GMFB: 'Cousins has turned a corner for real'

I think he is right, so long as we stay aggressive on offense all the time.  All. The. Time.

@"dadevike" said: I think he is right, so long as we stay aggressive on offense all the time.  All. The. Time.

Agreed. The team has the horses, keep the pedal to the floorboard in closing out leads. Beat their asses so in the 4th quarter all the 'want to' goes bub bye. 

I always see games like this as a trap game, one that there's no way we can lose. And then I'm always shocked when they prove us wrong.

In this instance, Washington is so bad and we're so hot right now, I just don't see us falling apart that badly.

Best thing for the Vikings to do is don’t give Washington any hope early.

 When you have trouble is when you fumble punts deep in your own territory, give up big plays, etc.  if you walk all over a poor team in the first quarter they accept the loss and play with no emotion.

@"KingBash" said: I always see games like this as a trap game, one that there's no way we can lose. And then I'm always shocked when they prove us wrong.

In this instance, Washington is so bad and we're so hot right now, I just don't see us falling apart that badly.

Losing this game would be so classic "us". I don't think it'll happen, but anything's possible.
I will say that it's a tricky spot for Kirk. If he plays great well, "it's just Washington". But if he blows it in primetime again, I truly don't know if I-- or many others-- will ever be able to believe in him again.
... BUT that's not gonna happen. Vikes by 20!

KC is getting national TV love... we're doomed.  B)

SKOL!

@"KingBash" said: I always see games like this as a trap game, one that there's no way we can lose. And then I'm always shocked when they prove us wrong.

In this instance, Washington is so bad and we're so hot right now, I just don't see us falling apart that badly.

Vikings are favored by 14.5. Last time they were favored by that much was last year at home against Buffalo, who were 16.5 point dogs. They beat us 27-6.

What gives me confidence that this won't be "Buffalo II" is that last year we didn't have Cook. Last year, we had DeFilippo who DeFellippo'd all over the field. We ran the ball SIX times. SIX! This year we have Kubiak and Stefanski and Cook. We didn't know it at the time, but last year we also had Everson Griffen going nuts in a hotel room, this year he's 3rd in the league in pressures and playing like his former self. 

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"KingBash" said: I always see games like this as a trap game, one that there's no way we can lose. And then I'm always shocked when they prove us wrong.

In this instance, Washington is so bad and we're so hot right now, I just don't see us falling apart that badly.

Vikings are favored by 14.5. Last time they were favored by that much was last year at home against Buffalo, who were 16.5 point dogs. They beat us 27-6.

What gives me confidence that this won't be "Buffalo II" is that last year we didn't have Cook. Last year, we had DeFilippo who DeFellippo'd all over the field. We ran the ball SIX times. SIX! This year we have Kubiak and Stefanski and Cook. We didn't know it at the time, but last year we also had Everson Griffen going nuts in a hotel room, this year he's 3rd in the league in pressures and playing like his former self. 

I was just taking a look at some interesting statistical comparisons between Cousins and the Vikings short-term quarterbacks that had "some success" and people remember them playing okay to pretty good...

Cousins so far:
23 games (13-9-1): 6,009 yards (261.3/game), 70.1%, 43 tds - 13 ints, 103.2 rating (current rating is #1 for their franchise starting qbs)
----
Favre:
29 games (17-12): 6,711 (231.4/game), 65.2%, 44 tds - 26 ints, 92.2 rating

Cunningham:
'27' games (16-7): 5,680 (210.4/game), 59.9%, 48 tds - 23 ints, 94.2 rating

Moon:
39 games (21-18): 10,102 (259/game), 60.7%, 58 tds - 42 ints, 82.8 rating

Bridgewater:
'30' games (17-11): 6,150 (205/game), 64.7%, 28 tds - 22 ints, 86.3 rating

Bradford/Keenum combined:
32 games (20-11): 7,806 (243.9/game), 69.9%, 45 tds - 12 ints, ~100

Make of this what you will but Kirk is producing better or on pace to produce better than all of the former "best" short-term qbs the Vikings have had. 

@"CLOBIMON" said: I was just taking a look at some interesting statistical comparisons between Cousins and the Vikings short-term quarterbacks that had "some success" and people remember them playing okay to pretty good...

