Kirk Cousins is in a no win situation

[S197]

I don't see it as a no win situation. He can earn a ton by beating a team tonight that probably should have a 1st round home game/bye if not for the NFC East screwing everyone. Or by winning the division. Or a playoff game.

Kirk has done a lot but in my view he still has a lot to prove. We didn't pay the guy $84 million to beat the NFC East, we paid him to win in December and January.

Yes, it's a team game so it's not as binary as wins and losses. But this is an extremely talented roster and I expect a commensurate level of performance. From everyone but especially from the guy we broke the bank for.

I know this has been beaten to death around here, but I look at tonight's game more along the lines of your last sentence than as Cousins needing to prove something. The Vikings broke the bank for a lot of their current roster. All of them, including the coaches, have to step up to the mantle. Tonight is a perfect time to do that.

Of the major concerns I have heading into tonight's game, Cousins isn't one of them. He's played well over the last 7 games for sure, and provided the offensive line protects him adequately tonight, I expect him to play well again.

I think tonight was a good illustration of why the Cousins debate ignores the larger issue, which is are the Vikings very good? Let’s say for a moment the debate was about the defense. The theoretical “haters” would point out the run D was awful and there were dumb penalties and broken coverages. The “apologists” would point out the D scored a TD, caused a turnover after special teams let them down, and also held in the red zone after the offense turned the ball over multiple times. Both are correct statements, they just ignore the opposite side.

And I think that happens with Cousins. We should be having the same debate about the defense, special teams, coaching and personnel choices. They all played a role in the loss tonight. No one area played well. The paradox with this team is they’re good enough to give fans hope but just not good enough to get to the next level. They’re a quasi-wildcard team that over or under shoots that mark by a game or so on a continual basis.

[CharVike]

I know this has been beaten to death around here, but I look at tonight's game more along the lines of your last sentence than as Cousins needing to prove something. The Vikings broke the bank for a lot of their current roster. All of them, including the coaches, have to step up to the mantle. Tonight is a perfect time to do that.

Of the major concerns I have heading into tonight's game, Cousins isn't one of them. He's played well over the last 7 games for sure, and provided the offensive line protects him adequately tonight, I expect him to play well again.

I think tonight was a good illustration of why the Cousins debate ignores the larger issue, which is are the Vikings very good? Let’s say for a moment the debate was about the defense. The theoretical “haters” would point out the run D was awful and there were dumb penalties and broken coverages. The “apologists” would point out the D scored a TD, caused a turnover after special teams let them down, and also held in the red zone after the offense turned the ball over multiple times. Both are correct statements, they just ignore the opposite side.

And I think that happens with Cousins. We should be having the same debate about the defense, special teams, coaching and personnel choices. They all played a role in the loss tonight. No one area played well. The paradox with this team is they’re good enough to give fans hope but just not good enough to get to the next level. They’re a quasi-wildcard team that over or under shoots that mark by a game or so on a continual basis.

quasi-wildcard team. That describes our current team perfectly. We have a good team that can challenge for a wild card. For the fans that want a Super Bowl that don't cut it. Getting in as a wildcard gives us very little chance to make the show. We need to hit the road and beat 3 good teams. It don't get much tougher than that. We lost as a team. No sense in pointing out blame. The Hawks were just to much for us on this night. These west coast trips are very hard. We had to play at our best to have a chance. We didn't do that as a team. Maybe one or two guys had a great game. Who cares. That don't cut it. We needed 46 to have a great game to give us a chance. Our team got there asse$$ kicked. Didn't show up which is the tough part. Get down and play hard. Don't let them push you all over the field. The answer is we lack a top level talented roster. We have a quasi wild card roster.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I think tonight was a good illustration of why the Cousins debate ignores the larger issue, which is are the Vikings very good? Let’s say for a moment the debate was about the defense. The theoretical “haters” would point out the run D was awful and there were dumb penalties and broken coverages. The “apologists” would point out the D scored a TD, caused a turnover after special teams let them down, and also held in the red zone after the offense turned the ball over multiple times. Both are correct statements, they just ignore the opposite side.

