Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ bigbone62 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ bigbone62 said:
@ comet52 said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Lol...he was such a waste of a roster spot. Maybe if they had tried putting a competent QB in that role we wouldn't be up shit crick right now.
I thought Rick was a good GM here, but one of my two biggest gripes with him was exactly that. We never adequately filled the backup QB position with talent. The one year we did with Keenum it came in extremely handy (as we know). I think a lot of it had to do with the guaranteed money we gave Cousins and the heat that came with that, and he never wanted a situation where the backup came in, played well, and it created a controversy in turn making him look bad. So instead, we got a lot of Sean Mannion types manning the backup positions.
Well if Slick Rick had initially signed Keenum for two years instead of one, Kirk might never have happened. Of course miserable Mike Zimmer would have tantrumed just as hard about it regardless.
After MN he signed a two year contract to start in Denver but per his history struggled as the main guy. Bounced from Denver after one year. No one else considered him starting material again. In 6 seasons since MN he has bounced around to 5 different teams. Guys never been on the same team more than 2 seasons in a row. Yep, if only they had re-signed him we would have been set.
I don't think he meant set with keenum, just not saddled with Cousins. They've done everything they could to not challenge kirks role, and he's been good, but why have they never really tried to improve the position?
This has been asked repeatedly and no one seems to be able to back this idea. Fans act like it's common occurrence for a team to challenge their starting QB who is consistently putting up top the numbers KC does.
I'm interested to see this extensive list of teams that do so. Looking through the depth charts isn't exactly a who's who of talented QBs pushing starters. How about all those current examples of said backup actually taking the job?
This line that KC is afraid of his backups gets regurgitated ad nauseum by a vocal minority but when you ask for evidence beyond conspiracy theories it's crickets.
Prior to the achilles Cousins had missed one game due to injury in the prior FOURTEEN YEARS. That coupled with his production is why teams wouldn't waste money on a backup.
Rogers was brought in when Favre was still rolling, Love was brought in when Rogers was still putting up HOF and MVP numbers, Steve Young was brought to San Fran when Montana was the man, Mahomes was brought to KC when Alex Smith had just had his 2nd pro bowl year, I am sure there are more, but I am equally as sure that you will come up with some reason to discount anything I provide that proves that it is done and it was a mistake not to challenge Cousins and his 1 career playoff win. It just makes good business sense to have been trying to find a quality replacement for the most important ( and highest paid) position on the team.
With the exception of Young, who was deemed a bust by the Buccaneers, and who the 49ers traded for specifically to be Montana's backup, every one of those QBs was drafted in the 1st round. In other words, they were drafted specifically to be the QBOTF and to replace an aging starter.
Should the Vikings have started their succession plan at QB earlier? Probably so. But that's a different conversation.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ bigbone62 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ bigbone62 said:
@ comet52 said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Lol...he was such a waste of a roster spot. Maybe if they had tried putting a competent QB in that role we wouldn't be up shit crick right now.
I thought Rick was a good GM here, but one of my two biggest gripes with him was exactly that. We never adequately filled the backup QB position with talent. The one year we did with Keenum it came in extremely handy (as we know). I think a lot of it had to do with the guaranteed money we gave Cousins and the heat that came with that, and he never wanted a situation where the backup came in, played well, and it created a controversy in turn making him look bad. So instead, we got a lot of Sean Mannion types manning the backup positions.
Well if Slick Rick had initially signed Keenum for two years instead of one, Kirk might never have happened. Of course miserable Mike Zimmer would have tantrumed just as hard about it regardless.
After MN he signed a two year contract to start in Denver but per his history struggled as the main guy. Bounced from Denver after one year. No one else considered him starting material again. In 6 seasons since MN he has bounced around to 5 different teams. Guys never been on the same team more than 2 seasons in a row. Yep, if only they had re-signed him we would have been set.
