Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Knucklehead said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
It was obvious they weren't going to move into the top 10 with their lack of draft capital, so the possibility of landing one of the top 3 QBs was next to zero. Delaying the extension until after the draft looks like they just handed Kirk all of the leverage again. How does this make any sense?
How much leverage does Kirko have? After this season he'll be a 36 year old QB w/ only one playoff win assuming no playoff wins this season. I don't forsee a lot of teams signing up for that.
common sense would agree with you, but look at this board, I would bet that over 2/3 of the board is OK with extending Kirk even though we all know that means more of the same mercenary contract tactics that we have seen for the last 5 years. I am sure that they are likely aligned with many front offices in the league whose jobs are based on positive results and measured in the now, not the future. If I was a GM and landed a highly athletic but raw QB next spring, or even this year ( COLTS ) and wanted a bridge for the next 2 years while we aaron rogers his ass ( a smart approach IMO ) then why not ante up for a quality veteran to mentor his replacement as long as everything else is mostly in place for a run once you hand the reigns to the kid in a couple years? keeps the fan base engaged and excitement up.
however if you dont feel that you are that close, then whats the point? take the ass kicking that a couple off years brings to a franchise, but use your quality veterans to bring in draft capital, use their cap savings to extend your own young studs on front loaded deals, and they added draft picks as well as draft positions from down years to rebuild not only your QB room, but other areas of need at key positions.
I start looking at the playoffs in August or sooner, if I dont see a team that is heading for glory that year, then I want to see a team that is building for something. I want to see a path to the future. ( which I see neither with our teams from last year or so far this year) I find it much less frustrating as a fan to know that we are putting out a potential future generation of Vikings, that comes up short, than to know that we are doing everything we can possibly do to compete and still are one and done in the playoffs or worse. winning divisional banners means nothing to me anymore, maybe it would if I was a lions or bears fan, ( or 30 years younger) but at this point in my fandom, its SB or bust baby.
I have no idea what this even means.
im not sure how to explain it much easier. when you decide to rebuild the roster, then do it all in, admit you are likely not going to be competitive for a couple years, identify who on your roster will be past their prime and not worth paying high dollar contracts to for the next couple years while you rebuild, and trade them for either draft picks or younger players that will help your roster once you have finished your rebuild. take the cap savings from those veterans that you traded for picks or younger players and use that to lock up the young studs you have and want to retain. you will be picking lower in the draft so you have more options and value and should be able to help you get the players you want as opposed to picking 23, really wanting a QB, but knowing you dont have near the draft capital necessary to move into the top 3 to get your man.
And the most likely outcome of a rebuild? Another one.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Knucklehead said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
It was obvious they weren't going to move into the top 10 with their lack of draft capital, so the possibility of landing one of the top 3 QBs was next to zero. Delaying the extension until after the draft looks like they just handed Kirk all of the leverage again. How does this make any sense?
How much leverage does Kirko have? After this season he'll be a 36 year old QB w/ only one playoff win assuming no playoff wins this season. I don't forsee a lot of teams signing up for that.
common sense would agree with you, but look at this board, I would bet that over 2/3 of the board is OK with extending Kirk even though we all know that means more of the same mercenary contract tactics that we have seen for the last 5 years. I am sure that they are likely aligned with many front offices in the league whose jobs are based on positive results and measured in the now, not the future. If I was a GM and landed a highly athletic but raw QB next spring, or even this year ( COLTS ) and wanted a bridge for the next 2 years while we aaron rogers his ass ( a smart approach IMO ) then why not ante up for a quality veteran to mentor his replacement as long as everything else is mostly in place for a run once you hand the reigns to the kid in a couple years? keeps the fan base engaged and excitement up.
however if you dont feel that you are that close, then whats the point? take the ass kicking that a couple off years brings to a franchise, but use your quality veterans to bring in draft capital, use their cap savings to extend your own young studs on front loaded deals, and they added draft picks as well as draft positions from down years to rebuild not only your QB room, but other areas of need at key positions.