Cousins so far:
23 games (13-9-1): 6,009 yards (261.3/game), 70.1%, 43 tds - 13 ints, 103.2 rating (current rating is #1 for their franchise starting qbs)
----
Favre:
29 games (17-12): 6,711 (231.4/game), 65.2%, 44 tds - 26 ints, 92.2 rating

Cunningham:
'27' games (16-7): 5,680 (210.4/game), 59.9%, 48 tds - 23 ints, 94.2 rating

Moon:
39 games (21-18): 10,102 (259/game), 60.7%, 58 tds - 42 ints, 82.8 rating

Bridgewater:
'30' games (17-11): 6,150 (205/game), 64.7%, 28 tds - 22 ints, 86.3 rating

Bradford/Keenum combined:
32 games (20-11): 7,806 (243.9/game), 69.9%, 45 tds - 12 ints, ~100

Make of this what you will but Kirk is producing better or on pace to produce better than all of the former "best" short-term qbs the Vikings have had. 

What I find interesting is how the narrative surrounding Cousins keeps changing. It's dizzying. He had a poor end to last season and a slow start to this season. After that, you could find many fans and media who thought he thought he should be benched, that he was now the crap QB who was inaccurate in Green Bay and Chicago and the Vikings threw away $84M. But it was just wrong, because inaccuracy was never part of who he was, even when he was bad. 

And so when he bounced back a few games, you started to hear this narrative that's he's "turned a corner." That he's "never" played this well before. Well, no, that's not true either. Early last season Cousins was lights out. Just spectacular. The narrative, for a few weeks anyway, was that the Vikings got their money's worth. Nobody seems to remember that. 

And so yeah, I love what he's doing now and I think there's a decent chance it continues, even against good teams. Because A. He's a deadly accurate QB, who thrives in play action. B. He's got one of the best running games in the NFL to support play action. And C. He's getting some improved play from his offensive line. 

But I'm still cautious because we HAVE seen it before. There is one narrative that he still needs to conquer. I think the national TV thing is mostly bullshit, but how he plays against good defenses is still very much in question. I think Brandt is right. That night game in Dallas could exorcise a lot of demons for Kirk...not to mention a few Viking fans. 

"Alex, I'll take things I want to believe for $500"

Sunday night in Big D...Big game, time for the Vikings to shine the next 2 national coverages. 

=)

@"MaroonBells" said:

@"CLOBIMON" said: I was just taking a look at some interesting statistical comparisons between Cousins and the Vikings short-term quarterbacks that had "some success" and people remember them playing okay to pretty good...

Cousins so far:
23 games (13-9-1): 6,009 yards (261.3/game), 70.1%, 43 tds - 13 ints, 103.2 rating (current rating is #1 for their franchise starting qbs)
----
Favre:
29 games (17-12): 6,711 (231.4/game), 65.2%, 44 tds - 26 ints, 92.2 rating

Cunningham:
'27' games (16-7): 5,680 (210.4/game), 59.9%, 48 tds - 23 ints, 94.2 rating

Moon:
39 games (21-18): 10,102 (259/game), 60.7%, 58 tds - 42 ints, 82.8 rating

Bridgewater:
'30' games (17-11): 6,150 (205/game), 64.7%, 28 tds - 22 ints, 86.3 rating

Bradford/Keenum combined:
32 games (20-11): 7,806 (243.9/game), 69.9%, 45 tds - 12 ints, ~100

Make of this what you will but Kirk is producing better or on pace to produce better than all of the former "best" short-term qbs the Vikings have had. 

What I find interesting is how the narrative surrounding Cousins keeps changing. It's dizzying. He had a poor end to last season and a slow start to this season. After that, you could find many fans and media who thought he thought he should be benched, that he was now the crap QB who was inaccurate in Green Bay and Chicago and the Vikings threw away $84M. But it was just wrong, because inaccuracy was never part of who he was, even when he was bad. 

And so when he bounced back a few games, you started to hear this narrative that's he's "turned a corner." That he's "never" played this well before. Well, no, that's not true either. Early last season Cousins was lights out. Just spectacular. The narrative, for a few weeks anyway, was that the Vikings got their money's worth. Nobody seems to remember that.