I don't think he meant set with keenum, just not saddled with Cousins. They've done everything they could to not challenge kirks role, and he's been good, but why have they never really tried to improve the position?
This has been asked repeatedly and no one seems to be able to back this idea. Fans act like it's common occurrence for a team to challenge their starting QB who is consistently putting up top the numbers KC does.
I'm interested to see this extensive list of teams that do so. Looking through the depth charts isn't exactly a who's who of talented QBs pushing starters. How about all those current examples of said backup actually taking the job?
This line that KC is afraid of his backups gets regurgitated ad nauseum by a vocal minority but when you ask for evidence beyond conspiracy theories it's crickets.
Prior to the achilles Cousins had missed one game due to injury in the prior FOURTEEN YEARS. That coupled with his production is why teams wouldn't waste money on a backup.
Rogers was brought in when Favre was still rolling, Love was brought in when Rogers was still putting up HOF and MVP numbers, Steve Young was brought to San Fran when Montana was the man, Mahomes was brought to KC when Alex Smith had just had his 2nd pro bowl year, I am sure there are more, but I am equally as sure that you will come up with some reason to discount anything I provide that proves that it is done and it was a mistake not to challenge Cousins and his 1 career playoff win. It just makes good business sense to have been trying to find a quality replacement for the most important ( and highest paid) position on the team.
With the exception of Young, who was deemed a bust by the Buccaneers, and who the 49ers traded for specifically to be Montana's backup, every one of those QBs was drafted in the 1st round. In other words, they were drafted specifically to be the QBOTF and to replace an aging starter.
Should the Vikings have started their succession plan at QB earlier? Probably so. But that's a different conversation.
No, that is exactly the conversation that was taking place.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ bigbone62 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ bigbone62 said:
@ comet52 said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Lol...he was such a waste of a roster spot. Maybe if they had tried putting a competent QB in that role we wouldn't be up shit crick right now.
I thought Rick was a good GM here, but one of my two biggest gripes with him was exactly that. We never adequately filled the backup QB position with talent. The one year we did with Keenum it came in extremely handy (as we know). I think a lot of it had to do with the guaranteed money we gave Cousins and the heat that came with that, and he never wanted a situation where the backup came in, played well, and it created a controversy in turn making him look bad. So instead, we got a lot of Sean Mannion types manning the backup positions.
Well if Slick Rick had initially signed Keenum for two years instead of one, Kirk might never have happened. Of course miserable Mike Zimmer would have tantrumed just as hard about it regardless.
After MN he signed a two year contract to start in Denver but per his history struggled as the main guy. Bounced from Denver after one year. No one else considered him starting material again. In 6 seasons since MN he has bounced around to 5 different teams. Guys never been on the same team more than 2 seasons in a row. Yep, if only they had re-signed him we would have been set.
I don't think he meant set with keenum, just not saddled with Cousins. They've done everything they could to not challenge kirks role, and he's been good, but why have they never really tried to improve the position?
This has been asked repeatedly and no one seems to be able to back this idea. Fans act like it's common occurrence for a team to challenge their starting QB who is consistently putting up top the numbers KC does.
I'm interested to see this extensive list of teams that do so. Looking through the depth charts isn't exactly a who's who of talented QBs pushing starters. How about all those current examples of said backup actually taking the job?
This line that KC is afraid of his backups gets regurgitated ad nauseum by a vocal minority but when you ask for evidence beyond conspiracy theories it's crickets.
Prior to the achilles Cousins had missed one game due to injury in the prior FOURTEEN YEARS. That coupled with his production is why teams wouldn't waste money on a backup.
Rogers was brought in when Favre was still rolling, Love was brought in when Rogers was still putting up HOF and MVP numbers, Steve Young was brought to San Fran when Montana was the man, Mahomes was brought to KC when Alex Smith had just had his 2nd pro bowl year, I am sure there are more, but I am equally as sure that you will come up with some reason to discount anything I provide that proves that it is done and it was a mistake not to challenge Cousins and his 1 career playoff win. It just makes good business sense to have been trying to find a quality replacement for the most important ( and highest paid) position on the team.
