NFL insider drops bombshell report on Vikings’ Kirk Cousins
The Minnesota Vikings have a few major questions to answer this offseason when it comes to their roster. Several hard decisions are going to have to be made as they will decide whether to continue down the path of retooling and becoming a younger roster or run it back with veterans and make another go of it.
The biggest decision that will be made will come at quarterback. Kirk Cousins was playing at a high level this season before he suffered a season-ending Achilles injury in Week 8 against the Green Bay Packers.
He was leading the league with 291.4 yards per game when he went down, throwing 18 touchdowns and only five interceptions. Cousins was completing 69.5 percent of his passes as he was doing everything he could to help keep the team afloat after a rough start.
It would certainly be a risk moving on from Cousins, but the Vikings would be able to upgrade other parts of their roster by not re-signing him. However, finding a quarterback capable of producing at the level that Cousins has would be tough.
Certainly, no one is envious of the Vikings’ front office having to make such a tough decision. NFL analyst Peter King also revealed something that makes this an even tougher negotiation for the team, as Cousins isn’t going to give any sort of discount, whether it is the length of the contract or how much money he signs for.
“There’s two great quarterback mysteries in this offseason in the NFL,” NBC Sports’ Peter King said on “The Cook & Joe Show” on January 23. “One is Kirk Cousins. Because he will not go back to Minnesota on a one-year contract."
“A lot of people are going to say, ‘Wow, he’s going to be 36 next year, coming off a torn Achilles. Do we want to commit to him for two years,’” King said. “I would if I were a team. But we’re also talking two years, $90 million, which is excessive. But it’s also the market. So I’m not saying it’s a bad deal or a bad idea.”
There likely isn’t a team in the NFL that has as much information and knowledge about the rehab Cousins has been doing on his Achilles. That should give the Vikings a leg up when it comes to retaining him, should they want to, as they will know how things have gone every step of the way.
Committing long-ish term to a quarterback who is going to be 36 coming off a devastating injury is a hard sell. But, that could be the least costly route for the Vikings to take. Moving up in the draft would cost a fortune and the options are limited when it comes to established, veteran quarterbacks in free agency.
https://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/nfl_insider_drops_bombshell_report_on_vikings_kirk_cousins/s1_17150_39861792
@"kmillard" said:@"StickyBun" said:@"CFIAvike" said:@"kmillard" said:@"JimmyinSD" said:@"CFIAvike" said:@"JimmyinSD" said:@"CFIAvike" said:@"FLVike" said:Moving up in the draft would cost a fortune? Really?The Lions moved up 20 spots for two pancakes and a waffle. We should be able to move up 6 spots for just two pancakes.If the Vikings let Kirk walk, moving up WILL cost a fortune because every GM in front of them in the draft will know the Vikings have a proverbial loaded shotgun to their head to get a QB.Good fucking luck selling ANYONE on the idea of watching “Gardner Minshew” for two years while we wait to see if one of the “Christian Ponders” we reach for at #11 or draft in the second round pans out.
At least I’ll get to happily point out what an absolutely moronic plan it was if this ends up being the option they take. I was right when i said we’d be lucky to win 8 games once Kirk went down (and was ripped during Dobbs-mania) and I’m just as right about this.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again:
if Kirk walks, its either Maye, Williams, Daniels or the nuclear option
So you are going on record as saying that any QB other than the 3 you listed will be busts?And way to stick you neck out on the over under, the teams star receiver was out, the starting QB goes down for the year, our IOL was shit as well as our running game. The D wasn't doing much and the team had started the year 1-4, so they had proven they knew how to lose.
I'm not going on record saying that every QB I didn't list will bust, what I'm saying is it will take 2-3 years of development to figure out whether they are busts or not. The only QBs I listed are the ones that can/will start from day 1. Meaning if you don't extend Cousins or go for one of the top 3 QBs, you might as well blow everything up because we'll be on the never-ending merry-go-round of shitty QBs for who knows how long.And to your second point....I was absolutely KILLED on this board for suggesting that Dobbs wasn't great right away and 8 wins was a likely probability. I WAS wrong though...we only got 7 wins.
