All Things 2021 Minnesota Vikings Off-Season Thread

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
71,053
Reaction score
26,573
Points
113
I feel the same way.

I'd be ecstatic if the team moved on from Cousins — provided they replaced him with someone better.

And I'd love to see them upgrade the offensive line, but based on how the team performed last season I fully understand why they made moves to improve the defense first.
Sure. What are the odds of replacing him with someone better though? I'm all in favor of a trade with Denver for Drew Lock and a pick. He's at the least competent and still has upside. He and Pat Shurmer don't seem to be on the same page though.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
32,015
Reaction score
8,376
Points
113
Sure. What are the odds of replacing him with someone better though? I'm all in favor of a trade with Denver for Drew Lock and a pick. He's at the least competent and still has upside. He and Pat Shurmer don't seem to be on the same page though.
I'd take the #3 pick from SF for Zach Wilson.

That thought probably makes Zim ill, though.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
6,845
Reaction score
5,710
Points
113
Sure. What are the odds of replacing him with someone better though? I'm all in favor of a trade with Denver for Drew Lock and a pick. He's at the least competent and still has upside. He and Pat Shurmer don't seem to be on the same page though.

What are the odds? Well... not very good at all. That's my point, in a nutshell.

If it makes the team worse, I'm against it. But there are plenty of Viking fans who just want Cousins gone.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
6,845
Reaction score
5,710
Points
113
I'd take the #3 pick from SF for Zach Wilson.

That thought probably makes Zim ill, though.

Kirk Cousins, in my opinion, is better (and is slightly younger) than Matthew Stafford. To get Stafford, the Rams gave up: two first round picks, a third round pick, and Jared Goff.

To me, that trade sets a market value — so, I wouldn't trade Cousins for just one #1 pick. I'd hold out for quite a bit more than that.
 

Oregon Gopher

Guardian of the Western Front
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
447
Points
83
Agreed. And I do share your concert if there is more, just not what I saw publicly available.

I kind of look at the OL as most important in Rd 1, but if there is a run on OL talent (say 3-4 picks), we probably could do just as well on day 2 that reaching. While taking whomever falls.

This draft will be for the prepared (opt outs will create some opportunities for steals on 2nd day) and next year is likely to be skewed by the additional COVID year. So stalking up on picks next year is a long term boost.
STOCKING up on picks has never been a problem for our current GM.
 


Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
5,315
Reaction score
3,259
Points
113
Kirk Cousins, in my opinion, is better (and is slightly younger) than Matthew Stafford. To get Stafford, the Rams gave up: two first round picks, a third round pick, and Jared Goff.

To me, that trade sets a market value — so, I wouldn't trade Cousins for just one #1 pick. I'd hold out for quite a bit more than that.
The Stafford trade does not at all set the market value for Cousins. The Rams in order to unload Goff and his bloated contract had to sweeten the deal in order for the Lions to bite.

There is no chance the Vikings could get anything similar, IMO. The ceiling would be more like the Colts trade for Wentz, a conditional 2nd Rd (could bump up to a 1st) and a 3rd.
 

forever a gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,578
Reaction score
2,060
Points
113
The Stafford trade does not at all set the market value for Cousins. The Rams in order to unload Goff and his bloated contract had to sweeten the deal in order for the Lions to bite.

There is no chance the Vikings could get anything similar, IMO. The ceiling would be more like the Colts trade for Wentz, a conditional 2nd Rd (could bump up to a 1st) and a 3rd.
This. Plus, Stanford’s contract is extremely team friendly (at least in relation to QB contracts) which increases his value.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
6,845
Reaction score
5,710
Points
113
The Stafford trade does not at all set the market value for Cousins. The Rams in order to unload Goff and his bloated contract had to sweeten the deal in order for the Lions to bite.

There is no chance the Vikings could get anything similar, IMO. The ceiling would be more like the Colts trade for Wentz, a conditional 2nd Rd (could bump up to a 1st) and a 3rd.

I didn't say it actually set the market value for Cousins. I said to me it sets the value, because in my opinion Cousins is better than Stafford. Stats back me up in having that belief. (I know, it isn't about stats, but rather about the eye test).

If I'm calling the shots at Vikings HQ, I would demand a similar haul for Cousins as Detroit got for Stafford. If I'm not offered something in that ballpark, I'm keeping Cousins.

You and I simply disagree on Cousins' value relative to Stafford. We also seem to disagree on the relative value of Carson Wentz, who looked like a sad, lost child last season.

Look, I get it: if most Viking fans were in charge, they'd trade Cousins for a box of used shoulder pads.
 