I start looking at the playoffs in August or sooner, if I dont see a team that is heading for glory that year, then I want to see a team that is building for something. I want to see a path to the future. ( which I see neither with our teams from last year or so far this year) I find it much less frustrating as a fan to know that we are putting out a potential future generation of Vikings, that comes up short, than to know that we are doing everything we can possibly do to compete and still are one and done in the playoffs or worse. winning divisional banners means nothing to me anymore, maybe it would if I was a lions or bears fan, ( or 30 years younger) but at this point in my fandom, its SB or bust baby.
I have no idea what this even means.
im not sure how to explain it much easier. when you decide to rebuild the roster, then do it all in, admit you are likely not going to be competitive for a couple years, identify who on your roster will be past their prime and not worth paying high dollar contracts to for the next couple years while you rebuild, and trade them for either draft picks or younger players that will help your roster once you have finished your rebuild. take the cap savings from those veterans that you traded for picks or younger players and use that to lock up the young studs you have and want to retain. you will be picking lower in the draft so you have more options and value and should be able to help you get the players you want as opposed to picking 23, really wanting a QB, but knowing you dont have near the draft capital necessary to move into the top 3 to get your man.
And the most likely outcome of a rebuild? Another one.
And the most likely outcome of staying status quo? Going nowhere
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Knucklehead said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
It was obvious they weren't going to move into the top 10 with their lack of draft capital, so the possibility of landing one of the top 3 QBs was next to zero. Delaying the extension until after the draft looks like they just handed Kirk all of the leverage again. How does this make any sense?
How much leverage does Kirko have? After this season he'll be a 36 year old QB w/ only one playoff win assuming no playoff wins this season. I don't forsee a lot of teams signing up for that.
common sense would agree with you, but look at this board, I would bet that over 2/3 of the board is OK with extending Kirk even though we all know that means more of the same mercenary contract tactics that we have seen for the last 5 years. I am sure that they are likely aligned with many front offices in the league whose jobs are based on positive results and measured in the now, not the future. If I was a GM and landed a highly athletic but raw QB next spring, or even this year ( COLTS ) and wanted a bridge for the next 2 years while we aaron rogers his ass ( a smart approach IMO ) then why not ante up for a quality veteran to mentor his replacement as long as everything else is mostly in place for a run once you hand the reigns to the kid in a couple years? keeps the fan base engaged and excitement up.
however if you dont feel that you are that close, then whats the point? take the ass kicking that a couple off years brings to a franchise, but use your quality veterans to bring in draft capital, use their cap savings to extend your own young studs on front loaded deals, and they added draft picks as well as draft positions from down years to rebuild not only your QB room, but other areas of need at key positions.
I start looking at the playoffs in August or sooner, if I dont see a team that is heading for glory that year, then I want to see a team that is building for something. I want to see a path to the future. ( which I see neither with our teams from last year or so far this year) I find it much less frustrating as a fan to know that we are putting out a potential future generation of Vikings, that comes up short, than to know that we are doing everything we can possibly do to compete and still are one and done in the playoffs or worse. winning divisional banners means nothing to me anymore, maybe it would if I was a lions or bears fan, ( or 30 years younger) but at this point in my fandom, its SB or bust baby.
I have no idea what this even means.
im not sure how to explain it much easier. when you decide to rebuild the roster, then do it all in, admit you are likely not going to be competitive for a couple years, identify who on your roster will be past their prime and not worth paying high dollar contracts to for the next couple years while you rebuild, and trade them for either draft picks or younger players that will help your roster once you have finished your rebuild. take the cap savings from those veterans that you traded for picks or younger players and use that to lock up the young studs you have and want to retain. you will be picking lower in the draft so you have more options and value and should be able to help you get the players you want as opposed to picking 23, really wanting a QB, but knowing you dont have near the draft capital necessary to move into the top 3 to get your man.
And the most likely outcome of a rebuild? Another one.
As opposed to what we've been doing drafting between 10 and 25 for the better part of 50 years....some times a couple spots better, sometimes worse. This half way in half way out rebuild on the run hasn't worked yet either.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Knucklehead said:
@ mgobluevikes said:
It was obvious they weren't going to move into the top 10 with their lack of draft capital, so the possibility of landing one of the top 3 QBs was next to zero. Delaying the extension until after the draft looks like they just handed Kirk all of the leverage again. How does this make any sense?
