Championship Roster

[StumpHunter]

This is where I'm at. No matter how good this team can be, to get deep in the playoffs, you need a QB that can elevate the team when needed. Kirk is not that guy. No matter how good the OL will be, no matter how good the defense might be, Kirk will be Kirk.

Question for those that believe in Cousins. What if the Vikings barely make it over .500 and are one and done in the playoffs this year. He has a "championship roster", rookie QB in CHI, new QB in DET, maybe no Rodgers in GB. Will you still believe in him? Shouldn't this be his "prove it" year for you folks? This is his 10th year in the league. He's 51-51 as a starter. Only one double digit win season. Stafford has 2. At some point, don't you folks have to stop blaming everyone else?

Honestly, I find that a boring road to go down. Kirk will do really well against teams that don't apply a ton of pressure, and against generally average to below average teams. That Vikings have every reason to expect to have a top 10 offense this year. He is who he is and I don't mean for my comments to lead to yet another debate about the merits of Kirk Cousins. I just meant to talk about the Vikings path to winning a super bowl. The defense theoretically can be good enough to get a team with this kind of offense (one that feasts against weaker teams, but doesn't have the ability to rise to the challenge against playoff caliber defenses) to the championship. In order to do so, they'll have to be a really great unit. If it's another reactive Zimmer unit like we've seen in the past, that is playing on their heels and not playing downhill, this team is going nowhere.

In the past 15 years, there have been 5 offenses that weren't top 8 in scoring who have won the SB. Of those 5, 2 had the #1 scoring defense in Pitt and Denver.

The other 3 were the 2007 Giants, 2011 Giants and the 2012 Ravens. The 2007 and 2011 Giants teams had elite pass rushes that dominated in the playoffs. The Giants didn't give up more than 20 points in any of their 8 playoffs games in those SB runs. The Ravens team wasn't elite statistically anywhere, but got the single greatest playoff statistical performance by a QB in the past 15 years.

Those 3 teams are the closest to what we project too statistically on paper and won because they got hot at the right time. My guess is that even with those 3 teams, if you broke down their rosters even more you would probably see teams that under achieved based on their talent during the regular season, and didn't really pull it together until the playoffs.

[VikingsVictorious]

There is reason to be excited about this roster, but I think the defense is going to have to live up to the hype to drag an offense that can't perform well against top defenses over the top. So far, there is no indication that we will have an offense capable of performing against top defenses. Kirk has never been a QB capable of doing that, and there's no reason to believe he finally will be. The OL might be improved, but its not going to be THAT good.

This is where I'm at. No matter how good this team can be, to get deep in the playoffs, you need a QB that can elevate the team when needed. Kirk is not that guy. No matter how good the OL will be, no matter how good the defense might be, Kirk will be Kirk.

Question for those that believe in Cousins. What if the Vikings barely make it over .500 and are one and done in the playoffs this year. He has a "championship roster", rookie QB in CHI, new QB in DET, maybe no Rodgers in GB. Will you still believe in him? Shouldn't this be his "prove it" year for you folks? This is his 10th year in the league. He's 51-51 as a starter. Only one double digit win season. Stafford has 2. At some point, don't you folks have to stop blaming everyone else?

QB is one player out of 53 on a football team. Kirk will do his job very well. If others do their jobs very well we will have success. Simple as that.

[Pondering Her Percy]

This is where I'm at. No matter how good this team can be, to get deep in the playoffs, you need a QB that can elevate the team when needed. Kirk is not that guy. No matter how good the OL will be, no matter how good the defense might be, Kirk will be Kirk.

Question for those that believe in Cousins. What if the Vikings barely make it over .500 and are one and done in the playoffs this year. He has a "championship roster", rookie QB in CHI, new QB in DET, maybe no Rodgers in GB. Will you still believe in him? Shouldn't this be his "prove it" year for you folks? This is his 10th year in the league. He's 51-51 as a starter. Only one double digit win season. Stafford has 2. At some point, don't you folks have to stop blaming everyone else?