And I think that happens with Cousins. We should be having the same debate about the defense, special teams, coaching and personnel choices. They all played a role in the loss tonight. No one area played well. The paradox with this team is they’re good enough to give fans hope but just not good enough to get to the next level. They’re a quasi-wildcard team that over or under shoots that mark by a game or so on a continual basis.

quasi-wildcard team. That describes our current team perfectly. We have a good team that can challenge for a wild card. For the fans that want a Super Bowl that don't cut it. Getting in as a wildcard gives us very little chance to make the show. We need to hit the road and beat 3 good teams. It don't get much tougher than that. We lost as a team. No sense in pointing out blame. The Hawks were just to much for us on this night. These west coast trips are very hard. We had to play at our best to have a chance. We didn't do that as a team. Maybe one or two guys had a great game. Who cares. That don't cut it. We needed 46 to have a great game to give us a chance. Our team got there asse$$ kicked. Didn't show up which is the tough part. Get down and play hard. Don't let them push you all over the field. The answer is we lack a top level talented roster. We have a quasi wild card roster.

I'm almost positive that Pittsburgh and GB both won SBs as a 6 seed....

[CharVike]

quasi-wildcard team. That describes our current team perfectly. We have a good team that can challenge for a wild card. For the fans that want a Super Bowl that don't cut it. Getting in as a wildcard gives us very little chance to make the show. We need to hit the road and beat 3 good teams. It don't get much tougher than that. We lost as a team. No sense in pointing out blame. The Hawks were just to much for us on this night. These west coast trips are very hard. We had to play at our best to have a chance. We didn't do that as a team. Maybe one or two guys had a great game. Who cares. That don't cut it. We needed 46 to have a great game to give us a chance. Our team got there asse$$ kicked. Didn't show up which is the tough part. Get down and play hard. Don't let them push you all over the field. The answer is we lack a top level talented roster. We have a quasi wild card roster.

I'm almost positive that Pittsburgh and GB both won SBs as a 6 seed....

I never stated it was impossible. Home field through out vs wildcard. My guess is home field though out has the advantage. Teams want that for a reason. The Pats get that for a reason. Plus 2 home games vs 3 road games. I'd take the 2 home games over the 3 road games. Is that a guarantee? No. See our 15-1 season. I also realize we can win out and the Pack lose them all. That also possible. Our D could post 4 straight shut outs. That's also possible. We struggle on the road against good teams. Look it up. Most teams do. The Pats lost at the Ravens. If we hit the road to SF guess what? Our goose is cooked. We could beat them of course. The odds would be about 7 or above. Why is that? Then we need another road game. You are a 100% correct anything is possible and I do realize that. I seen us in 87 as a wildcard and we almost made the Super Bowl. Almost don't cut it though. I don't think our current roster has the talent level of the top teams.

[TSonn]

LOL just saw this in a tweet: Kirk Cousins simply cannot allow 400-plus yards on defense and expect to be considered an elite quarterback. #Vikings

[mansquatch]

I don't like that we lost last night, but that wasn't a terrible loss. That was a hard fought game in which both teams battled back from adversity. The Vikings just couldn't quite overcome the mistakes on defense. That begs more commentary, but I'll deal with that in another post. I think folks are looking at the standings and getting dismayed about this team. I wouldn't.

NFC has 6 teams at the top within a win of each other this season. That doesn't happen very often. The Vikings situation is as much a result of the schedule we've played as it is the schedules the other top NFC teams are playing. We've lost two games against strong road opponents: KC and SEA. We also lost two games in the division, played in September. September is a tough time to play on the road in the NFL. I did a post a few weeks back comparing GB, SF, NO, and the Vikings. Of those teams, only the Vikings had played three divisional road games and as such we were behind in the standings. That still remains true today. If we win out, which we well might, we will end up 12-4. In most seasons that is a playoff bye week and a division crown. Just not in 2019 with such a top heavy NFC. As a result of this we are on the outside looking in despite an excellent record.