How much leverage does Kirko have? After this season he'll be a 36 year old QB w/ only one playoff win assuming no playoff wins this season. I don't forsee a lot of teams signing up for that.
common sense would agree with you, but look at this board, I would bet that over 2/3 of the board is OK with extending Kirk even though we all know that means more of the same mercenary contract tactics that we have seen for the last 5 years. I am sure that they are likely aligned with many front offices in the league whose jobs are based on positive results and measured in the now, not the future. If I was a GM and landed a highly athletic but raw QB next spring, or even this year ( COLTS ) and wanted a bridge for the next 2 years while we aaron rogers his ass ( a smart approach IMO ) then why not ante up for a quality veteran to mentor his replacement as long as everything else is mostly in place for a run once you hand the reigns to the kid in a couple years? keeps the fan base engaged and excitement up.
however if you dont feel that you are that close, then whats the point? take the ass kicking that a couple off years brings to a franchise, but use your quality veterans to bring in draft capital, use their cap savings to extend your own young studs on front loaded deals, and they added draft picks as well as draft positions from down years to rebuild not only your QB room, but other areas of need at key positions.
I start looking at the playoffs in August or sooner, if I dont see a team that is heading for glory that year, then I want to see a team that is building for something. I want to see a path to the future. ( which I see neither with our teams from last year or so far this year) I find it much less frustrating as a fan to know that we are putting out a potential future generation of Vikings, that comes up short, than to know that we are doing everything we can possibly do to compete and still are one and done in the playoffs or worse. winning divisional banners means nothing to me anymore, maybe it would if I was a lions or bears fan, ( or 30 years younger) but at this point in my fandom, its SB or bust baby.
I have no idea what this even means.
im not sure how to explain it much easier. when you decide to rebuild the roster, then do it all in, admit you are likely not going to be competitive for a couple years, identify who on your roster will be past their prime and not worth paying high dollar contracts to for the next couple years while you rebuild, and trade them for either draft picks or younger players that will help your roster once you have finished your rebuild. take the cap savings from those veterans that you traded for picks or younger players and use that to lock up the young studs you have and want to retain. you will be picking lower in the draft so you have more options and value and should be able to help you get the players you want as opposed to picking 23, really wanting a QB, but knowing you dont have near the draft capital necessary to move into the top 3 to get your man.
And the most likely outcome of a rebuild? Another one.
As opposed to what we've been doing drafting between 10 and 25 for the better part of 50 years....some times a couple spots better, sometimes worse. This half way in half way out rebuild on the run hasn't worked yet either.
that's the curse of having NON QB generational talents in your franchise. Carter, McDaniel, Randle, Moss, Peterson, now Jefferson
With those types of talents you are going to be good but rarely drafting in the top 5 for a full rebuild, so we try to piece it together with for hire QBs (McMahon, Moon, Cunningham, George, Favre, Bradford, Cousins).
Hence we have the best franchise winning percentage in all of sports WITHOUT a championship
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I have no idea what this even means.
im not sure how to explain it much easier. when you decide to rebuild the roster, then do it all in, admit you are likely not going to be competitive for a couple years, identify who on your roster will be past their prime and not worth paying high dollar contracts to for the next couple years while you rebuild, and trade them for either draft picks or younger players that will help your roster once you have finished your rebuild. take the cap savings from those veterans that you traded for picks or younger players and use that to lock up the young studs you have and want to retain. you will be picking lower in the draft so you have more options and value and should be able to help you get the players you want as opposed to picking 23, really wanting a QB, but knowing you dont have near the draft capital necessary to move into the top 3 to get your man.
And the most likely outcome of a rebuild? Another one.
As opposed to what we've been doing drafting between 10 and 25 for the better part of 50 years....some times a couple spots better, sometimes worse. This half way in half way out rebuild on the run hasn't worked yet either.
Because it worked so well when the Browns and the Bears and the Jets and the Commies and the Texans and the Lions rebuilt with all their top 10 picks?
Just since 2000, the Browns have had 12 picks in the top 10. The Bears have had 8. The Jets 12. The Commies 8. The Texans 9. The Lions 14. That’s 73 top 10 picks. None of those 73 picks got any of those teams even close to a Lombardi.