QB is one player out of 53 on a football team. Kirk will do his job very well. If others do their jobs very well we will have success. Simple as that.

Agreed. If Case Keenum or Nick Foles can do what they did, there is no reason Cousins cant. It's all about getting hot at the right time. You see that year after year. Look at the Bucs this year. They went into the playoffs as a 5 seed and ran through the playoffs and even embarrassing Mahomes. The Vikings could get into the playoffs as the 1 seed or the 7 seed, doesnt matter. If they are at the top of their game at that point, they can beat anyone.

[VikingLord]

This is where I'm at. No matter how good this team can be, to get deep in the playoffs, you need a QB that can elevate the team when needed. Kirk is not that guy. No matter how good the OL will be, no matter how good the defense might be, Kirk will be Kirk.

Which means what exactly?

What, he'll throw an INT? He'll fumble? He'll what, fail to will a receiver to look the ball all the way in and have it bounce off his hands when it was otherwise a perfect pass that would have produced a first down?

What about the nice deep throw he put where only Thielen could catch it in overtime to in against the Saints in the playoffs? Was that "Kirk being Kirk"? If so, I'll take more of that.

Question for those that believe in Cousins. What if the Vikings barely make it over .500 and are one and done in the playoffs this year. He has a "championship roster", rookie QB in CHI, new QB in DET, maybe no Rodgers in GB. Will you still believe in him? Shouldn't this be his "prove it" year for you folks? This is his 10th year in the league. He's 51-51 as a starter. Only one double digit win season. Stafford has 2. At some point, don't you folks have to stop blaming everyone else?

What if? Are you saying if the Vikings are barely over .500 that's all on Cousins? No contribution to that result from the defense, special teams, coaches, refs, or other offensive players?

I don't "believe" in Cousins per se, but I also don't believe how eager many seem to be to blame him for every failure. He's not Rodgers or Mahomes or Brady or Wilson. So what? Plenty of guys without those names have gotten to and won Superbowls. It's a team game and the team needs to play well to get to and win a Superbowl. That's how guys like Brad Johnson have rings. Nobody can tell me that Kirk Cousins doesn't compare favorably to Brad Johnson, or that if Cousins just plays at this certain level the rest of the team can suck and they'll still be in contention.

Let's just give this "Cousins sucks" stuff a rest. Please. He's not the greatest QB to ever play the game. But he's not the worst either. The only thing that matters, literally the ONLY thing that matters when it comes to evaluating Cousins, is "is he good enough". The answer to that is yes, and nobody, not even the most statistically jaded person, can deny that if the Vikings as a team play well enough, they can win a Superbowl with Cousins at QB.

[Pondering Her Percy]

This is where I'm at. No matter how good this team can be, to get deep in the playoffs, you need a QB that can elevate the team when needed. Kirk is not that guy. No matter how good the OL will be, no matter how good the defense might be, Kirk will be Kirk.

Which means what exactly?

What, he'll throw an INT? He'll fumble? He'll what, fail to will a receiver to look the ball all the way in and have it bounce off his hands when it was otherwise a perfect pass that would have produced a first down?

What about the nice deep throw he put where only Thielen could catch it in overtime to in against the Saints in the playoffs? Was that "Kirk being Kirk"? If so, I'll take more of that.

Question for those that believe in Cousins. What if the Vikings barely make it over .500 and are one and done in the playoffs this year. He has a "championship roster", rookie QB in CHI, new QB in DET, maybe no Rodgers in GB. Will you still believe in him? Shouldn't this be his "prove it" year for you folks? This is his 10th year in the league. He's 51-51 as a starter. Only one double digit win season. Stafford has 2. At some point, don't you folks have to stop blaming everyone else?

What if? Are you saying if the Vikings are barely over .500 that's all on Cousins? No contribution to that result from the defense, special teams, coaches, refs, or other offensive players?

