have a chance to land a much younger, proven veteran like Lamar Jackson, they might just do that. And I would not be opposed to that at all. See, for me, it's not as much about the QB as it is about avoiding the crapshoot and getting a proven vet. I think any time you have a chance to get one--whether it's Cousins in '18 or Jackson in '23 or Brady in '21 or even Russell Wilson in '22--you gotta do that. But it's not going to be for a QB who's never played a down in the NFL. Unless someone has gone off the wails on a Kwesi twain. :-) A lot may depend on how the draft plays out, but continue to think they will try to identify if there is a QB worth moving up for or if they feel strongly enough about Hooker or McKee. That may or may not work out but their approach to this point leaves that option open. While Kirk doesn't deserve the questioning he is now getting I think two points really are driving home the decision.
1. Winning with a QB on a rookie scale contract is the single most significant advantage in the NFL
2. New FO/Coaches nearly always draft "their guy" at QB. They've already done this in a minor way retaining Hicks
I tend to think the current plan is to move off Kirk if they can secure an alternative. It just doesn't make much sense to see what happens in 2023. If he doesn't take another step you're left with no QB. If he's successful you have no leverage and potentially no QB. Due to the 3rd tag rules and Kirk's early void date he can force his way to FA. The Vikings can simply do nothing if he wants to see the market.
My guess is they aggressively try to draft a QB. If they do he plays out the contract. If they can't secure a QB I tend to think they will circle-back on extension talks prior to the season.
I just don't see the Vikings landing one of the perceived elite QB prospects in this draft without doing what the 49ers did and mortgaging a good part of our future draft capital to move up into position to do it. So it will likely be back to the bargaining table with Kirko once again calling the shots
If "mortgaging the future" gets us into the NFC championship game, sign me up.
Quote: @pattersaur said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 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.
Nothing confusing about it. We are on a time restriction with Cousin's playing out the last year of his deal with the Vikings unwilling to budge on the guaranteed money he wants in an extension. So do we simply let him play out the last year of his contract and let him walk for nothing at the end of the year, or do you recoup what you can now in a trade pre-draft and use the assets acquired to try to move up in the draft to land a young franchise QB? To me the latter makes much more sense. I like Kirk, I just don't like playing the contract/extension game with Kirk every offseason and understand his time is coming to an end, whether this year or next
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think the team wants to see what he does in year two of the offense. And how he performs in '23 will dictate what happens with the contract.
Of course, if they have a chance to land a much younger, proven veteran like Lamar Jackson, they might just do that. And I would not be opposed to that at all. See, for me, it's not as much about the QB as it is about avoiding the crapshoot and getting a proven vet. I think any time you have a chance to get one--whether it's Cousins in '18 or Jackson in '23 or Brady in '21 or even Russell Wilson in '22--you gotta do that. But it's not going to be for a QB who's never played a down in the NFL. Unless someone has gone off the wails on a Kwesi twain. :-) A lot may depend on how the draft plays out, but continue to think they will try to identify if there is a QB worth moving up for or if they feel strongly enough about Hooker or McKee. That may or may not work out but their approach to this point leaves that option open. While Kirk doesn't deserve the questioning he is now getting I think two points really are driving home the decision.
1. Winning with a QB on a rookie scale contract is the single most significant advantage in the NFL
2. New FO/Coaches nearly always draft "their guy" at QB. They've already done this in a minor way retaining Hicks
I tend to think the current plan is to move off Kirk if they can secure an alternative. It just doesn't make much sense to see what happens in 2023. If he doesn't take another step you're left with no QB. If he's successful you have no leverage and potentially no QB. Due to the 3rd tag rules and Kirk's early void date he can force his way to FA. The Vikings can simply do nothing if he wants to see the market.
My guess is they aggressively try to draft a QB. If they do he plays out the contract. If they can't secure a QB I tend to think they will circle-back on extension talks prior to the season.
I just don't see the Vikings landing one of the perceived elite QB prospects in this draft without doing what the 49ers did and mortgaging a good part of our future draft capital to move up into position to do it. So it will likely be back to the bargaining table with Kirko once again calling the shots
If "mortgaging the future" gets us into the NFC championship game, sign me up.