Last edited:

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
5,315
Reaction score
3,259
Points
113
I didn't say it actually set the market value for Cousins. I said to me it sets the value, because in my opinion Cousins is better than Stafford. Stats back me up in having that belief. (I know, it isn't about stats, but rather about the eye test).

If I'm calling the shots at Vikings HQ, I would demand a similar haul for Cousins as Detroit got for Stafford. If I'm not offered something in that ballpark, I'm keeping Cousins.

You and I simply disagree on Cousins' value relative to Stafford. We also seem to disagree on the relative value of Carson Wentz, who looked like a sad, lost child last season.

Look, I get it: if most Viking fans were in charge, they'd trade Cousins for a box of used shoulder pads.

Actually, I don't disagree at all on Cousins QB ability when compared to Stafford. I think Cousins is better than him (slightly), but it's not based on that alone, the salary itself and the impact on the cap also has to be factored. The haul the Lions got is a moot point when considered they have to take on Goff and the money attached.

Also I don't disagree on Wentz as a QB either, but that is about the same value the Vikes would receive (in my opinion). Indy paid more than others because, they had a void with Rivers retiring and he had success playing for their current HC (Reich) when he was at Philly.

If that's not attractive enough, then yeah...standing pat is probably the best option. I am totally ok with riding with Cousins.
 
Last edited:




short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
15,815
Reaction score
8,477
Points
113
in the "eye test," Stafford is seen as having more of that 'gunslinger' mentality, whereas Cousins is seen as a 'play it safe' guy.

It all comes down to what type of system you run and what you want from your QB.

Zim wants a QB who can make the routine throws and hand the ball off (A LOT) to the RB while avoiding turnovers. So Cousins is perfect for Zim. If Zim had a 'gunslinger' as his QB, he'd go postal by week #5.

If the Vikes are ahead, Cousins is fine. the issue is when the running game gets slowed down, or the defense has a bad day, and you need the QB to make big plays to save the game. That has never been Cousins' forte.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
6,845
Reaction score
5,710
Points
113
in the "eye test," Stafford is seen as having more of that 'gunslinger' mentality, whereas Cousins is seen as a 'play it safe' guy.

Gunslinger vs. Play It Safe:

Well, Stafford and Cousins have exactly the same career INT%: 2.3.

Yet Stafford's TD% is 4.5, and Cousins' TD% is 5.2.

Stafford: 7.2 yds/ATT
Cousins: 7.7. yds/ATT

Despite having the higher yds/ATT of the two, Cousins also has a higher completion percentage: 67%, to 62.6% for Stafford.

Record as starter:
Stafford: 74-90-1
Cousins: 51-51-2

Stafford's superiority must be strictly in the eye test. It has to be that, and the whole gunslinger thing.
 
Last edited:

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
32,015
Reaction score
8,376
Points
113
Well, Stafford and Cousins have exactly the same career INT%: 2.3.

Yet Stafford's TD% is 4.5, and Cousins' TD% is 5.2.

Stafford: 7.2 yds/ATT
Cousins: 7.7. yds/ATT

Despite having the higher yds/ATT of the two, Cousins also has a higher completion percentage: 67%, to 62.6% for Stafford.

Record as starter:
Stafford: 74-90-1
Cousins: 51-51-2
I'm sure playing for the Detroit Lions has nothing to do with any of these. Nope, not a thing.

Hence why it is just silly to try to present stats with no context.
 



RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
6,845
Reaction score
5,710
Points
113
I'm sure playing for the Detroit Lions has nothing to do with any of these. Nope, not a thing.

Hence why it is just silly to try to present stats with no context.

Ah, but I've read and heard, many times, that Cousins "will never take a team to the Super Bowl".

That leaves me wondering if quarterbacks actually make teams great, or do great teams make for great quarterbacks?

Did Tom Brady benefit from playing for the Patriots, or did the Patriots ride Brady's coattails to all those championships?

And if the fact that Stafford played for the Lions is taken into account, then what do we think of the Washington teams that Cousins played for?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
32,015
Reaction score
8,376
Points
113
Ah, but I've read and heard, many times, that Cousins "will never take a team to the Super Bowl".

That leaves me wondering if quarterbacks actually make teams great, or do great teams make for great quarterbacks?

Did Tom Brady benefit from playing for the Patriots, or did the Patriots ride Brady's coattails to all those championships?
As I'm sure you agree, you can't just neatly dissect and partition off factors like that for examination on their own.

Such factors are tightly tangled, integrated, and mixed.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
6,845
Reaction score
5,710
Points
113
As I'm sure you agree, you can't just neatly dissect and partition off factors like that for examination on their own.