With the exception of Young, who was deemed a bust by the Buccaneers, and who the 49ers traded for specifically to be Montana's backup, every one of those QBs was drafted in the 1st round. In other words, they were drafted specifically to be the QBOTF and to replace an aging starter.
Should the Vikings have started their succession plan at QB earlier? Probably so. But that's a different conversation.
No, that is exactly the conversation that was taking place.
Fair enough. I didn't read it thoroughly. To me it seemed about backups like Keenum and Mannion.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ bigbone62 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ bigbone62 said:
@ comet52 said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Lol...he was such a waste of a roster spot. Maybe if they had tried putting a competent QB in that role we wouldn't be up shit crick right now.
I thought Rick was a good GM here, but one of my two biggest gripes with him was exactly that. We never adequately filled the backup QB position with talent. The one year we did with Keenum it came in extremely handy (as we know). I think a lot of it had to do with the guaranteed money we gave Cousins and the heat that came with that, and he never wanted a situation where the backup came in, played well, and it created a controversy in turn making him look bad. So instead, we got a lot of Sean Mannion types manning the backup positions.
Well if Slick Rick had initially signed Keenum for two years instead of one, Kirk might never have happened. Of course miserable Mike Zimmer would have tantrumed just as hard about it regardless.
After MN he signed a two year contract to start in Denver but per his history struggled as the main guy. Bounced from Denver after one year. No one else considered him starting material again. In 6 seasons since MN he has bounced around to 5 different teams. Guys never been on the same team more than 2 seasons in a row. Yep, if only they had re-signed him we would have been set.
I don't think he meant set with keenum, just not saddled with Cousins. They've done everything they could to not challenge kirks role, and he's been good, but why have they never really tried to improve the position?
This has been asked repeatedly and no one seems to be able to back this idea. Fans act like it's common occurrence for a team to challenge their starting QB who is consistently putting up top the numbers KC does.
I'm interested to see this extensive list of teams that do so. Looking through the depth charts isn't exactly a who's who of talented QBs pushing starters. How about all those current examples of said backup actually taking the job?
This line that KC is afraid of his backups gets regurgitated ad nauseum by a vocal minority but when you ask for evidence beyond conspiracy theories it's crickets.
Prior to the achilles Cousins had missed one game due to injury in the prior FOURTEEN YEARS. That coupled with his production is why teams wouldn't waste money on a backup.
Rogers was brought in when Favre was still rolling, Love was brought in when Rogers was still putting up HOF and MVP numbers, Steve Young was brought to San Fran when Montana was the man, Mahomes was brought to KC when Alex Smith had just had his 2nd pro bowl year, I am sure there are more, but I am equally as sure that you will come up with some reason to discount anything I provide that proves that it is done and it was a mistake not to challenge Cousins and his 1 career playoff win. It just makes good business sense to have been trying to find a quality replacement for the most important ( and highest paid) position on the team.
With the exception of Young, who was deemed a bust by the Buccaneers, and who the 49ers traded for specifically to be Montana's backup, every one of those QBs was drafted in the 1st round. In other words, they were drafted specifically to be the QBOTF and to replace an aging starter.
Should the Vikings have started their succession plan at QB earlier? Probably so. But that's a different conversation.
No, that is exactly the conversation that was taking place.
Fair enough. I didn't read it thoroughly. To me it seemed about backups like Keenum and Mannion.
No problem, sometimes these things get hard to follow.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ bigbone62 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ bigbone62 said:
@ comet52 said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Lol...he was such a waste of a roster spot. Maybe if they had tried putting a competent QB in that role we wouldn't be up shit crick right now.
