All Things 2024 Minnesota Vikings Off-Season Thread

[Ope3]

No, I said this year. All previous years were irrelevant to how well Cousins was playing this year when he got hurt. We'll never know, but I think he wins minimum two playoff games this year if he doesn't.

The Vikings were 4-4 when Cousins went down with a horrible running attack and what proved to be a medicore defense overall (substandard from Cincy to the finish line). Yet you think he could have lead them to TWO playoff victories?!?!

No Minnesota QB has done that since Wade Wilson. In January, 1988.

Oh my.

It's a tremendous stretch to think with a healthy Cousins that they would have overtaken the Lions for the Division. Thus these mythical playoff wins would have to also likely have been on the road. Yeah. Sure.

 

[7Gopher7]

The Vikings were 4-4 when Cousins went down with a horrible running attack and what proved to be a medicore defense overall (substandard from Cincy to the finish line). Yet you think he could have lead them to TWO playoff victories?!?!

No Minnesota QB has done that since Wade Wilson. In January, 1988.

Oh my.

It's a tremendous stretch to think with a healthy Cousins that they would have overtaken the Lions for the Division. Thus these mythical playoff wins would have to also likely have been on the road. Yeah. Sure.

It’s not a tremendous stretch….not at all. They lost a lot of winnable games this year after Cousins was out. Maybe they would have maybe they wouldn’t have caught them. Who knows….

 

[gophersfan]

If Cousins doesn't resign here and that a real possibly. I think Cousins signed with Atlanta. His wife from there.

 

[Ope3]

It’s not a tremendous stretch….not at all. They lost a lot of winnable games this year after Cousins was out. Maybe they would have maybe they wouldn’t have caught them. Who knows….

The Vikings finishing 5 back of Detroit makes it a tremendous stretch, IMO.

 

[7Gopher7]

They could have beat Detroit twice and won a few more. Green bay would have been different no doubt and Chicago and Denver and cincinatttti… not a stretch. No reason to think it was stretch. Ya never know

 

[Ope3]

They could have beat Detroit twice and won a few more. Green bay would have been different no doubt and Chicago and Denver and cincinatttti… not a stretch. No reason to think it was stretch. Ya never know

That's a ton of wishful thinking. I'm honestly skeptical they would even have split against the Lions, with a healthy Cousins.

Kirk would have been stuck with the same poor running attack and by then solved defense.

Again they were 4-4 in the games he started. To think that they would have gotten to 11 Wins with him seems crazy, with all their other shortcomings and a tough final 3 game stretch.

I'm not sure they still would have beaten Atlanta. Dobbs running and unpredictable nature were a big part of that game. Ya never know.

 

[MplsGopher]

It’s not a tremendous stretch….not at all. They lost a lot of winnable games this year after Cousins was out. Maybe they would have maybe they wouldn’t have caught them. Who knows….

Correct

 

[MplsGopher]

I'm honestly skeptical they would even have split against the Lions, with a healthy Cousins.

Kirk would have been stuck with the same poor running attack and by then solved defense.

Wishful thinking.

Sad though, you wish for failure based on a pathetic delusion that we'll somehow draft the next Fran if we ditch the best QB we've had here in a long time.

My "wishful" thinking is for the clear and obvious success that they were having with Cousins before he got injured.


Cousins wins all the games that his backups won, by more, and he wins the Broncos, Bears, and Bengals games (all three of which we had to try hard to lose).

The first Lions game is much different. Who knows. Agree last three would be tough, so maybe or maybe not. But the division would've been right there to win, and they could've done it.


They won the division and 13 games with zero defense last year. True that our defense collapsed late in the year ... so in other words it was only equally bad as 2022's defense at that point.

Maybe guys are more inspired and play harder if we have more of a chance. Again, you never know

 

[Gopher_In_NYC]

Good call! Draft lots of QBs.

Then, on the first day of training camp, have a contest to see who can throw the farthest. Longest pass of the day wins you the starting QB job in Week 1.

That, or simply ask the wide receivers to vote, and let them pick a starter for you.

Fan vote

 

[7Gopher7]

That's a ton of wishful thinking. I'm honestly skeptical they would even have split against the Lions, with a healthy Cousins.

Kirk would have been stuck with the same poor running attack and by then solved defense.

Again they were 4-4 in the games he started. To think that they would have gotten to 11 Wins with him seems crazy, with all their other shortcomings and a tough final 3 game stretch.

I'm not sure they still would have beaten Atlanta. Dobbs running and unpredictable nature were a big part of that game. Ya never know.

Ya never know

 

[Ope3]

Wishful thinking.

Sad though, you wish for failure based on a pathetic delusion that we'll somehow draft the next Fran if we ditch the best QB we've had here in a long time.

My "wishful" thinking is for the clear and obvious success that they were having with Cousins before he got injured.