These teams have been “rebuilding” for decades. The problem? The QB. It’s always about the QB. Oh but unlike those teams the Vikings are going to blow it all up and instead drafting Wilson or Lance or Baker or Trubisky or Wentz or Winston or Mariota or Bortles or RGIII or Locker or Gabbert or Bradford or Sanchez or Jamarcus or Young or Leinart or Carr or Harrington, we’re going to hit on our first try.
LOVE the optimism, but the Vikings are far more likely to win a Super Bowl in the next few years with their veteran QB than by jumping into a never-ending series of rebuilds with the aforementioned results.
What’s more, look at who’s winning Super Bowls. KC didn’t rebuild. They were a playoff team with the 27th pick in the draft when they traded up for Mahomes. Rams didn’t. They brought in a vet. Bucs didn’t. They brought in a vet. New England, Denver…all of these teams won with older, veteran QBs. The Eagles are getting close. But they didn't tank and rebuild either. Hurts was a 2nd round pick by a team coming off two straight 9-7 seasons when they drafted him. Half way in half way out.
So who are all these teams tanking, rebuilding and winning Super Bowls?
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I have no idea what this even means.
im not sure how to explain it much easier. when you decide to rebuild the roster, then do it all in, admit you are likely not going to be competitive for a couple years, identify who on your roster will be past their prime and not worth paying high dollar contracts to for the next couple years while you rebuild, and trade them for either draft picks or younger players that will help your roster once you have finished your rebuild. take the cap savings from those veterans that you traded for picks or younger players and use that to lock up the young studs you have and want to retain. you will be picking lower in the draft so you have more options and value and should be able to help you get the players you want as opposed to picking 23, really wanting a QB, but knowing you dont have near the draft capital necessary to move into the top 3 to get your man.
And the most likely outcome of a rebuild? Another one.
As opposed to what we've been doing drafting between 10 and 25 for the better part of 50 years....some times a couple spots better, sometimes worse. This half way in half way out rebuild on the run hasn't worked yet either.
Because it worked so well when the Browns and the Bears and the Jets and the Commies and the Texans and the Lions rebuilt with all their top 10 picks?
Just since 2000, the Browns have had 12 picks in the top 10. The Bears have had 8. The Jets 12. The Commies 8. The Texans 9. The Lions 14. That’s 73 top 10 picks. None of those 73 picks got any of those teams even close to a Lombardi.
These teams have been “rebuilding” for decades. The problem? The QB. It’s always about the QB. Oh but unlike those teams the Vikings are going to blow it all up and instead drafting Wilson or Lance or Baker or Trubisky or Wentz or Winston or Mariota or Bortles or RGIII or Locker or Gabbert or Bradford or Sanchez or Jamarcus or Young or Leinart or Carr or Harrington, we’re going to hit on our first try.
LOVE the optimism, but the Vikings are far more likely to win a Super Bowl in the next few years with their veteran QB than by jumping into a never-ending series of rebuilds with the aforementioned results.
What’s more, look at who’s winning Super Bowls. KC didn’t rebuild. They were a playoff team with the 27th pick in the draft when they traded up for Mahomes. Rams didn’t. They brought in a vet. Bucs didn’t. They brought in a vet. New England, Denver…all of these teams won with older, veteran QBs. The Eagles are getting close. But they didn't tank and rebuild either. Hurts was a 2nd round pick by a team coming off two straight 9-7 seasons when they drafted him. Half way in half way out.
So who are all these teams tanking, rebuilding and winning Super Bowls?
Thats just it...If you go back and look at all the SB winners in the modern era, you'd have to go back to at least 2007 to find a team that truly sucked and then went on to win a SB. That was the Colts over Bears
I'd rather not suck and be savvy about finding that QBOTF ala Mahomes, Allen, Hurts....
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I have no idea what this even means.
im not sure how to explain it much easier. when you decide to rebuild the roster, then do it all in, admit you are likely not going to be competitive for a couple years, identify who on your roster will be past their prime and not worth paying high dollar contracts to for the next couple years while you rebuild, and trade them for either draft picks or younger players that will help your roster once you have finished your rebuild. take the cap savings from those veterans that you traded for picks or younger players and use that to lock up the young studs you have and want to retain. you will be picking lower in the draft so you have more options and value and should be able to help you get the players you want as opposed to picking 23, really wanting a QB, but knowing you dont have near the draft capital necessary to move into the top 3 to get your man.