I don't "believe" in Cousins per se, but I also don't believe how eager many seem to be to blame him for every failure. He's not Rodgers or Mahomes or Brady or Wilson. So what? Plenty of guys without those names have gotten to and won Superbowls. It's a team game and the team needs to play well to get to and win a Superbowl. That's how guys like Brad Johnson have rings. Nobody can tell me that Kirk Cousins doesn't compare favorably to Brad Johnson, or that if Cousins just plays at this certain level the rest of the team can suck and they'll still be in contention.

Let's just give this "Cousins sucks" stuff a rest. Please. He's not the greatest QB to ever play the game. But he's not the worst either. The only thing that matters, literally the ONLY thing that matters when it comes to evaluating Cousins, is "is he good enough". The answer to that is yes, and nobody, not even the most statistically jaded person, can deny that if the Vikings as a team play well enough, they can win a Superbowl with Cousins at QB.

Ive made this argument for many years now man. However, there are some out there that have their minds so far made up that there is no going back. It doesnt matter what Cousins does at this point. He will always be the same QB in their eyes.

[StumpHunter]

Kirk Cousins is fine, it is the rest of the team that sucks. We get it.

[StumpHunter]

Which means what exactly?

What, he'll throw an INT? He'll fumble? He'll what, fail to will a receiver to look the ball all the way in and have it bounce off his hands when it was otherwise a perfect pass that would have produced a first down?

Everyone's fault but Kirk's, we get it.

What about the nice deep throw he put where only Thielen could catch it in overtime to in against the Saints in the playoffs? Was that "Kirk being Kirk"? If so, I'll take more of that.

I will take more of that too. The fact it doesn't happen more is the whole point.

What if? Are you saying if the Vikings are barely over .500 that's all on Cousins? No contribution to that result from the defense, special teams, coaches, refs, or other offensive players?

I don't "believe" in Cousins per se, but I also don't believe how eager many seem to be to blame him for every failure. He's not Rodgers or Mahomes or Brady or Wilson. So what? Plenty of guys without those names have gotten to and won Superbowls. It's a team game and the team needs to play well to get to and win a Superbowl. That's how guys like Brad Johnson have rings. Nobody can tell me that Kirk Cousins doesn't compare favorably to Brad Johnson, or that if Cousins just plays at this certain level the rest of the team can suck and they'll still be in contention.

Let's just give this "Cousins sucks" stuff a rest. Please. He's not the greatest QB to ever play the game. But he's not the worst either. The only thing that matters, literally the ONLY thing that matters when it comes to evaluating Cousins, is "is he good enough". The answer to that is yes, and nobody, not even the most statistically jaded person, can deny that if the Vikings as a team play well enough, they can win a Superbowl with Cousins at QB.

Anything is possible, but some fans want to follow the path most probable. Trying to win it all with Cousins is not that since we know the vast majority of SBs are won by QBs significantly better than Cousins and the ones who won it with a lesser QB that QB was making significantly less of the cap than Cousins is making.

[VikingLord]

Which means what exactly?

What, he'll throw an INT? He'll fumble? He'll what, fail to will a receiver to look the ball all the way in and have it bounce off his hands when it was otherwise a perfect pass that would have produced a first down?

Everyone's fault but Kirk's, we get it.

That is a gross distortion of the point being made.

I never said Cousins is blameless when things go wrong. But neither is he solely responsible.

Anything is possible, but some fans want to follow the path most probable. Trying to win it all with Cousins is not that since we know the vast majority of SBs are won by QBs significantly better than Cousins and the ones who won it with a lesser QB that QB was making significantly less of the cap than Cousins is making.

Fine, but "majority" isn't "all".

You know that too.

Cousins gets the heat he gets because of the money he makes, and while I understand that (and he should too), the bottom line remains that the Vikings can get to and win a Superbowl with Cousins.