Just because you need 2 or 3 years to evaluate a QB doesn't preclude you from continuing to try and improve the position. This dumb ass notion that you can only draft a new QB once the previous has failed is stupid as shit, and any GM that follows that mentality should be unemployed.And you said Ponder as in a bust, not about taking years to evaluate. If you don't see it by the end of year one if you arent sold, back to the well. Just be up front about it and that way nobody freaks out. Don't oversell any pick and there won't be problems.
When did Kirk become this great QB all of a sudden? I must have missed that. 1 playoff win in 6 years. Time to get off the merry go round. If they sign him it will be for three years guaranteed.
So by your metric, the Vikings....in the HISTORY of the franchise....have never had a great QB because NONE have delivered us a championship. But yeah, we're just gonna pick one up in this draft no problem
Yep....AND get rid of one of the best QBs in Viking's history. Because, you know, its 'time to get off the merry go round'.
Yeah the winning has become monotonous in the wilf era. Hopefully they sign Cousins for 5 years so you can watch some good October football.
Nice deflection, but since when did the QB suddenly block, tackle, catch, run, coach, or make personnel decisions while managing the cap. What's monotonous is making the argument that we've only been a cheap, mobile QB away from a championship the last 5 years.
@"pattersaur" said:I have my thoughts on what they should/shouldn't do just like everyone else. I've shared them many times before.But what's genuinely frustrating is this idea that, "we have to keep Kirk because we have no one else!". Okay, but the reason we have no one else is because we keep keeping Kirk! It's become a chicken/egg thing every offseason for practically as long as I can remember at this point.
Whatever happens with Kirk-- 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, 0 years-- for the love of God can a GM put in a succession plan so that we aren't in this same exhausting position yet again next offseason? Please.
No one, that I've seen, advocating for bringing Kirk back is saying that we shouldn't start a succession plan. Realistically we shouldn't have waited this long, but here we are. I feel like all anyone is saying is why not Kirk while we kick the tires on a new one
Love the people reacting with vitriol to this story as though it's a quote from KC. Or even "an inside" source telling this guy KC said this. But it's not, it's simply one talking heads opinion.
@"bigbone62" said: Love the people reacting with vitriol to this story as though it's a quote from KC. Or even "an inside" source telling this guy KC said this. But it's not, it's simply one talking heads opinion.Right!?!? It’s Peter King FFS
@"Geoff Nichols" said:@"purplefaithful" said:@"Geoff Nichols" said: I imagine the 1-yr contract point is an inference from the breakdown in their prior conversation last off-season where the Vikings wouldn't offer or guarantee any money past the 2024 season. The Vikings had offered to tack 2 years on Kirk's existing deal with 2023 (last season) and 2024 being guaranteed. Then the Vikings would have flexibility in 2025. Since it was only a single new year in guaranteed money Kirk didn't really engage in that.The Kirk extension talks are very interesting since there are two colliding forces. Kirk will need more than a single year on a new deal and guarantees (likely full) into 2025. The Vikings on the other hand have very intentionally earmarked 2025 as the start of their new competitive window. They have complete flexibility. Hockenson, Addison, and Cine are the only 3 players on the entire roster with guaranteed money in 2025 which is kind of crazy.
Kirk played well, but is that enough to get the Viking to move off what they've setup in 2025?
What does "the start of their new competitive window" mean?
Whether a rookie QB or Kirk, 2025 is financial freedom to basically mold the roster as you wish with no compromise. One path could be to re-sign all of Kirk, Hunter, Darrisaw and JJ. Another could be to add a rookie QB and add a number of high-end free agents.Taking this a different direction, the Vikings have set themselves up to successfully trade away considerable draft capital for a rookie QB if they choose to. They can make it up by supplementing the roster with very high-end free agents.
Sounds to me like we're either going into the season with Kirk or trading up to draft one of the top QBs….is there an echo in here
@"CFIAvike" said:@"kmillard" said:@"JimmyinSD" said:@"CFIAvike" said:@"JimmyinSD" said:@"CFIAvike" said:@"FLVike" said:Moving up in the draft would cost a fortune? Really?The Lions moved up 20 spots for two pancakes and a waffle. We should be able to move up 6 spots for just two pancakes.If the Vikings let Kirk walk, moving up WILL cost a fortune because every GM in front of them in the draft will know the Vikings have a proverbial loaded shotgun to their head to get a QB.Good fucking luck selling ANYONE on the idea of watching “Gardner Minshew” for two years while we wait to see if one of the “Christian Ponders” we reach for at #11 or draft in the second round pans out.