Cousins wins all the games that his backups won, by more, and he wins the Broncos, Bears, and Bengals games (all three of which we had to try hard to lose).

The first Lions game is much different. Who knows. Agree last three would be tough, so maybe or maybe not. But the division would've been right there to win, and they could've done it.


They won the division and 13 games with zero defense last year. True that our defense collapsed late in the year ... so in other words it was only equally bad as 2022's defense at that point.

Maybe guys are more inspired and play harder if we have more of a chance. Again, you never know

Honest question, how do you extrapolate that I am "wishing" for failure?

It's not a "wish" for anything. It would have been an expectation, based on the overall offensive capabilities (lack of a ground game) and the defensive failure that was exhibited in the actual games they played down the stretch. Those things happened. I don't have to wish or imagine it.

I saw the defense get torched by Detroit X 2 and Green Bay. Kirk Cousins standing on the other sideline leading the offense would not have changed that.

4-4 is "clear and obvious success"? It's the very definition of average. With Cousins' Prime Time record historically you are "sure" would have beat the Broncos AND Bears without Justin Jefferson? Yeah. Sure.

I admire your "blind faith", I really do, but that's all it is.

 

[GophersInIowa]

The QB in the modern NFL is not allocated 1/22nd (or 1/53rd) of the blame for losses and the credit for victories. That's how it works.

Kinda like coaches, I feel like QBs get too much credit when they win and too much blame when they lose (generally).

QBs are easily the most important position in football (and maybe all major sports) but I think people still blame/give credit to them too much. Even if it's as high as 1/4, that's still well below 50%.

 

[Ope3]

Kinda like coaches, I feel like QBs get too much credit when they win and too much blame when they lose (generally).

QBs are easily the most important position in football (and maybe all major sports) but I think people still blame/give credit to them too much. Even if it's as high as 1/4, that's still well below 50%.

Only the greatest of the great starting QBs, like Mahomes currently, are worth more than a TD against the spread.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

I'll ask the question again:

If the Vikings draft a QB, and make him the starter in 2024, and the Vikings then fail to make the playoffs, will the blamers place the blame on the rookie? He's a rookie, but he's also the QB, after all. Wins and losses are the responsibility of the QB (apparently).

If the Vikings with their new QB fail to make the playoffs in '24, and the blamers blame said rookie QB, will the blamers then demand that the team draft yet another rookie QB the following season, in order to replace the 'failed' rookie from the previous draft? After all, the QB is responsible for the team's won-loss record (according to some). So the '24 rookie is obviously a failure.

The Vikings could follow that path and be just like the Carolina Panthers.

whether it's fair or not, more is expected of a veteran QB than is expected of a rookie - because the veteran has the benefit of more experience.

you draft a rookie QB hoping that he'll be good. you expect a veteran QB - especially a higher-paid veteran QB - to be good. just like any business - you expect more from an experienced employee than you do from a new hire.

sure, if the Vikes go with a rookie QB and the rookie struggles, the rookie will catch some flack - but I submit that more flack would go to the GM who drafted the QB.

 

[Lou Brown]

Win what?

Super Bowl Homeboy. NFL had mastered parity. Anything can happen. If you are even kinda close you gotta push your chips in.

 

[Lou Brown]

I'm out on Hunter.

Everyone crows about 16.5 sacks.

So what? How many games did he dominate? How many games did he change the way the offense played?

I'm glad he had 16.5 personal moments of glory. Good for him. I bet half of those, at least, didn't matter even on that drive. Let alone change the outcome of the game.

Gets a sack on 2nd down. Then 3rd down they convert a first down. == Sack was absolutely irrelevant.

I will still the sack and roll the dice on 3rd and 12 over 3rd and 4. I hear you though.

 

[howeda7]

Super Bowl Homeboy. NFL had mastered parity. Anything can happen. If you are even kinda close you gotta push your chips in.

They're not kinda close though...

 

[howeda7]

Honest question, how do you extrapolate that I am "wishing" for failure?

It's not a "wish" for anything. It would have been an expectation, based on the overall offensive capabilities (lack of a ground game) and the defensive failure that was exhibited in the actual games they played down the stretch. Those things happened. I don't have to wish or imagine it.

I saw the defense get torched by Detroit X 2 and Green Bay. Kirk Cousins standing on the other sideline leading the offense would not have changed that.

4-4 is "clear and obvious success"? It's the very definition of average. With Cousins' Prime Time record historically you are "sure" would have beat the Broncos AND Bears without Justin Jefferson? Yeah. Sure.

I admire your "blind faith", I really do, but that's all it is.