And the most likely outcome of a rebuild? Another one.
As opposed to what we've been doing drafting between 10 and 25 for the better part of 50 years....some times a couple spots better, sometimes worse. This half way in half way out rebuild on the run hasn't worked yet either.
Because it worked so well when the Browns and the Bears and the Jets and the Commies and the Texans and the Lions rebuilt with all their top 10 picks?
Just since 2000, the Browns have had 12 picks in the top 10. The Bears have had 8. The Jets 12. The Commies 8. The Texans 9. The Lions 14. That’s 73 top 10 picks. None of those 73 picks got any of those teams even close to a Lombardi.
These teams have been “rebuilding” for decades. The problem? The QB. It’s always about the QB. Oh but unlike those teams the Vikings are going to blow it all up and instead drafting Wilson or Lance or Baker or Trubisky or Wentz or Winston or Mariota or Bortles or RGIII or Locker or Gabbert or Bradford or Sanchez or Jamarcus or Young or Leinart or Carr or Harrington, we’re going to hit on our first try.
LOVE the optimism, but the Vikings are far more likely to win a Super Bowl in the next few years with their veteran QB than by jumping into a never-ending series of rebuilds with the aforementioned results.
What’s more, look at who’s winning Super Bowls. KC didn’t rebuild. They were a playoff team with the 27th pick in the draft when they traded up for Mahomes. Rams didn’t. They brought in a vet. Bucs didn’t. They brought in a vet. New England, Denver…all of these teams won with older, veteran QBs. The Eagles are getting close. But they didn't tank and rebuild either. Hurts was a 2nd round pick by a team coming off two straight 9-7 seasons when they drafted him. Half way in half way out.
So who are all these teams tanking, rebuilding and winning Super Bowls?
Thats just it...If you go back and look at all the SB winners in the modern era, you'd have to go back to at least 2007 to find a team that truly sucked and then went on to win a SB. That was the Colts over Bears
I'm not sure that works either. The Colts were 10-6, 12-4, 12-4, and 14-2 in the years leading up to their Super Bowl season.
But sure, the Colts were bad when they drafted Manning in 1998. So there ya go. 25 years ago a team sucked, got a top pick, hit on the QB they took, and when he was a 10-year vet, they won a Super Bowl with him.
I’m a firm believer that it’s more important to have a good
organization and coaching staff than it is to have good draft picks to get good
players. I think every once in a while
you can get a great player that just dominates regardless of who the coaches
are, but the NFL is a team game, and a coaching staff that can get the most out
of as many of the players as possible (and especially a coaching staff that can
get the most out of QBs) is probably going to have the most long term success,
especially once they find their QB. I doubt
the Jaguars would be in 5 straight championship games if they drafted Mahomes. I don’t think the plight of shitty teams is
one that we have to share.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I have no idea what this even means.
im not sure how to explain it much easier. when you decide to rebuild the roster, then do it all in, admit you are likely not going to be competitive for a couple years, identify who on your roster will be past their prime and not worth paying high dollar contracts to for the next couple years while you rebuild, and trade them for either draft picks or younger players that will help your roster once you have finished your rebuild. take the cap savings from those veterans that you traded for picks or younger players and use that to lock up the young studs you have and want to retain. you will be picking lower in the draft so you have more options and value and should be able to help you get the players you want as opposed to picking 23, really wanting a QB, but knowing you dont have near the draft capital necessary to move into the top 3 to get your man.
And the most likely outcome of a rebuild? Another one.
As opposed to what we've been doing drafting between 10 and 25 for the better part of 50 years....some times a couple spots better, sometimes worse. This half way in half way out rebuild on the run hasn't worked yet either.
Because it worked so well when the Browns and the Bears and the Jets and the Commies and the Texans and the Lions rebuilt with all their top 10 picks?
Just since 2000, the Browns have had 12 picks in the top 10. The Bears have had 8. The Jets 12. The Commies 8. The Texans 9. The Lions 14. That’s 73 top 10 picks. None of those 73 picks got any of those teams even close to a Lombardi.