IMO the true NFC Contenders are SEA and NO. Neither of them is a true juggernaut though, they just grit out wins.

SF is a bit of an enigma. They are good, but I'm not sure they are in the same class as SEA and NO. Maybe the same class as us.

IMO we are either on level with SF or slightly below. We gritted out the win vs. Dallas, but couldn't do it against KC. We had some early issues in September as our offense came together. I can accept that as September is in a lot of ways an extension of the pre-season. We've handled everyone else. As I said, we played competitive football last night, the game came down to three or 4 plays. It could have been better for sure, but that isn't a result that shows a team being outclassed. That result was competitive.

GB and DAL are the playoff posers IMO. DAL is obvious with their .500 record in the worst division in the NFL. GB, when you look at the schedule is also pretty disgusting. They've had three wins against winning teams. They beat us in week 2, DAL in week 5, and KC in week 8. However, I'd be hesitant to annoit them. Our offense wasn't what it is today in week 2. We play that game again today and I like our chances. The KC win was good timing, they got the face KC the first full week of Matt Moore being QB. Lucky Packers...

[mansquatch]

LOL just saw this in a tweet: Kirk Cousins simply cannot allow 400-plus yards on defense and expect to be considered an elite quarterback. #Vikings

That is a great one liner for where the Vikings are at.

Something is up with how Zimmer is calling games and adjusting. It really feels like they are getting out schemed or guys are not being used properly. How many times have we seen Barr get burned by a TE this year, yet they still send him off in coverage. How many games have we seen Rhodes be a liability, yet he still is starting?

In addition to the above issue, SEA played 6 OL for the majority of snaps last night. Where was the adjustment to this? Their rushing attack hammered us all night and this shouldn't have come as much of a surprise given SEA reputation for wanting to be a run first team.

Offense is not the problem right now...

[VikingLord]

IMO we are either on level with SF or slightly below.

You think the Vikings could take the Ravens almost to overtime at the Ravens?

GB and DAL are the playoff posers IMO. DAL is obvious with their .500 record in the worst division in the NFL. GB, when you look at the schedule is also pretty disgusting. They've had three wins against winning teams. They beat us in week 2, DAL in week 5, and KC in week 8. However, I'd be hesitant to annoit them. Our offense wasn't what it is today in week 2. We play that game again today and I like our chances. The KC win was good timing, they got the face KC the first full week of Matt Moore being QB. Lucky Packers...

Someone once said better to be lucky than good...

Fact is, the Packers beat the Vikings once, have the better record, and could very easily beat the Vikings again the way the defense of the Vikings is playing.

[mansquatch]

IMO we are either on level with SF or slightly below.

You think the Vikings could take the Ravens almost to overtime at the Ravens?

We just were within 4 points of beating the team that handled the 49ers, and we did it on the road and in primetime. So yeah, I do.

This might be the most underappreciated 8-4 team in the league right now. It certainly has it's problems, but are you guys really saying we were not competitive with SEA last night? I get we lost, but we didn't lose 35-0. Difference in that game was about 4 or 5 plays. This team is competitive, even if it is on the outside looking in.

[VikingLord]

Not sure what happened to the quote, but the Vikings gave up almost 200 yards rushing to Seattle. They lost the TOP battle by almost 20 minutes... Think about that.

You can't win in the playoffs if you can't defend the run and you can't control TOP. It just isn't possible.

IMHO, the game wasn't nearly as close as the score. The Seahawks rolled on the mistake-prone and defensively challenged Vikings the entire 3rd quarter. The Vikings managed a feeble comeback, and I'll give them credit for taking advantage of the mistakes in coverage made by the Seahawks that enabled that, but once again couldn't come up with the key plays on either side of the ball when it mattered most.

Unless the defense improves substantially and quickly, the Vikings are in real danger of missing the playoffs for the 2nd straight year. The Rams are certainly capable of replacing them as the 6th seed, as are the Bears.