At least I’ll get to happily point out what an absolutely moronic plan it was if this ends up being the option they take. I was right when i said we’d be lucky to win 8 games once Kirk went down (and was ripped during Dobbs-mania) and I’m just as right about this.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again:
if Kirk walks, its either Maye, Williams, Daniels or the nuclear option
So you are going on record as saying that any QB other than the 3 you listed will be busts?And way to stick you neck out on the over under, the teams star receiver was out, the starting QB goes down for the year, our IOL was shit as well as our running game. The D wasn't doing much and the team had started the year 1-4, so they had proven they knew how to lose.
I'm not going on record saying that every QB I didn't list will bust, what I'm saying is it will take 2-3 years of development to figure out whether they are busts or not. The only QBs I listed are the ones that can/will start from day 1. Meaning if you don't extend Cousins or go for one of the top 3 QBs, you might as well blow everything up because we'll be on the never-ending merry-go-round of shitty QBs for who knows how long.And to your second point....I was absolutely KILLED on this board for suggesting that Dobbs wasn't great right away and 8 wins was a likely probability. I WAS wrong though...we only got 7 wins.
Just because you need 2 or 3 years to evaluate a QB doesn't preclude you from continuing to try and improve the position. This dumb ass notion that you can only draft a new QB once the previous has failed is stupid as shit, and any GM that follows that mentality should be unemployed.And you said Ponder as in a bust, not about taking years to evaluate. If you don't see it by the end of year one if you arent sold, back to the well. Just be up front about it and that way nobody freaks out. Don't oversell any pick and there won't be problems.
When did Kirk become this great QB all of a sudden? I must have missed that. 1 playoff win in 6 years. Time to get off the merry go round. If they sign him it will be for three years guaranteed.
So by your metric, the Vikings....in the HISTORY of the franchise....have never had a great QB because NONE have delivered us a championship. But yeah, we're just gonna pick one up in this draft no problem
I'm scared, so let's keep doing what we have been doing because it has been enough/three bears just enough.
@"minny65" said:@"CFIAvike" said:@"kmillard" said:@"JimmyinSD" said:@"CFIAvike" said:@"JimmyinSD" said:@"CFIAvike" said:@"FLVike" said:Moving up in the draft would cost a fortune? Really?The Lions moved up 20 spots for two pancakes and a waffle. We should be able to move up 6 spots for just two pancakes.If the Vikings let Kirk walk, moving up WILL cost a fortune because every GM in front of them in the draft will know the Vikings have a proverbial loaded shotgun to their head to get a QB.Good fucking luck selling ANYONE on the idea of watching “Gardner Minshew” for two years while we wait to see if one of the “Christian Ponders” we reach for at #11 or draft in the second round pans out.
At least I’ll get to happily point out what an absolutely moronic plan it was if this ends up being the option they take. I was right when i said we’d be lucky to win 8 games once Kirk went down (and was ripped during Dobbs-mania) and I’m just as right about this.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again:
if Kirk walks, its either Maye, Williams, Daniels or the nuclear option
So you are going on record as saying that any QB other than the 3 you listed will be busts?And way to stick you neck out on the over under, the teams star receiver was out, the starting QB goes down for the year, our IOL was shit as well as our running game. The D wasn't doing much and the team had started the year 1-4, so they had proven they knew how to lose.
I'm not going on record saying that every QB I didn't list will bust, what I'm saying is it will take 2-3 years of development to figure out whether they are busts or not. The only QBs I listed are the ones that can/will start from day 1. Meaning if you don't extend Cousins or go for one of the top 3 QBs, you might as well blow everything up because we'll be on the never-ending merry-go-round of shitty QBs for who knows how long.And to your second point....I was absolutely KILLED on this board for suggesting that Dobbs wasn't great right away and 8 wins was a likely probability. I WAS wrong though...we only got 7 wins.
Just because you need 2 or 3 years to evaluate a QB doesn't preclude you from continuing to try and improve the position. This dumb ass notion that you can only draft a new QB once the previous has failed is stupid as shit, and any GM that follows that mentality should be unemployed.And you said Ponder as in a bust, not about taking years to evaluate. If you don't see it by the end of year one if you arent sold, back to the well. Just be up front about it and that way nobody freaks out. Don't oversell any pick and there won't be problems.