I thought Rick was a good GM here, but one of my two biggest gripes with him was exactly that. We never adequately filled the backup QB position with talent. The one year we did with Keenum it came in extremely handy (as we know). I think a lot of it had to do with the guaranteed money we gave Cousins and the heat that came with that, and he never wanted a situation where the backup came in, played well, and it created a controversy in turn making him look bad. So instead, we got a lot of Sean Mannion types manning the backup positions.
Well if Slick Rick had initially signed Keenum for two years instead of one, Kirk might never have happened. Of course miserable Mike Zimmer would have tantrumed just as hard about it regardless.
After MN he signed a two year contract to start in Denver but per his history struggled as the main guy. Bounced from Denver after one year. No one else considered him starting material again. In 6 seasons since MN he has bounced around to 5 different teams. Guys never been on the same team more than 2 seasons in a row. Yep, if only they had re-signed him we would have been set.
I don't think he meant set with keenum, just not saddled with Cousins. They've done everything they could to not challenge kirks role, and he's been good, but why have they never really tried to improve the position?
This has been asked repeatedly and no one seems to be able to back this idea. Fans act like it's common occurrence for a team to challenge their starting QB who is consistently putting up top the numbers KC does.
I'm interested to see this extensive list of teams that do so. Looking through the depth charts isn't exactly a who's who of talented QBs pushing starters. How about all those current examples of said backup actually taking the job?
This line that KC is afraid of his backups gets regurgitated ad nauseum by a vocal minority but when you ask for evidence beyond conspiracy theories it's crickets.
Prior to the achilles Cousins had missed one game due to injury in the prior FOURTEEN YEARS. That coupled with his production is why teams wouldn't waste money on a backup.
Rogers was brought in when Favre was still rolling, Love was brought in when Rogers was still putting up HOF and MVP numbers, Steve Young was brought to San Fran when Montana was the man, Mahomes was brought to KC when Alex Smith had just had his 2nd pro bowl year, I am sure there are more, but I am equally as sure that you will come up with some reason to discount anything I provide that proves that it is done and it was a mistake not to challenge Cousins and his 1 career playoff win. It just makes good business sense to have been trying to find a quality replacement for the most important ( and highest paid) position on the team.
With the exception of Young, who was deemed a bust by the Buccaneers, and who the 49ers traded for specifically to be Montana's backup, every one of those QBs was drafted in the 1st round. In other words, they were drafted specifically to be the QBOTF and to replace an aging starter.
Should the Vikings have started their succession plan at QB earlier? Probably so. But that's a different conversation.
No, that is exactly the conversation that was taking place.
No thats not exactly the conversation taking place. How much more clear do I need to make this? There are people in this thread who think the reason Mannion was in MN was because KC was too afraid to have a back up who could "push him". What teams have brought in a QB as competition to "push" a starter who is very clearly your QB1? Rodgers was not brought in to "push" Favre, he was brought in because Favre continually jerked GB around with the "will he or wont he" come back non-sense. Love was brought in because Rodgers was 37 and a lose cannon, Love was very clearly a "QB of the future" selection. Not the same thing as bringing in competition to push your QB1.
The season prior to Young going to SF Montana suffered a severe back injury that required emergency surgery. He came back later that season but there was question if he could make it through a full season thereafter. Not sure that quantifies as a push the starter deal. The Pro Bowl year you speak of for Smith he put up a whopping 15 td to 8 ints and was a one of 3 alternates due to injury. Lol, Smith in both SF and KC was a lighting rod for game manager conversations and fans itching to dump him.
Quote: @bigbone62 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ bigbone62 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ bigbone62 said:
@ comet52 said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Lol...he was such a waste of a roster spot. Maybe if they had tried putting a competent QB in that role we wouldn't be up shit crick right now.
I thought Rick was a good GM here, but one of my two biggest gripes with him was exactly that. We never adequately filled the backup QB position with talent. The one year we did with Keenum it came in extremely handy (as we know). I think a lot of it had to do with the guaranteed money we gave Cousins and the heat that came with that, and he never wanted a situation where the backup came in, played well, and it created a controversy in turn making him look bad. So instead, we got a lot of Sean Mannion types manning the backup positions.