[CharVike]

I don't like that we lost last night, but that wasn't a terrible loss. That was a hard fought game in which both teams battled back from adversity. The Vikings just couldn't quite overcome the mistakes on defense. That begs more commentary, but I'll deal with that in another post. I think folks are looking at the standings and getting dismayed about this team. I wouldn't.

NFC has 6 teams at the top within a win of each other this season. That doesn't happen very often. The Vikings situation is as much a result of the schedule we've played as it is the schedules the other top NFC teams are playing. We've lost two games against strong road opponents: KC and SEA. We also lost two games in the division, played in September. September is a tough time to play on the road in the NFL. I did a post a few weeks back comparing GB, SF, NO, and the Vikings. Of those teams, only the Vikings had played three divisional road games and as such we were behind in the standings. That still remains true today. If we win out, which we well might, we will end up 12-4. In most seasons that is a playoff bye week and a division crown. Just not in 2019 with such a top heavy NFC. As a result of this we are on the outside looking in despite an excellent record.

IMO the true NFC Contenders are SEA and NO. Neither of them is a true juggernaut though, they just grit out wins.

SF is a bit of an enigma. They are good, but I'm not sure they are in the same class as SEA and NO. Maybe the same class as us.

IMO we are either on level with SF or slightly below. We gritted out the win vs. Dallas, but couldn't do it against KC. We had some early issues in September as our offense came together. I can accept that as September is in a lot of ways an extension of the pre-season. We've handled everyone else. As I said, we played competitive football last night, the game came down to three or 4 plays. It could have been better for sure, but that isn't a result that shows a team being outclassed. That result was competitive.

GB and DAL are the playoff posers IMO. DAL is obvious with their .500 record in the worst division in the NFL. GB, when you look at the schedule is also pretty disgusting. They've had three wins against winning teams. They beat us in week 2, DAL in week 5, and KC in week 8. However, I'd be hesitant to annoit them. Our offense wasn't what it is today in week 2. We play that game again today and I like our chances. The KC win was good timing, they got the face KC the first full week of Matt Moore being QB. Lucky Packers...

Come on. Seattle did whatever they wanted to on offense. We were lucky they took it easy on us. They were passing and running at will. For some reason everyone thinks GB is just lucky. I don't get that. If they sit at Lambo they could go all the way. They beat KC who had a backup QB. We couldn't do it. They beat us. The could beat us again. Rodgers will feast on our secondary. But we are SF. Dallas is playoff fodder. Someone from that division will make it. Many posted and I agreed Seattle was winning close games. Winning in overtime. I thought we were a better team. We were well rested. I thought when Harris returned the INT for a TD I said here we go. That's what we needed on the road. Lets bury them. We couldn't hold up. They shredded our secondary. Plus pounded it down our throats. That's what I saw.

[J. Kapp 11]

I don't see it as a no win situation. He can earn a ton by beating a team tonight that probably should have a 1st round home game/bye if not for the NFC East screwing everyone. Or by winning the division. Or a playoff game.

Kirk has done a lot but in my view he still has a lot to prove. We didn't pay the guy $84 million to beat the NFC East, we paid him to win in December and January.

Yes, it's a team game so it's not as binary as wins and losses. But this is an extremely talented roster and I expect a commensurate level of performance. From everyone but especially from the guy we broke the bank for.

I know this has been beaten to death around here, but I look at tonight's game more along the lines of your last sentence than as Cousins needing to prove something. The Vikings broke the bank for a lot of their current roster. All of them, including the coaches, have to step up to the mantle. Tonight is a perfect time to do that.

Of the major concerns I have heading into tonight's game, Cousins isn't one of them. He's played well over the last 7 games for sure, and provided the offensive line protects him adequately tonight, I expect him to play well again.

There it is.

The Vikings are paying Kirk Cousins no more than they're paying other players, respective to the positions they pay.

Take Xavier Rhodes, a $13.3 million cap hit ... and for what? To give up 4-for-4 for 99 yards and a touchdown? Cousins is paid to handle the ball 75 times a game. Rhodes is paid to stop 4 passes, and he can't even stop ONE. Trae Waynes ... a $9 million cap hit for an average corner. That's $22.3 million for our starting CBs, and we're getting torched routinely. Linval Joseph, Mr. Run Stuffer ... $10.2 million, and we get run all over. Riley Reiff is pulling down $11.7 million for incredibly average LT play, often below average. Where is the weeping and gnashing of teeth over those guys?