When did Kirk become this great QB all of a sudden? I must have missed that. 1 playoff win in 6 years. Time to get off the merry go round. If they sign him it will be for three years guaranteed.
So by your metric, the Vikings....in the HISTORY of the franchise....have never had a great QB because NONE have delivered us a championship. But yeah, we're just gonna pick one up in this draft no problem
I'm scared, so let's keep doing what we have been doing because it has been enough/three bears just enough.
Holy crap....do you just skim the posts or are you actually reading?The only thing I'm not in favor of is the ridiculous notion that we go with a "bridge QB" and take a shot on Nix,JJM, or Penix. That's profoundly stupid, because you spend 20-25 million plus the 28 mil in dead money from Kirk equalling 50+ million on a turd that will waste a season while one of the second tier qbs holds a clipboard. STUPID!
Meanwhile, if the team REALLY does want to move on from Kirk it makes the most sense to go all in and trade whatever draft capital necessary to go get whomever you like best between Williams, Maye and Daniels. They are the only 3 that can realistically start day one. Even if they trade to #1 the pick will at most cost them 8 mil against the cap, tying up 35 mil at the QB position in comparison. Not to mention the huge cap savings available the next year.
Where Kirk comes in is if the FO doesn't believe in any of the QBs coming out to be a Franchise signal caller.
What about that is so hard to understand ?
@"supafreak84" said: Here is my thing with Cousins, nobody disputes a healthy Cousins gives us the best chance to win next season. We can all agree on that.Can we? I think you'd be surprised.
@"CFIAvike" said:@"Geoff Nichols" said:@"purplefaithful" said:@"Geoff Nichols" said: I imagine the 1-yr contract point is an inference from the breakdown in their prior conversation last off-season where the Vikings wouldn't offer or guarantee any money past the 2024 season. The Vikings had offered to tack 2 years on Kirk's existing deal with 2023 (last season) and 2024 being guaranteed. Then the Vikings would have flexibility in 2025. Since it was only a single new year in guaranteed money Kirk didn't really engage in that.The Kirk extension talks are very interesting since there are two colliding forces. Kirk will need more than a single year on a new deal and guarantees (likely full) into 2025. The Vikings on the other hand have very intentionally earmarked 2025 as the start of their new competitive window. They have complete flexibility. Hockenson, Addison, and Cine are the only 3 players on the entire roster with guaranteed money in 2025 which is kind of crazy.
Kirk played well, but is that enough to get the Viking to move off what they've setup in 2025?
What does "the start of their new competitive window" mean?
Whether a rookie QB or Kirk, 2025 is financial freedom to basically mold the roster as you wish with no compromise. One path could be to re-sign all of Kirk, Hunter, Darrisaw and JJ. Another could be to add a rookie QB and add a number of high-end free agents.Taking this a different direction, the Vikings have set themselves up to successfully trade away considerable draft capital for a rookie QB if they choose to. They can make it up by supplementing the roster with very high-end free agents.
Sounds to me like we're either going into the season with Kirkor trading upto draft one of the top QBs….is there an echo in here
Correction: attempting to trade-up.
@"minny65" said: I yearn for the six seasons of 50-39-1 and 0-2 in playoff appearances so lets continue to do what we have always been doing :) All because a decade ago a whole different regime over drafted Ponder - yikes scary. Too scary to ever take a swing again.Who is it saying not to take the swing? I haven't read everything, but it seems to me the two sides in this debate are between those who want to resign Cousins and draft a QB and those who want to let Cousins go and draft a QB.
That's what's so frustrating about these "debates." Positions are willfully mischaracterized to make them easier to counter. Why not just...
@"MaroonBells" said:@"minny65" said: I yearn for the six seasons of 50-39-1 and 0-2 in playoff appearances so lets continue to do what we have always been doing :) All because a decade ago a whole different regime over drafted Ponder - yikes scary. Too scary to ever take a swing again. Who is it saying not to take the swing? I haven't read everything, but it seems to me the two sides in this debate are between those who want to resign Cousins and draft a QB and those who want to let Cousins go and draft a QB.That's what's so frustrating about these "debates." Positions are willfully mischaracterized to make them easier to counter. Why not just...