Well if Slick Rick had initially signed Keenum for two years instead of one, Kirk might never have happened. Of course miserable Mike Zimmer would have tantrumed just as hard about it regardless.
After MN he signed a two year contract to start in Denver but per his history struggled as the main guy. Bounced from Denver after one year. No one else considered him starting material again. In 6 seasons since MN he has bounced around to 5 different teams. Guys never been on the same team more than 2 seasons in a row. Yep, if only they had re-signed him we would have been set.
I don't think he meant set with keenum, just not saddled with Cousins. They've done everything they could to not challenge kirks role, and he's been good, but why have they never really tried to improve the position?
This has been asked repeatedly and no one seems to be able to back this idea. Fans act like it's common occurrence for a team to challenge their starting QB who is consistently putting up top the numbers KC does.
I'm interested to see this extensive list of teams that do so. Looking through the depth charts isn't exactly a who's who of talented QBs pushing starters. How about all those current examples of said backup actually taking the job?
This line that KC is afraid of his backups gets regurgitated ad nauseum by a vocal minority but when you ask for evidence beyond conspiracy theories it's crickets.
Prior to the achilles Cousins had missed one game due to injury in the prior FOURTEEN YEARS. That coupled with his production is why teams wouldn't waste money on a backup.
Rogers was brought in when Favre was still rolling, Love was brought in when Rogers was still putting up HOF and MVP numbers, Steve Young was brought to San Fran when Montana was the man, Mahomes was brought to KC when Alex Smith had just had his 2nd pro bowl year, I am sure there are more, but I am equally as sure that you will come up with some reason to discount anything I provide that proves that it is done and it was a mistake not to challenge Cousins and his 1 career playoff win. It just makes good business sense to have been trying to find a quality replacement for the most important ( and highest paid) position on the team.
With the exception of Young, who was deemed a bust by the Buccaneers, and who the 49ers traded for specifically to be Montana's backup, every one of those QBs was drafted in the 1st round. In other words, they were drafted specifically to be the QBOTF and to replace an aging starter.
Should the Vikings have started their succession plan at QB earlier? Probably so. But that's a different conversation.
No, that is exactly the conversation that was taking place.
No thats not exactly the conversation taking place. How much more clear do I need to make this? There are people in this thread who think the reason Mannion was in MN was because KC was too afraid to have a back up who could "push him". What teams have brought in a QB as competition to "push" a starter who is very clearly your QB1? Rodgers was not brought in to "push" Favre, he was brought in because Favre continually jerked GB around with the "will he or wont he" come back non-sense. Love was brought in because Rodgers was 37 and a lose cannon, Love was very clearly a "QB of the future" selection. Not the same thing as bringing in competition to push your QB1.
The season prior to Young going to SF Montana suffered a severe back injury that required emergency surgery. He came back later that season but there was question if he could make it through a full season thereafter. Not sure that quantifies as a push the starter deal. The Pro Bowl year you speak of for Smith he put up a whopping 15 td to 8 ints and was a one of 3 alternates due to injury. Lol, Smith in both SF and KC was a lighting rod for game manager conversations and fans itching to dump him.
You're right of course, but you'll die of hypertension before changing the minds of those who hold on to batshit crazy narratives.
Quote: @bigbone62 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ bigbone62 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ bigbone62 said:
@ comet52 said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Lol...he was such a waste of a roster spot. Maybe if they had tried putting a competent QB in that role we wouldn't be up shit crick right now.
I thought Rick was a good GM here, but one of my two biggest gripes with him was exactly that. We never adequately filled the backup QB position with talent. The one year we did with Keenum it came in extremely handy (as we know). I think a lot of it had to do with the guaranteed money we gave Cousins and the heat that came with that, and he never wanted a situation where the backup came in, played well, and it created a controversy in turn making him look bad. So instead, we got a lot of Sean Mannion types manning the backup positions.