These teams have been “rebuilding” for decades. The problem? The QB. It’s always about the QB. Oh but unlike those teams the Vikings are going to blow it all up and instead drafting Wilson or Lance or Baker or Trubisky or Wentz or Winston or Mariota or Bortles or RGIII or Locker or Gabbert or Bradford or Sanchez or Jamarcus or Young or Leinart or Carr or Harrington, we’re going to hit on our first try.
LOVE the optimism, but the Vikings are far more likely to win a Super Bowl in the next few years with their veteran QB than by jumping into a never-ending series of rebuilds with the aforementioned results.
What’s more, look at who’s winning Super Bowls. KC didn’t rebuild. They were a playoff team with the 27th pick in the draft when they traded up for Mahomes. Rams didn’t. They brought in a vet. Bucs didn’t. They brought in a vet. New England, Denver…all of these teams won with older, veteran QBs. The Eagles are getting close. But they didn't tank and rebuild either. Hurts was a 2nd round pick by a team coming off two straight 9-7 seasons when they drafted him. Half way in half way out.
So who are all these teams tanking, rebuilding and winning Super Bowls?
Those teams made the decision that they stood a better chance of winning a SB by replacing their existing QB. I hope that the Vikes do win a SB w/ Kirko, but after 5 years w/ only a single playoff win to show for it, the record shows that it's time for a change.
Quote: @Knucklehead said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I have no idea what this even means.
im not sure how to explain it much easier. when you decide to rebuild the roster, then do it all in, admit you are likely not going to be competitive for a couple years, identify who on your roster will be past their prime and not worth paying high dollar contracts to for the next couple years while you rebuild, and trade them for either draft picks or younger players that will help your roster once you have finished your rebuild. take the cap savings from those veterans that you traded for picks or younger players and use that to lock up the young studs you have and want to retain. you will be picking lower in the draft so you have more options and value and should be able to help you get the players you want as opposed to picking 23, really wanting a QB, but knowing you dont have near the draft capital necessary to move into the top 3 to get your man.
And the most likely outcome of a rebuild? Another one.
As opposed to what we've been doing drafting between 10 and 25 for the better part of 50 years....some times a couple spots better, sometimes worse. This half way in half way out rebuild on the run hasn't worked yet either.
Because it worked so well when the Browns and the Bears and the Jets and the Commies and the Texans and the Lions rebuilt with all their top 10 picks?
Just since 2000, the Browns have had 12 picks in the top 10. The Bears have had 8. The Jets 12. The Commies 8. The Texans 9. The Lions 14. That’s 73 top 10 picks. None of those 73 picks got any of those teams even close to a Lombardi.
These teams have been “rebuilding” for decades. The problem? The QB. It’s always about the QB. Oh but unlike those teams the Vikings are going to blow it all up and instead drafting Wilson or Lance or Baker or Trubisky or Wentz or Winston or Mariota or Bortles or RGIII or Locker or Gabbert or Bradford or Sanchez or Jamarcus or Young or Leinart or Carr or Harrington, we’re going to hit on our first try.
LOVE the optimism, but the Vikings are far more likely to win a Super Bowl in the next few years with their veteran QB than by jumping into a never-ending series of rebuilds with the aforementioned results.
What’s more, look at who’s winning Super Bowls. KC didn’t rebuild. They were a playoff team with the 27th pick in the draft when they traded up for Mahomes. Rams didn’t. They brought in a vet. Bucs didn’t. They brought in a vet. New England, Denver…all of these teams won with older, veteran QBs. The Eagles are getting close. But they didn't tank and rebuild either. Hurts was a 2nd round pick by a team coming off two straight 9-7 seasons when they drafted him. Half way in half way out.
So who are all these teams tanking, rebuilding and winning Super Bowls?
Those teams made the decision that they stood a better chance of winning a SB by replacing their existing QB. I hope that the Vikes do win a SB w/ Kirko, but after 5 years w/ only a single playoff win to show for it, the record shows that it's time for a change.
And every single one of them were proven wrong. And more than a couple times. What's more, none of them had a QB nearly as good as Cousins when they did it.
|