Yep. Zero posters are saying to not draft a QB or 'take a swing'. ZERO. The debate should be only resigning Kirk or not resigning Kirk. But as you mention, its easier for a few I guess to say that some posters are 'scared' or are 'fine with mediocrity'. lol. Its clear as crystal the organization needs to draft a QB regardless.
@"MaroonBells" said: Wow, bombshell. LOLAs much as I’d like to take credit for that awesome thread title, I merely cut & pasted it… ;) B)
@"Kentis" said:Ha, not blaming you Kentis. More and more media are jumping onto this "heavy.com" style of headline writing. Common buzzwords are "breaking," "insider," "bombshell"...and my personal favorite "raises eyebrows."@"MaroonBells" said: Wow, bombshell. LOL As much as I’d like to take credit for that awesome thread title, I merely cut & pasted it… ;) B)
@"MaroonBells" said:See our problem is that early on in his tenure, Kwesi got into a website that advertised "Try this one weird trick that helps you build an NFL roster!"@"Kentis" said:Ha, not blaming you Kentis. More and more media are jumping onto this "heavy.com" style of headline writing. Common buzzwords are "breaking," "insider," "bombshell"...and my personal favorite "raises eyebrows."@"MaroonBells" said: Wow, bombshell. LOL As much as I’d like to take credit for that awesome thread title, I merely cut & pasted it… ;) B)
@"MaroonBells" said:Oh and dont forget@"Kentis" said:Ha, not blaming you Kentis. More and more media are jumping onto this "heavy.com" style of headline writing. Common buzzwords are "breaking," "insider," "bombshell"...and my personal favorite "raises eyebrows."@"MaroonBells" said: Wow, bombshell. LOL As much as I’d like to take credit for that awesome thread title, I merely cut & pasted it… ;) B)Little birdie says...
@"Geoff Nichols" said:@"purplefaithful" said:@"Geoff Nichols" said: I imagine the 1-yr contract point is an inference from the breakdown in their prior conversation last off-season where the Vikings wouldn't offer or guarantee any money past the 2024 season. The Vikings had offered to tack 2 years on Kirk's existing deal with 2023 (last season) and 2024 being guaranteed. Then the Vikings would have flexibility in 2025. Since it was only a single new year in guaranteed money Kirk didn't really engage in that.The Kirk extension talks are very interesting since there are two colliding forces. Kirk will need more than a single year on a new deal and guarantees (likely full) into 2025. The Vikings on the other hand have very intentionally earmarked 2025 as the start of their new competitive window. They have complete flexibility. Hockenson, Addison, and Cine are the only 3 players on the entire roster with guaranteed money in 2025 which is kind of crazy.
Kirk played well, but is that enough to get the Viking to move off what they've setup in 2025?
What does "the start of their new competitive window" mean?
Whether a rookie QB or Kirk, 2025 is financial freedom to basically mold the roster as you wish with no compromise. One path could be to re-sign all of Kirk, Hunter, Darrisaw and JJ. Another could be to add a rookie QB and add a number of high-end free agents.Taking this a different direction, the Vikings have set themselves up to successfully trade away considerable draft capital for a rookie QB if they choose to. They can make it up by supplementing the roster with very high-end free agents.
THIS. If we had hit on the 22 draft with getting two good starters out of the first 3 picks, then we could feel like running it back with Kirk because you have a young deeper roster. But we didn't. It was comically terrible leaving holes that need to be filled.#1 The plan should making 2025 work to keep Jefferson, Hunter, Darrisaw happy
#2 move on from Kirk (unless he is willing to take $20per) and use that $35-40M for additions to the the DL and IOL. Shoot for Christian Wilkins/Kinlaw and Leonard Williams/Calais Campbell, bring back Davenport for $6M 1 year deal
#3 make your swing for a QB, maybe it cost a lot, maybe it doesn't cost you anything (depends on how high you are with Penix and McCarthy)A team with an upgraded center + a drastically upgraded DL makes everything better. Young QBs have time to get the ball to a great set of weapons. Young DBs can play better with the QB on the run
Give me Penix with a good/very good OL and these weapons + a defense that blitzes half the amount of the time and can still generate pressure.