I was responding primarily to the claim that he's a weak link on the team. The poster I responded to implied that if the Vikings fail to reach a Superbowl it will be because Cousins blew it. I don't agree with that. It is true that Cousins might not elevate the team in critical situations as consistently as we'd all like, but if the team around him plays it's part he also isn't going to be the guy who throws it across his body for a late pick. He's only viewed this way because the rest of the team has often underperformed and literally *needs* a hero QB to pick up the slack. That's an indictment on the rest of the team as much as it is on Cousins, and there are plenty of experienced, well-paid people (GM, coaches, players) who deserve a cut of the failures that have been the end result.

[CharVike]

There is reason to be excited about this roster, but I think the defense is going to have to live up to the hype to drag an offense that can't perform well against top defenses over the top. So far, there is no indication that we will have an offense capable of performing against top defenses. Kirk has never been a QB capable of doing that, and there's no reason to believe he finally will be. The OL might be improved, but its not going to be THAT good.

This is where I'm at. No matter how good this team can be, to get deep in the playoffs, you need a QB that can elevate the team when needed. Kirk is not that guy. No matter how good the OL will be, no matter how good the defense might be, Kirk will be Kirk.

Question for those that believe in Cousins. What if the Vikings barely make it over .500 and are one and done in the playoffs this year. He has a "championship roster", rookie QB in CHI, new QB in DET, maybe no Rodgers in GB. Will you still believe in him? Shouldn't this be his "prove it" year for you folks? This is his 10th year in the league. He's 51-51 as a starter. Only one double digit win season. Stafford has 2. At some point, don't you folks have to stop blaming everyone else?

It's not about blaming it's about what happen. Cousins lost out in SF to the 49ers in the playoffs. He was sacked 6 times. Does anyone know how bad that is? Of course you can say every sack was on Cousins. We had 21 yards rushing. That getting your arse kicked. Cook 9-18. 2 yards a pop don't cut it. What happen to our offense was the OL couldn't block at all. They were smothered against a far superior team on that day. The great Zim D was handed a new one. 186 yards rushing allowed. That's not playing great playoff D. No team will win when a D gives up that type of yardage on the ground. That was a team failure across the board.
Kirk is what he is there is no doubt about that. He is not on a Brady or Rodgers level. That's two HOFers. But he's certainly on par with Jimmy G, Goff, Foles/Wentz, Ryan ect... guys that took their teams to the Super Bowl. I would say he's better. What those guys had was a good team that played great during the playoff run. Their D didn't fold the tent up. They stepped up. Last year Deshaun Watson had a great season and his team won 4 games. Nobody mentions that. He didn't elevate that team. He was a loser. But not one fan except me or the media will say that. This isn't a "championship roster." Yes our D will be improved. Just getting our injured guys back will improve it. Hunter is a beast and sets the tone. At this point I don't see a shut down CB like Rhodes was in his prime. Maybe No 7 will be that again. It's hard to turn the clock back. We have some great skill position players. Irv Smith needs to take a step forward. As everyone has already posted our OL is the biggest question mark. Look at our 3 starters that are set in stone. Ezra? I hate to knock the kid because he's talented and is tough as nails. Our team screwed him over. Right now he's not a very good player. He's learning a new position. How long will that take? Our center Bradbury is one of the worst in the game. O'neil is a fine player and is rated as average. He's good to go. The other two spots is an educated guess and nobody knows who let alone how they will play. I don't call that Championship level. It's rebuild level. And when your OL blows you don't have much of a chance against the top teams that play D. Typically they will blow up a less than average OL. And once that happens it will be a long day regardless of the QB. Of course Bradbury could figure out how to pass block. Ezra could become an average G now and our two rookies could have very good years. I hope it does but I wouldn't bank our season on that like Speilman did. Sure if we needed to plug one rookie in then that's ok. I've seen that work from McDaniel on up to Kalil. We plugged Bradbury in and he blows. It can work that way also. Since we have some CAP maybe Speilman will work out a deal for a decent veteran if one of our guys don't improve or a rookie isn't ready yet.