Such factors are tightly tangled, integrated, and mixed.

I don't know about "partitioning off", but I think dissecting, or more properly analyzing, is what this QB discussion is all about. It's an attempt to bring in some objective data to an evaluation.

I chuckle every time I hear someone claim that Cousins will never win a championship. In effect, they claim to know the future, and making that claim is absurd.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
32,015
Reaction score
8,376
Points
113
I don't know about "partitioning off", but I think dissecting, or more properly analyzing, is what this QB discussion is all about.

It's also why I chuckle every time I hear someone claim that Cousins will never win a championship. In effect, they claim to know the future, and making that claim is absurd.
I don't claim anything. I've said that my feeling is that Cousins is not "the guy" and so I'd rather move on from him as soon as possible.


In the current NFL, there are only two ways to have a likely successful roster recipe:

- you have one of the few elite QB's, and you pay them like that (Rodgers, Brady, Mahomes, etc.)
- otherwise, you have to get lucky and draft a QB that is very good to near-elite and try to win while they're still on their cheap rookie deal. If you're extremely lucky, they'll morph into the above. Otherwise, you let them go in FA if they aren't, and try again.

You can certainly sign a non-elite FA QB, so long as you pay them like that. But winning this way is much less likely.


The only sure fire way to go wrong is to sign a non-elite FA QB, and pay them as if they were elite.



Guess which one we did?
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
6,845
Reaction score
5,710
Points
113
I don't claim anything. I've said that my feeling is that Cousins is not "the guy" and so I'd rather move on from him as soon as possible.

Cool. I was just trying to introduce some objective data to a subjective conversation.
 




howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
71,053
Reaction score
26,573
Points
113
I'm sure playing for the Detroit Lions has nothing to do with any of these. Nope, not a thing.

Hence why it is just silly to try to present stats with no context.
The offensive talent on the Lions was better than what Cousins had in Washington. Stafford got to throw to Calvin Johnson for several years.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
32,015
Reaction score
8,376
Points
113
The offensive talent on the Lions was better than what Cousins had in Washington. Stafford got to throw to Calvin Johnson for several years.
Not good enough. Offensive line. Having to play from behind. Etc. Way too many factors.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
71,053
Reaction score
26,573
Points
113
Not good enough. Offensive line. Having to play from behind. Etc. Way too many factors.
It's splitting hairs. Stafford and Cousins are basically the same. Really good, not great. Between the 8th-12th QB's in the NFL in most years.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
32,015
Reaction score
8,376
Points
113
Stafford and Cousins are basically the same. Really good, not great. Between the 8th-12th QB's in the NFL in most years.
This is a much different story than the one Murray was trying to tell.
 

RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
6,845
Reaction score
5,710
Points
113
This is a much different story than the one Murray was trying to tell.

Uhhhh... nope.

The story I was "trying to tell" was simply this: to me, Cousins is worth every bit as much in a trade as Stafford; maybe even more. I guess I wasn't supposed to use stats to illustrate my point. Something about context, I think.
 


RememberMurray

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
6,845
Reaction score
5,710
Points
113
You said: Gunslinger vs. Play It Safe

I was responding to SON in that particular post.

The main discussion involved whether or not Cousins could fetch as much in a trade as Stafford. SON brought up the gunslinger thing, saying that Stafford had more perceived value because he was viewed as a gunslinger while Cousins was seen as a guy who played it safe.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
71,053
Reaction score
26,573
Points
113
Uhhhh... nope.

The story I was "trying to tell" was simply this: to me, Cousins is worth every bit as much in a trade as Stafford; maybe even more. I guess I wasn't supposed to use stats to illustrate my point. Something about context, I think.
Perhaps. The Rams unloading Goff makes it look like they gave up more for Stafford than they really did. A 1st for Cousins is very fair, especially if it's top 15.
 

short ornery norwegian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
15,815
Reaction score
8,477
Points
113
Murray - Cousins could definitely win a championship - with the right club in the right situation.

I just don't think the Vikings are the right club, because of the Offensive line issues.

Again, I am not bashing Cousins. I am bashing Spielman and Zimmer, because they refuse to address the offensive line issues, which results in the team not giving Cousins the best chance to succeed.

If Cousins is your guy, then you have to put the best possible OL in front of him. The Vikes say Cousins is their guy, and then they put a bunch of guys in front of him who look like they should be playing zombies on "The Walking Dead."

If the Vikes will not address the OL, then they need a QB with a different skill set than Cousins.
 




Top Bottom