Campbell+Wilkins+Phillips (Roy, Day, Jones) with Hunter+Davenport+Carter can be a strong front 5
@"Skodin" said:@"Geoff Nichols" said:Give me Penix with a good/very good OL and these weapons + a defense that blitzes half the amount of the time and can still generate pressure.@"purplefaithful" said:@"Geoff Nichols" said: I imagine the 1-yr contract point is an inference from the breakdown in their prior conversation last off-season where the Vikings wouldn't offer or guarantee any money past the 2024 season. The Vikings had offered to tack 2 years on Kirk's existing deal with 2023 (last season) and 2024 being guaranteed. Then the Vikings would have flexibility in 2025. Since it was only a single new year in guaranteed money Kirk didn't really engage in that.The Kirk extension talks are very interesting since there are two colliding forces. Kirk will need more than a single year on a new deal and guarantees (likely full) into 2025. The Vikings on the other hand have very intentionally earmarked 2025 as the start of their new competitive window. They have complete flexibility. Hockenson, Addison, and Cine are the only 3 players on the entire roster with guaranteed money in 2025 which is kind of crazy.
Kirk played well, but is that enough to get the Viking to move off what they've setup in 2025?
What does "the start of their new competitive window" mean?
Whether a rookie QB or Kirk, 2025 is financial freedom to basically mold the roster as you wish with no compromise. One path could be to re-sign all of Kirk, Hunter, Darrisaw and JJ. Another could be to add a rookie QB and add a number of high-end free agents.Taking this a different direction, the Vikings have set themselves up to successfully trade away considerable draft capital for a rookie QB if they choose to. They can make it up by supplementing the roster with very high-end free agents.
Campbell+Wilkins+Phillips (Roy, Day, Jones) with Hunter+Davenport+Carter can be a strong front 5
Man what is it about Penix that has this anti-Kirk crowd so fired up. I think he’s got bust written all over him. Of the much lower second tier of QBs, i think he’s the worst of the lot.I mean if they go into the year with Penix at QB, they’ll be in a position for a top 2 pick to draft another QB the next year with another wasted top pick under their belts
@"CFIAvike" said:@"Skodin" said:@"Geoff Nichols" said:Give me Penix with a good/very good OL and these weapons + a defense that blitzes half the amount of the time and can still generate pressure.@"purplefaithful" said:@"Geoff Nichols" said: I imagine the 1-yr contract point is an inference from the breakdown in their prior conversation last off-season where the Vikings wouldn't offer or guarantee any money past the 2024 season. The Vikings had offered to tack 2 years on Kirk's existing deal with 2023 (last season) and 2024 being guaranteed. Then the Vikings would have flexibility in 2025. Since it was only a single new year in guaranteed money Kirk didn't really engage in that.The Kirk extension talks are very interesting since there are two colliding forces. Kirk will need more than a single year on a new deal and guarantees (likely full) into 2025. The Vikings on the other hand have very intentionally earmarked 2025 as the start of their new competitive window. They have complete flexibility. Hockenson, Addison, and Cine are the only 3 players on the entire roster with guaranteed money in 2025 which is kind of crazy.
Kirk played well, but is that enough to get the Viking to move off what they've setup in 2025?
What does "the start of their new competitive window" mean?
Whether a rookie QB or Kirk, 2025 is financial freedom to basically mold the roster as you wish with no compromise. One path could be to re-sign all of Kirk, Hunter, Darrisaw and JJ. Another could be to add a rookie QB and add a number of high-end free agents.Taking this a different direction, the Vikings have set themselves up to successfully trade away considerable draft capital for a rookie QB if they choose to. They can make it up by supplementing the roster with very high-end free agents.
Campbell+Wilkins+Phillips (Roy, Day, Jones) with Hunter+Davenport+Carter can be a strong front 5
Man what is it about Penix that has this anti-Kirk crowd so fired up.
I don't think I get it either. He probably isn't going in round 1. Or round 2.
I aint not draftnik, but I think I am liking Nix more than Penix right now.
Both certainly have their question marks.
Edit Post (mod action — author will see a notice)
Warn Poster
Suspend User (3 days)
The user will be suspended for 3 days and will receive an email with the reason and information about how to appeal.