[VikingsVictorious]

Everyone's fault but Kirk's, we get it.

That is a gross distortion of the point being made.

I never said Cousins is blameless when things go wrong. But neither is he solely responsible.

Anything is possible, but some fans want to follow the path most probable. Trying to win it all with Cousins is not that since we know the vast majority of SBs are won by QBs significantly better than Cousins and the ones who won it with a lesser QB that QB was making significantly less of the cap than Cousins is making.

Fine, but "majority" isn't "all".

You know that too.

Cousins gets the heat he gets because of the money he makes, and while I understand that (and he should too), the bottom line remains that the Vikings can get to and win a Superbowl with Cousins.

I was responding primarily to the claim that he's a weak link on the team. The poster I responded to implied that if the Vikings fail to reach a Superbowl it will be because Cousins blew it. I don't agree with that. It is true that Cousins might not elevate the team in critical situations as consistently as we'd all like, but if the team around him plays it's part he also isn't going to be the guy who throws it across his body for a late pick. He's only viewed this way because the rest of the team has often underperformed and literally *needs* a hero QB to pick up the slack. That's an indictment on the rest of the team as much as it is on Cousins, and there are plenty of experienced, well-paid people (GM, coaches, players) who deserve a cut of the failures that have been the end result.

Cousins gets paid a lot of money. I wonder why. Is it possible he gets paid a lot because he's good? Is Spielman so stupid that he pays a not good QB a lot of money?

[VikingsVictorious]

This is where I'm at. No matter how good this team can be, to get deep in the playoffs, you need a QB that can elevate the team when needed. Kirk is not that guy. No matter how good the OL will be, no matter how good the defense might be, Kirk will be Kirk.

Question for those that believe in Cousins. What if the Vikings barely make it over .500 and are one and done in the playoffs this year. He has a "championship roster", rookie QB in CHI, new QB in DET, maybe no Rodgers in GB. Will you still believe in him? Shouldn't this be his "prove it" year for you folks? This is his 10th year in the league. He's 51-51 as a starter. Only one double digit win season. Stafford has 2. At some point, don't you folks have to stop blaming everyone else?

It's not about blaming it's about what happen. Cousins lost out in SF to the 49ers in the playoffs. He was sacked 6 times. Does anyone know how bad that is? Of course you can say every sack was on Cousins. We had 21 yards rushing. That getting your arse kicked. Cook 9-18. 2 yards a pop don't cut it. What happen to our offense was the OL couldn't block at all. They were smothered against a far superior team on that day. The great Zim D was handed a new one. 186 yards rushing allowed. That's not playing great playoff D. No team will win when a D gives up that type of yardage on the ground. That was a team failure across the board.
Kirk is what he is there is no doubt about that. He is not on a Brady or Rodgers level. That's two HOFers. But he's certainly on par with Jimmy G, Goff, Foles/Wentz, Ryan ect... guys that took their teams to the Super Bowl. I would say he's better. What those guys had was a good team that played great during the playoff run. Their D didn't fold the tent up. They stepped up. Last year Deshaun Watson had a great season and his team won 4 games. Nobody mentions that. He didn't elevate that team. He was a loser. But not one fan except me or the media will say that. This isn't a "championship roster." Yes our D will be improved. Just getting our injured guys back will improve it. Hunter is a beast and sets the tone. At this point I don't see a shut down CB like Rhodes was in his prime. Maybe No 7 will be that again. It's hard to turn the clock back. We have some great skill position players. Irv Smith needs to take a step forward. As everyone has already posted our OL is the biggest question mark. Look at our 3 starters that are set in stone. Ezra? I hate to knock the kid because he's talented and is tough as nails. Our team screwed him over. Right now he's not a very good player. He's learning a new position. How long will that take? Our center Bradbury is one of the worst in the game. O'neil is a fine player and is rated as average. He's good to go. The other two spots is an educated guess and nobody knows who let alone how they will play. I don't call that Championship level. It's rebuild level. And when your OL blows you don't have much of a chance against the top teams that play D. Typically they will blow up a less than average OL. And once that happens it will be a long day regardless of the QB. Of course Bradbury could figure out how to pass block. Ezra could become an average G now and our two rookies could have very good years. I hope it does but I wouldn't bank our season on that like Speilman did. Sure if we needed to plug one rookie in then that's ok. I've seen that work from McDaniel on up to Kalil. We plugged Bradbury in and he blows. It can work that way also. Since we have some CAP maybe Speilman will work out a deal for a decent veteran if one of our guys don't improve or a rookie isn't ready yet.