Well if Slick Rick had initially signed Keenum for two years instead of one, Kirk might never have happened. Of course miserable Mike Zimmer would have tantrumed just as hard about it regardless.
After MN he signed a two year contract to start in Denver but per his history struggled as the main guy. Bounced from Denver after one year. No one else considered him starting material again. In 6 seasons since MN he has bounced around to 5 different teams. Guys never been on the same team more than 2 seasons in a row. Yep, if only they had re-signed him we would have been set.
I don't think he meant set with keenum, just not saddled with Cousins. They've done everything they could to not challenge kirks role, and he's been good, but why have they never really tried to improve the position?
This has been asked repeatedly and no one seems to be able to back this idea. Fans act like it's common occurrence for a team to challenge their starting QB who is consistently putting up top the numbers KC does.
I'm interested to see this extensive list of teams that do so. Looking through the depth charts isn't exactly a who's who of talented QBs pushing starters. How about all those current examples of said backup actually taking the job?
This line that KC is afraid of his backups gets regurgitated ad nauseum by a vocal minority but when you ask for evidence beyond conspiracy theories it's crickets.
Prior to the achilles Cousins had missed one game due to injury in the prior FOURTEEN YEARS. That coupled with his production is why teams wouldn't waste money on a backup.
Rogers was brought in when Favre was still rolling, Love was brought in when Rogers was still putting up HOF and MVP numbers, Steve Young was brought to San Fran when Montana was the man, Mahomes was brought to KC when Alex Smith had just had his 2nd pro bowl year, I am sure there are more, but I am equally as sure that you will come up with some reason to discount anything I provide that proves that it is done and it was a mistake not to challenge Cousins and his 1 career playoff win. It just makes good business sense to have been trying to find a quality replacement for the most important ( and highest paid) position on the team.
With the exception of Young, who was deemed a bust by the Buccaneers, and who the 49ers traded for specifically to be Montana's backup, every one of those QBs was drafted in the 1st round. In other words, they were drafted specifically to be the QBOTF and to replace an aging starter.
Should the Vikings have started their succession plan at QB earlier? Probably so. But that's a different conversation.
No, that is exactly the conversation that was taking place.
No thats not exactly the conversation taking place. How much more clear do I need to make this? There are people in this thread who think the reason Mannion was in MN was because KC was too afraid to have a back up who could "push him". What teams have brought in a QB as competition to "push" a starter who is very clearly your QB1? Rodgers was not brought in to "push" Favre, he was brought in because Favre continually jerked GB around with the "will he or wont he" come back non-sense. Love was brought in because Rodgers was 37 and a lose cannon, Love was very clearly a "QB of the future" selection. Not the same thing as bringing in competition to push your QB1.
The season prior to Young going to SF Montana suffered a severe back injury that required emergency surgery. He came back later that season but there was question if he could make it through a full season thereafter. Not sure that quantifies as a push the starter deal. The Pro Bowl year you speak of for Smith he put up a whopping 15 td to 8 ints and was a one of 3 alternates due to injury. Lol, Smith in both SF and KC was a lighting rod for game manager conversations and fans itching to dump him.
Well my contention was it was Spielman, not Kirk, who wanted to avoid any type of QB controversy after taking a lot of heat for giving Cousins that big, guaranteed contract. He was going to die on the hill with Kirk, and because of that would always do the bare minimum at backup and never even took a swing at QB until taking a flyer on Mond.
And it was never about signing a backup who would push Kirk to start, it was more about finding a backup with some talent who could step in and win you a few games if needed. Instead we got a whole lot of Sean Mannion and some undrafted scrub filling the backup roles.
I can see Spielman wanting to avoid controversy. The big guarantee may have been reinforced previous efforts to secure a qb
|
