Vikings vs Panthers

[ERIK the PURPLE]

Classic Viking win over the Panthers. I still remember years ago we opened with the Panthers and were a heavy favorite at home. It turned out to be the Panthers only win that year.
Anyway, I literally gave up after the muffed punt and texted on the game chat that I was done and would be back in 2021. Shame on me. As a true Viking fan, I have to watch until the bitter end. Although living in Indiana, I was pleasantly surprised to pick up KFAN online and listen to the game. Maybe it’s a Covid thing, but I don’t recall getting their game feed in the past.
I too believe Zimmer is running Cook into the ground. We should rest Dalvin’s ankle next week against Jacksonville and have him healthy for Tampa Bay. I see 9-7 and somehow making the postseason as a real possibility. Too bad we blew the Seattle, Titans, and Cowboy games. SKOL, brothers.

[Frozen Rope]

All I know is Kirk has 12 TDs and 1 INT (which was on a Thielen drop) in the last 5 weeks and we are 4-1 in that time span. Nearly 5-0 if it wasnt for a defensive collapse vs. Dallas.

I'm starting to think a lot of this rough start was based on a few different things:

1.) Cousins chemistry with this receiving group having a limited offseason. You could tell in the first few games he was force feeding Thielen because 1.) Jefferson was hardly out there and 2.) The options behind Thielen were slim. Cousins isnt one to throw many picks and no matter what anyone thinks of him, he is a pretty darn accurate QB. The abundance of INTs didnt make any sense early on. He looked like a shell of himself and I feel like a lot of that was due to the lack of chemistry he had with some of these guys early on and the lack of offseason.

2.) Zimmer was calling his defense of old and not realizing he no longer has the veterans that could do what was asked. He had to make some massive adjustments and you really saw that take place after the bye. This defense still struggles but has massively improved since early on in the year.

3.) The change at RG. I mean Jones wasnt good today, but he was still much better than Samia. I'm still baffled as to why Samia ever once got the starting nod. Hell I've hardly seen Oli Udoh play and I'd give him the nod over Samia. Clearly they recognize it now because with Cleveland out, they start Brett Jones instead. But my question is, what the hell took you so long to realize that Zim? Cleveland should have been starting from day 1. But as I've mentioned before, this is classic Zim with his rookie draft picks.

I will say, this rookie class has looked excellent.

-Jefferson has taken the league by storm.
-Gladney has been excellent the last few weeks and is also a superb tackler.
-Cleveland has made a massive difference in the OL play and hopefully he is back soon.
-Dantzler has been out for quite a few games but the ones he has played in lately he has looked solid. He is also a sure tackler.
-Wonnum has been an animal over the last few weeks.
-I'm still a James Lynch fan and still think he needs more playing time. I could see him at worst becoming the Tom Johnson type that is just a solid pass rushing DT.
-I thought Dye has done okay as of late given the limited role. That's the Gedeon role and granted you dont see the flashy plays from that spot but I feel like he has held his own
-I even liked what I saw from Harrison Hand in limited play time. I'd like to see him get some burn over Harris although I think Harris has done well in coverage (tackling, not so much)

I mean that alone right there is a massive chunk of our draft class and so far, I dont see a bust within the first 5 rounds. It's still early, but Spielman might have very well knocked this one out of the park. And we also have double digit picks coming next year.

Great post PHP. A couple of things to add to your analysis. In their first nine seasons, Kirk is now #1 in qbs who have passed for 300yds, 3TD passes and a QB rating of 115. He has done it 16 times, surpassing Rogers and Brees who have 15. Nice to see his ratio of TD’s to INT evening out. It’s now 23-11 and at least 2 of those picks were Hail Mary’s. As you said, the chemistry is getting better with his receivers. Great video of Thieland at home going crazy along with us on that last drive. We’ve got some weak spots but that O-line protected Kirk well on that last drive. Hope Cleveland is a go next week. What a difference maker he is. And lastly, as someone else stated, rest Cook. He is beat up.

[Cliff]

I'm starting to think a lot of this rough start was based on a few different things

Good post, PHP. I snipped it because it's quoted above and the sentence is mostly what I'm responding to anyway. I don't want to get too far into the weeds on specific players. I view your post as the "bright side" and as the team has won 4 of their last 5 games there is reason for optimism but I can't help but be skeptical of their success. Honestly, it looks just like so many other years. The Vikings are "the best of the average" teams. Which is also how I feel about Kirk but again, don't want to get too far into the weeds.