I disagree with you that we don't have a championship roster. Not one that's a lock to win it all, but one that certainly could. IIRC we finished 4th in offense last year depending on how you measure it, but top 10 for sure. No reason we won't be better this year. Sure we got rookie OLs, but highly drafted ones that I expect to be better than average. With players back and additions our defense should be top 10 easy. Put those together with a little luck and we win it all.

[StumpHunter]

That is a gross distortion of the point being made.

I never said Cousins is blameless when things go wrong. But neither is he solely responsible.

You literally blamed everyone else but Kirk. Not actually saying Kirk is not blameless isn't necessary when you are constantly blaming everyone else but Kirk.

Fine, but "majority" isn't "all".

You know that too.

Cousins gets the heat he gets because of the money he makes, and while I understand that (and he should too), the bottom line remains that the Vikings can get to and win a Superbowl with Cousins.

I was responding primarily to the claim that he's a weak link on the team. The poster I responded to implied that if the Vikings fail to reach a Superbowl it will be because Cousins blew it. I don't agree with that. It is true that Cousins might not elevate the team in critical situations as consistently as we'd all like, but if the team around him plays it's part he also isn't going to be the guy who throws it across his body for a late pick. He's only viewed this way because the rest of the team has often underperformed and literally *needs* a hero QB to pick up the slack. That's an indictment on the rest of the team as much as it is on Cousins, and there are plenty of experienced, well-paid people (GM, coaches, players) who deserve a cut of the failures that have been the end result.

He is the weak link compared to vast majority of SB winning QBs. Starting out with him as our starting QB puts us at a known handicap every year, yet we pay a premium for that handicap.

On top of that, it would be one thing if he were inconsistent against both good and bad teams, like a Matt Stafford is inconsistent. You never know what you are going to get with Matt, which can be a bad thing sometimes when he implodes against a team that he should easily beat, but also a good thing when he gets red hot against a team he has no business playing well against.

Cousins almost never implodes against those bad teams. He is one of the most consistently good QBs against bad teams in the NFL over the past few seasons. That is a very good thing.

Cousins almost never gets hot against a good defense. He is the worst QB in the NFL versus top 10 pass defenses over the past 3 seasons and is 0-11 when facing a defense that ended the season with a top 10 passer rating against. Before you go and blame the defense for those losses, the offense has averaged 15 ppg in those 11 losses. Considering last year 7 of the top 10 passer rating against defenses were in the playoffs and 7 of the 10 were in it the year before, that is an indicator that yes, Cousins is indeed an impediment to winning it all. If your QB sucks against the type of team that makes the playoffs, and you need to beat playoff teams to win the SB, you are not going to win the SB.

So not only are you trying to win a SB with a QB who isn't good enough to compete with the typical SB winning QB, but you are trying to win it all with QB who struggles more than most against the type of teams you have to beat in the playoffs. Even Joe Flacco and Nick Foles needed to get hot and play well in the playoffs to win it all, and Cousins has shown he is incapable of that.

[StumpHunter]

That is a gross distortion of the point being made.

I never said Cousins is blameless when things go wrong. But neither is he solely responsible.