It's impossible to know exactly what would have happened, but they weren't going to win 9 games in a row, so they would have lost at least one of the ATL, NO, DEN, Chicago, Vegas, Cincy games. And they would have lost at least 2/3 against the Lions/Packers. So the absolute best case with a healthy Cousins was 10-7 with 9-8 more likely.

 

[Ope3]

It's impossible to know exactly what would have happened, but they weren't going to win 9 games in a row, so they would have lost at least one of the ATL, NO, DEN, Chicago, Vegas, Cincy games. And they would have lost at least 2/3 against the Lions/Packers. So the absolute best case with a healthy Cousins was 10-7 with 9-8 more likely.

Now that version of alternative reality I can buy into and it would have left the Vikings well short of the Lions. That's certainly within the expected range of a team that started 4-4 with a healthy KC and JJ (for the most part).

 

[GophersInIowa]

They're not kinda close though...

Might be a bit of homerism here but I disagree. A healthy offense with Cousins is good enough to win big IMO. The defense needs help in the secondary and line. You shore up those two areas and stay healthy (certainly takes some luck) I think they can be in the hunt.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

yes, you can win with an average or slightly above-average QB.

IF you also have a really good OL, solid running game, good WR's - AND a top-10 level defense.

and you find a way to make it all work under the salary cap rules.

QB's that have played on Super Bowl winning teams include:
Mark Rypien (1 really big season and then went in the tank)
Nick Foles (need I say more...)
Brad Johnson (OK QB but Bucs had great defense)
Jeff Hostetler (starting QB got hurt)
Doug Williams (played best game of his life in Super Bowl - career completed < 50% of attempts)
Jim McMahon (had Walter Payton and one of the greatest defensive teams of all time)
Jim Plunkett (won 2 Super Bowls; for his career threw more INT's than TD's - had running game and defense)
Trent Dilfer (12 of 25 passing in Super Bowl - Ravens won with defense)

 

[Ope3]

Williams said he isn’t playing for Chicago.

If the Pats at 3 want the pick of the litter, instead of being “stuck” with Daniels, the Bears could swap picks with the Pats and 3. Then flip no.3 to another QB hungry team and take home an absolute haul.

Has this Williams saying he would not play for the Bears been reported by a reliable source?

There were reports that they were interviewing Kingsbury for OC who was on the USC staff this past season.

 

[TNGophfan]

yes, you can win with an average or slightly above-average QB.

IF you also have a really good OL, solid running game, good WR's - AND a top-10 level defense.

and you find a way to make it all work under the salary cap rules.

QB's that have played on Super Bowl winning teams include:
Mark Rypien (1 really big season and then went in the tank)
Nick Foles (need I say more...)
Brad Johnson (OK QB but Bucs had great defense)
Jeff Hostetler (starting QB got hurt)
Doug Williams (played best game of his life in Super Bowl - career completed < 50% of attempts)
Jim McMahon (had Walter Payton and one of the greatest defensive teams of all time)
Jim Plunkett (won 2 Super Bowls; for his career threw more INT's than TD's - had running game and defense)
Trent Dilfer (12 of 25 passing in Super Bowl - Ravens won with defense)

I would suggest that if you have a really good offensive line, an average/slightly above average RB will be just fine. Lots of decent running backs in the world that can run through nice holes. Would also suggest you don't need a JJ type receiver, though it would be nice. Any receiver at this level can get open if QB has time to scan field and is not running for his life. I think you do need a top 10 defense.

I would put majority of $ in o-line and defense.

 

[Gopher_In_NYC]

Super Bowl Homeboy. NFL had mastered parity. Anything can happen. If you are even kinda close you gotta push your chips in.

“Even kinda close.”


Translation = kinda, not really.

While your enthusiasm is admirable, it is still delusional

 

[Gopher_In_NYC]

Goff is number one ranked QB when not pressured; 27th when pressured. If the Bucs can get to Goff, he’ll turn into a turnover machine.

If they win, then he’s earned kudos from me.

 

[Slim Tubby]

It looks like Pierce is the choice for the Raiders per Schefter.

 

[TNGophfan]

It looks like Pierce is the choice for the Raiders per Schefter.

Not sure it's the right move but Davis faced a mutiny if he didn't.

 

[TNGophfan]

Goff is number one ranked QB when not pressured; 27th when pressured. If the Bucs can get to Goff, he’ll turn into a turnover machine.

If they win, then he’s earned kudos from me.

Great stat. Importance of o-line for a less than great QB.

 

[Gopher_In_NYC]

Great stat. Importance of o-line for a less than great QB.

They built it the right way

 

[Spaulding!No!]

Goff is number one ranked QB when not pressured; 27th when pressured. If the Bucs can get to Goff, he’ll turn into a turnover machine.

If they win, then he’s earned kudos from me.

I have seen many many poorly thrown balls by Baker Mayfield. I think he will be a liability against the Lions. Lions v Pack is my hope.