They might be the only team I've ever heard of to give up what they did, miss on their QB, and still come out smelling like a rose. Any other team wouldn't be as lucky
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 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.
Nothing confusing about it. We are on a time restriction with Cousin's playing out the last year of his deal with the Vikings unwilling to budge on the guaranteed money he wants in an extension. So do we simply let him play out the last year of his contract and let him walk for nothing at the end of the year, or do you recoup what you can now in a trade pre-draft and use the assets acquired to try to move up in the draft to land a young franchise QB? To me the latter makes much more sense. I like Kirk, I just don't like playing the contract/extension game with Kirk every offseason and understand his time is coming to an end, whether this year or next
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think the team wants to see what he does in year two of the offense. And how he performs in '23 will dictate what happens with the contract.
Of course, if they have a chance to land a much younger, proven veteran like Lamar Jackson, they might just do that. And I would not be opposed to that at all. See, for me, it's not as much about the QB as it is about avoiding the crapshoot and getting a proven vet. I think any time you have a chance to get one--whether it's Cousins in '18 or Jackson in '23 or Brady in '21 or even Russell Wilson in '22--you gotta do that. But it's not going to be for a QB who's never played a down in the NFL. Unless someone has gone off the wails on a Kwesi twain. :-) A lot may depend on how the draft plays out, but continue to think they will try to identify if there is a QB worth moving up for or if they feel strongly enough about Hooker or McKee. That may or may not work out but their approach to this point leaves that option open. While Kirk doesn't deserve the questioning he is now getting I think two points really are driving home the decision.
1. Winning with a QB on a rookie scale contract is the single most significant advantage in the NFL
2. New FO/Coaches nearly always draft "their guy" at QB. They've already done this in a minor way retaining Hicks
I tend to think the current plan is to move off Kirk if they can secure an alternative. It just doesn't make much sense to see what happens in 2023. If he doesn't take another step you're left with no QB. If he's successful you have no leverage and potentially no QB. Due to the 3rd tag rules and Kirk's early void date he can force his way to FA. The Vikings can simply do nothing if he wants to see the market.
My guess is they aggressively try to draft a QB. If they do he plays out the contract. If they can't secure a QB I tend to think they will circle-back on extension talks prior to the season.
Totally agree. Assuming there's nothing to the Jackson rumors, I think the odds of the Vikings taking a QB in this draft are very high. My only point is just that we won't use Cousins to do that, effectively trading Cousins for a rookie. No GM in the NFL would ever do that.
Imagine the potential media narrative: New GM trades 4-time Pro Bowl, 13-win QB for....Dwayne Haskins...or Josh Rosen. It would just never happen.
Except that 90% of the media thinks Cousins is an overpaid mediocre QB, has been for years, and routinely mock the Vikings for continuing to pay him the big money that they have. You wouldn't see the media bat an eye if he were to be traded and the Vikings take a swing at a young QB
No, 90% of media does not think that. This is the problem with social media. So many believe that the news and opinions they get on Facebook, Twitter, etc., represent a realistic take on controversial topics in sports, politics, culture, etc., when in reality the algorithms are designed to confirm our biases.
Quote: @supafreak84 said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 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.
Nothing confusing about it. We are on a time restriction with Cousin's playing out the last year of his deal with the Vikings unwilling to budge on the guaranteed money he wants in an extension. So do we simply let him play out the last year of his contract and let him walk for nothing at the end of the year, or do you recoup what you can now in a trade pre-draft and use the assets acquired to try to move up in the draft to land a young franchise QB? To me the latter makes much more sense. I like Kirk, I just don't like playing the contract/extension game with Kirk every offseason and understand his time is coming to an end, whether this year or next
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think the team wants to see what he does in year two of the offense. And how he performs in '23 will dictate what happens with the contract.