Instead, we talk about Cousins and his $28 million, and how a 125 rating over 7 games and a 6-1 record isn't good enough. Or two picks over about 400 throws ... and both of those because of Diggs drops. At least that highly paid player is doing his freaking job.

[Dames]

Come on. Seattle did whatever they wanted to on offense. We were lucky they took it easy on us.

I nominate this for the most preposterous statement of the year award. Yep, Seattle really took it easy on us. Thankfully they stopped trying or we'd really be crying today You crack me up Char.

[VikingLord]

Instead, we talk about Cousins and his $28 million, and how a 125 rating over 7 games and a 6-1 record isn't good enough. Or two picks over about 400 throws ... and both of those because of Diggs drops. At least that highly paid player is doing his freaking job.

Cousins played well enough to win I thought. He didn't put the ball on the ground and I don't think the pick was his fault either. While I would have liked to see him go downfield more, he was running the plays as called.

I also thought the offensive line did a good job in pass protection. They had some lapses, but overall kept Cousins clean and gave him time even when Seattle brought extra pressure.

The run blocking was a little less impressive. It seems like defenses have found a way to adjust to the zone blocking schemes and are getting better at limiting the outside runs.

Other than those units, I wasn't impressed with anything else the Vikings did last night. I wasn't impressed by the receivers who kept dropping very catchable passes, I wasn't impressed with the running backs, I wasn't impressed with anyone on the defense aside from Everson Griffen, I wasn't impressed with the coaches, their overall preparation, gameplan, special teams, etc. I thought the entire team was flat and mostly uninspired, and while they did show some fight towards the end, once again, both the offense and defense sputtered when given the chance to turn the game.

This game reminded me of the loss against the Packers earlier in the season. Switch the 1st quarter of that game for the 3rd quarter of last night's game and you have a very similar pattern. Actually, add on the first half against Denver to that, although against Denver the Vikings were able to make a comeback because Denver's offense is that inept.

But to the core of your point - last night can't be pinned on Cousins. He gets another "L" in primetime against an opponent with a winning record, but he was far from the main, second or third reason the team lost.

[StumpHunter]

I know this has been beaten to death around here, but I look at tonight's game more along the lines of your last sentence than as Cousins needing to prove something. The Vikings broke the bank for a lot of their current roster. All of them, including the coaches, have to step up to the mantle. Tonight is a perfect time to do that.

Of the major concerns I have heading into tonight's game, Cousins isn't one of them. He's played well over the last 7 games for sure, and provided the offensive line protects him adequately tonight, I expect him to play well again.

There it is.

The Vikings are paying Kirk Cousins no more than they're paying other players, respective to the positions they pay.

Take Xavier Rhodes, a $13.3 million cap hit ... and for what? To give up 4-for-4 for 99 yards and a touchdown? Cousins is paid to handle the ball 75 times a game. Rhodes is paid to stop 4 passes, and he can't even stop ONE. Trae Waynes ... a $9 million cap hit for an average corner. That's $22.3 million for our starting CBs, and we're getting torched routinely. Linval Joseph, Mr. Run Stuffer ... $10.2 million, and we get run all over. Riley Reiff is pulling down $11.7 million for incredibly average LT play, often below average. Where is the weeping and gnashing of teeth over those guys?

Instead, we talk about Cousins and his $28 million, and how a 125 rating over 7 games and a 6-1 record isn't good enough. Or two picks over about 400 throws ... and both of those because of Diggs drops. At least that highly paid player is doing his freaking job.

What rock are you living under? We have a thread dedicated to benching Rhodes. In that thread people talk about cutting Joseph next season.

Reiff, despite being solid in his entire tenure as a Viking, is consistently brought up as someone who the Vikings cut next year to give us cap space.