For me, it's not a matter of players coming together or Zimmer figuring out how to call a less experienced defense but rather the quality of opponent dropped off. The Vikings have one win against a team with a winning record (Packers).

First 5 games:

Packers (8-3) - Loss
Colts (7-4) - Loss
Titans (8-3) - Loss
Texans (4-7) - Win
Seahawks (7-3) - loss

Last 5 games (all of which also happen to be pretty non-ball-hawking):

Packers (8-3) - Win
T-9th least INTs (7)

Bears (5-6) - Win
T-6th least INTs of any team (6)

Lions (4-7) - Win
T-9th least INTs of any team (7)

Cowboys (3-8) - Loss
3rd least INTs (4)

Panthers (4-8) - Win
4th least INTs (5)

[S197]

I share the same sentiment Cliff. It's why I say we're stuck in purgatory. Management always seems to do just enough to keep an ember of hope alive. The Vikings are not a bad team, they never were, if you're a fan that's happy with a team making it to the playoffs 50% of the time, then you're probably really content. Especially now with the new format with an extra team. If you're a fan that feels it's championship or bust, not so much.

We're always on the verge of "next year looks optimistic" only to have it not pan out that way. Maybe they're on the verge of breaking the pattern, but after six years, it's definitely a pattern.

[StumpHunter]

I'm starting to think a lot of this rough start was based on a few different things

Good post, PHP. I snipped it because it's quoted above and the sentence is mostly what I'm responding to anyway. I don't want to get too far into the weeds on specific players. I view your post as the "bright side" and as the team has won 4 of their last 5 games there is reason for optimism but I can't help but be skeptical of their success. Honestly, it looks just like so many other years. The Vikings are "the best of the average" teams. Which is also how I feel about Kirk but again, don't want to get too far into the weeds.

For me, it's not a matter of players coming together or Zimmer figuring out how to call a less experienced defense but rather the quality of opponent dropped off. The Vikings have one win against a team with a winning record (Packers).

First 5 games:

Packers (8-3) - Loss
Colts (7-4) - Loss
Titans (8-3) - Loss
Texans (4-7) - Win
Seahawks (7-3) - loss

Last 5 games (all of which also happen to be pretty non-ball-hawking):

Packers (8-3) - Win
T-9th least INTs (7)

Bears (5-6) - Win
T-6th least INTs of any team (6)

Lions (4-7) - Win
T-9th least INTs of any team (7)

Cowboys (3-8) - Loss
3rd least INTs (4)

Panthers (4-8) - Win
4th least INTs (5)

Plus, this team is a few plays away from being a 1 win team. Two passes off the fingertips of WRs for go ahead Tds(Chicago and Houston), a missed PI call(GB) and a missed FG in this past game or we are sitting at 1-10 right now.

Bottom line, what you have to ask yourself is what part of the season defines a team? The one where they are playing a bunch of playoff teams and getting beat or the one where they are playing a bunch of bad teams and squeaking out wins?

[VikingLord]

I share the same sentiment Cliff. It's why I say we're stuck in purgatory. Management always seems to do just enough to keep an ember of hope alive. The Vikings are not a bad team, they never were, if you're a fan that's happy with a team making it to the playoffs 50% of the time, then you're probably really content. Especially now with the new format with an extra team. If you're a fan that feels it's championship or bust, not so much.

We're always on the verge of "next year looks optimistic" only to have it not pan out that way. Maybe they're on the verge of breaking the pattern, but after six years, it's definitely a pattern.

Spielman is a gambler. He took quite a few risks this offseason along with Zimmer to reset things, especially on the defensive side of the ball, and they've also had to deal with some unexpected circumstances (e.g. nobody expected Hunter to be out for the season). Obviously, it's been an odd year for every NFL team with the pandemic and sometimes key players sitting out, so that isn't an excuse, but you make those wholesale changes like the Vikings did and with no offseason program to get things in sync they end up having to do a lot of that during the early part of the season unfortunately.

Does that offer a viable alternative to the "quality of opponent" argument? I think it does. For example, you can't point at the Packers as a low quality opponent. Sure, you can say the Vikings got a few breaks in that win, and they did, but they also played pretty well, away, against a team that had been eating their lunch for a few games in a row. I thought it was an impressive win myself.