Of course, if they have a chance to land a much younger, proven veteran like Lamar Jackson, they might just do that. And I would not be opposed to that at all. See, for me, it's not as much about the QB as it is about avoiding the crapshoot and getting a proven vet. I think any time you have a chance to get one--whether it's Cousins in '18 or Jackson in '23 or Brady in '21 or even Russell Wilson in '22--you gotta do that. But it's not going to be for a QB who's never played a down in the NFL. Unless someone has gone off the wails on a Kwesi twain. :-) A lot may depend on how the draft plays out, but continue to think they will try to identify if there is a QB worth moving up for or if they feel strongly enough about Hooker or McKee. That may or may not work out but their approach to this point leaves that option open. While Kirk doesn't deserve the questioning he is now getting I think two points really are driving home the decision.
1. Winning with a QB on a rookie scale contract is the single most significant advantage in the NFL
2. New FO/Coaches nearly always draft "their guy" at QB. They've already done this in a minor way retaining Hicks
I tend to think the current plan is to move off Kirk if they can secure an alternative. It just doesn't make much sense to see what happens in 2023. If he doesn't take another step you're left with no QB. If he's successful you have no leverage and potentially no QB. Due to the 3rd tag rules and Kirk's early void date he can force his way to FA. The Vikings can simply do nothing if he wants to see the market.
My guess is they aggressively try to draft a QB. If they do he plays out the contract. If they can't secure a QB I tend to think they will circle-back on extension talks prior to the season.
I just don't see the Vikings landing one of the perceived elite QB prospects in this draft without doing what the 49ers did and mortgaging a good part of our future draft capital to move up into position to do it. So it will likely be back to the bargaining table with Kirko once again calling the shots
Mortgage the future. Move up to get a QB. I have no problem with that. But they won't use Cousins to do it. Just like the 49ers didn't use Jimmy G to do it. No team would ever do that.
Quote: @pattersaur said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 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.
Nothing confusing about it. We are on a time restriction with Cousin's playing out the last year of his deal with the Vikings unwilling to budge on the guaranteed money he wants in an extension. So do we simply let him play out the last year of his contract and let him walk for nothing at the end of the year, or do you recoup what you can now in a trade pre-draft and use the assets acquired to try to move up in the draft to land a young franchise QB? To me the latter makes much more sense. I like Kirk, I just don't like playing the contract/extension game with Kirk every offseason and understand his time is coming to an end, whether this year or next
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think the team wants to see what he does in year two of the offense. And how he performs in '23 will dictate what happens with the contract.
Of course, if they have a chance to land a much younger, proven veteran like Lamar Jackson, they might just do that. And I would not be opposed to that at all. See, for me, it's not as much about the QB as it is about avoiding the crapshoot and getting a proven vet. I think any time you have a chance to get one--whether it's Cousins in '18 or Jackson in '23 or Brady in '21 or even Russell Wilson in '22--you gotta do that. But it's not going to be for a QB who's never played a down in the NFL. Unless someone has gone off the wails on a Kwesi twain. :-) A lot may depend on how the draft plays out, but continue to think they will try to identify if there is a QB worth moving up for or if they feel strongly enough about Hooker or McKee. That may or may not work out but their approach to this point leaves that option open. While Kirk doesn't deserve the questioning he is now getting I think two points really are driving home the decision.
1. Winning with a QB on a rookie scale contract is the single most significant advantage in the NFL
2. New FO/Coaches nearly always draft "their guy" at QB. They've already done this in a minor way retaining Hicks
I tend to think the current plan is to move off Kirk if they can secure an alternative. It just doesn't make much sense to see what happens in 2023. If he doesn't take another step you're left with no QB. If he's successful you have no leverage and potentially no QB. Due to the 3rd tag rules and Kirk's early void date he can force his way to FA. The Vikings can simply do nothing if he wants to see the market.
My guess is they aggressively try to draft a QB. If they do he plays out the contract. If they can't secure a QB I tend to think they will circle-back on extension talks prior to the season.
If your guess is right I really hope they're able to land "their guy" in the Draft. Kirk is fine but honestly not sure my heart can take another 3-4 years of these Kirk debates. Ready to move on.
Oh we'll always find something to grouse about -- we're NFL fans 
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@"Geoff Nichols" said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 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.