Fine, but "majority" isn't "all".

You know that too.

Cousins gets the heat he gets because of the money he makes, and while I understand that (and he should too), the bottom line remains that the Vikings can get to and win a Superbowl with Cousins.

I was responding primarily to the claim that he's a weak link on the team. The poster I responded to implied that if the Vikings fail to reach a Superbowl it will be because Cousins blew it. I don't agree with that. It is true that Cousins might not elevate the team in critical situations as consistently as we'd all like, but if the team around him plays it's part he also isn't going to be the guy who throws it across his body for a late pick. He's only viewed this way because the rest of the team has often underperformed and literally *needs* a hero QB to pick up the slack. That's an indictment on the rest of the team as much as it is on Cousins, and there are plenty of experienced, well-paid people (GM, coaches, players) who deserve a cut of the failures that have been the end result.

Cousins gets paid a lot of money. I wonder why. Is it possible he gets paid a lot because he's good? Is Spielman so stupid that he pays a not good QB a lot of money?

The same Rick Spielman who spent his second draft pick on a replacement for that QB who he paid a lot of money for and who tried to trade up for Fields?

[CharVike]

Cousins gets paid a lot of money. I wonder why. Is it possible he gets paid a lot because he's good? Is Spielman so stupid that he pays a not good QB a lot of money?

The same Rick Spielman who spent his second draft pick on a replacement for that QB who he paid a lot of money for and who tried to trade up for Fields?

Many don't appreciate Cousins. He'll be gone soon. Then we'll be back to the QB merry go round. Are you longing for Teddy or TJacker or Ponder or Webb or I'll stop there. I could go on and create a much longer list. Think about that group of stiffs. Why would anybody want to relive that. Speilman flushed that 2nd pick down the toilet. We needed OL help. Should have picked another, Kendrick Green C/G, to go with the two he picked. Bring them in and get the competition started. Light a fire under Bradbury. For our team to do the transition correctly deal Cousins. He's worth what Stafford was and IMO more. There are a bunch of teams that need a QB. That would give some fans what the want. The next major project at QB which we have now and the QB merry go round spinning full speed ahead again. Great plan. We will have a new stadium before we make the Super Bowl with that plan.

[StumpHunter]

The same Rick Spielman who spent his second draft pick on a replacement for that QB who he paid a lot of money for and who tried to trade up for Fields?

Many don't appreciate Cousins. He'll be gone soon. Then we'll be back to the QB merry go round. Are you longing for Teddy or TJacker or Ponder or Webb or I'll stop there. I could go on and create a much longer list. Think about that group of stiffs. Why would anybody want to relive that. Speilman flushed that 2nd pick down the toilet. We needed OL help. Should have picked another, Kendrick Green C/G, to go with the two he picked. Bring them in and get the competition started. Light a fire under Bradbury. For our team to do the transition correctly deal Cousins. He's worth what Stafford was and IMO more. There are a bunch of teams that need a QB. That would give some fans what the want. The next major project at QB which we have now and the QB merry go round spinning full speed ahead again. Great plan. We will have a new stadium before we make the Super Bowl with that plan.

Yes, many people don't appreciate paying a QB like he is Aaron Rodgers only for him to have same impact on games as Aaron Brooks.

I don't understand what people are so afraid of when they talk about moving on from Cousins. The Vikings have made the playoffs (as a WC team) once since Cousins got here. Why would we miss that? Heck, the Vikings have only had 1 QB in the history of the franchise who didn't make the playoffs in at least 1 season they started day 1 as the starter. Clearly it isn't hard to find a QB capable of that.

Fans in KC were saying this exact same crap before they moved on from Alex Smith. Same with fans in San Diego. "We could do a lot worse". It isn't the next TJack or Cousins. It is the next TJack or Mahomes or Rodgers or Herbert or Wilson or someone who will actually give us hope. Why would anyone not want that?