Nothing confusing about it. We are on a time restriction with Cousin's playing out the last year of his deal with the Vikings unwilling to budge on the guaranteed money he wants in an extension. So do we simply let him play out the last year of his contract and let him walk for nothing at the end of the year, or do you recoup what you can now in a trade pre-draft and use the assets acquired to try to move up in the draft to land a young franchise QB? To me the latter makes much more sense. I like Kirk, I just don't like playing the contract/extension game with Kirk every offseason and understand his time is coming to an end, whether this year or next
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I think the team wants to see what he does in year two of the offense. And how he performs in '23 will dictate what happens with the contract.
Of course, if they have a chance to land a much younger, proven veteran like Lamar Jackson, they might just do that. And I would not be opposed to that at all. See, for me, it's not as much about the QB as it is about avoiding the crapshoot and getting a proven vet. I think any time you have a chance to get one--whether it's Cousins in '18 or Jackson in '23 or Brady in '21 or even Russell Wilson in '22--you gotta do that. But it's not going to be for a QB who's never played a down in the NFL. Unless someone has gone off the wails on a Kwesi twain. :-) A lot may depend on how the draft plays out, but continue to think they will try to identify if there is a QB worth moving up for or if they feel strongly enough about Hooker or McKee. That may or may not work out but their approach to this point leaves that option open. While Kirk doesn't deserve the questioning he is now getting I think two points really are driving home the decision.
1. Winning with a QB on a rookie scale contract is the single most significant advantage in the NFL
2. New FO/Coaches nearly always draft "their guy" at QB. They've already done this in a minor way retaining Hicks
I tend to think the current plan is to move off Kirk if they can secure an alternative. It just doesn't make much sense to see what happens in 2023. If he doesn't take another step you're left with no QB. If he's successful you have no leverage and potentially no QB. Due to the 3rd tag rules and Kirk's early void date he can force his way to FA. The Vikings can simply do nothing if he wants to see the market.
My guess is they aggressively try to draft a QB. If they do he plays out the contract. If they can't secure a QB I tend to think they will circle-back on extension talks prior to the season.
Totally agree. Assuming there's nothing to the Jackson rumors, I think the odds of the Vikings taking a QB in this draft are very high. My only point is just that we won't use Cousins to do that, effectively trading Cousins for a rookie. No GM in the NFL would ever do that.
Imagine the potential media narrative: New GM trades 4-time Pro Bowl, 13-win QB for....Dwayne Haskins...or Josh Rosen. It would just never happen.
Except that 90% of the media thinks Cousins is an overpaid mediocre QB, has been for years, and routinely mock the Vikings for continuing to pay him the big money that they have. You wouldn't see the media bat an eye if he were to be traded and the Vikings take a swing at a young QB
No, 90% of media does not think that. This is the problem with social media. So many believe that the news and opinions they get on Facebook, Twitter, etc., represent a realistic take on controversial topics in sports, politics, culture, etc., when in reality the algorithms are designed to confirm our biases.
You must never watch ESPN or any other sports related broadcast then. Most think Cousins is an overpaid choke artist.
Quote:
Except that 90% of the media thinks Cousins is an overpaid mediocre QB, has been for years, and routinely mock the Vikings for continuing to pay him the big money that they have. You wouldn't see the media bat an eye if he were to be traded and the Vikings take a swing at a young QB
No, 90% of media does not think that. This is the problem with social media. So many believe that the news and opinions they get on Facebook, Twitter, etc., represent a realistic take on controversial topics in sports, politics, culture, etc., when in reality the algorithms are designed to confirm our biases.
You must never watch ESPN or any other sports related broadcast then. Most think Cousins is an overpaid choke artist.
Yes, I heard this dingbat too. It takes a special kind of stupid to watch the Giants playoff game and think Cousins is the reason we lost. No QB in all the playoff games last year played better than Cousins did in that game against the Giants. Not Mahomes, not Burrow, not Hurts. If our defense were simply middle tier, we win that game by two touchdowns.
But is it time to get a QB in the pipeline? Yes it is.
|