And while the other "low quality" opponents have struggled and have had their own run of bad luck this year, it's hard to argue they're incapable of competing. Take the Cowboys as an example. That team took the undefeated Steelers to the wire and was coming of their bye. The Bears have a bad offense, yes, but their defense has also eaten the Vikings for breakfast for several games in a row now, and it's never easy to win in Chicago, especially for Zimmer and the Vikings. The Lions and Panthers are pretty average teams, but both have shown some punch at times and all have decent weapons on offense and defense.

I'm not arguing the Vikings are a great team or playoff bound or whatever. I saying they made some bold offseason moves that required (and I emphasize that word - required) a full offseason program to have any chance of hitting the ground running. They didn't get that offseason.

But based on the development they've shown to this point, there are real reasons to be optimistic about the team's future. Spielman's 2020 draft class has outperformed my wildest expectations. In a given year I'd be ecstatic to see a single player from the previous draft make an impact. This last draft class has several who are already making substantial, consistent impacts. That alone is reason to be optimistic.

Go further though. The key guys on this team, many of whom have gotten decent criticism over the years (in many cases deserved) have bucked those criticisms. Maybe not completely, but they've stepped up. Cook, for example, struggled to stay on the field. He's had some issues but for the most part he's been an integral part of the offense. Cousins had a really rough start, not wholly due to his play, but also because the offensive line was awful on the interior. They have improved that as well, and Cousins has shown when he gets time he can make plays. Defensively it's been a struggle and I think it will likely continue to be a struggle, but against the Panther's late, the defense got two key stops that gave the offense a chance to win.

I don't know what the ceiling of this team is. This year I still think it's relatively low. They could make the playoffs, but more than likely they'll come up just a bit short and to many that will be par for the course.

But I think that with the youth movement that took place over this season coupled with keeping the core of the team in place heading into next season, this is going to be a team to be reckoned with next year. I like what I'm seeing for progression even if right now it looks like more of the same. I don't think it is, but that will only become clear with more time.

I'd love to see it happen yet this year. I think it could, although the chances of that are pretty small.

[S197]

I share the same sentiment Cliff. It's why I say we're stuck in purgatory. Management always seems to do just enough to keep an ember of hope alive. The Vikings are not a bad team, they never were, if you're a fan that's happy with a team making it to the playoffs 50% of the time, then you're probably really content. Especially now with the new format with an extra team. If you're a fan that feels it's championship or bust, not so much.

We're always on the verge of "next year looks optimistic" only to have it not pan out that way. Maybe they're on the verge of breaking the pattern, but after six years, it's definitely a pattern.

Spielman is a gambler. He took quite a few risks this offseason along with Zimmer to reset things, especially on the defensive side of the ball, and they've also had to deal with some unexpected circumstances (e.g. nobody expected Hunter to be out for the season). Obviously, it's been an odd year for every NFL team with the pandemic and sometimes key players sitting out, so that isn't an excuse, but you make those wholesale changes like the Vikings did and with no offseason program to get things in sync they end up having to do a lot of that during the early part of the season unfortunately.

Does that offer a viable alternative to the "quality of opponent" argument? I think it does. For example, you can't point at the Packers as a low quality opponent. Sure, you can say the Vikings got a few breaks in that win, and they did, but they also played pretty well, away, against a team that had been eating their lunch for a few games in a row. I thought it was an impressive win myself.

And while the other "low quality" opponents have struggled and have had their own run of bad luck this year, it's hard to argue they're incapable of competing. Take the Cowboys as an example. That team took the undefeated Steelers to the wire and was coming of their bye. The Bears have a bad offense, yes, but their defense has also eaten the Vikings for breakfast for several games in a row now, and it's never easy to win in Chicago, especially for Zimmer and the Vikings. The Lions and Panthers are pretty average teams, but both have shown some punch at times and all have decent weapons on offense and defense.

I'm not arguing the Vikings are a great team or playoff bound or whatever. I saying they made some bold offseason moves that required (and I emphasize that word - required) a full offseason program to have any chance of hitting the ground running. They didn't get that offseason.

But based on the development they've shown to this point, there are real reasons to be optimistic about the team's future. Spielman's 2020 draft class has outperformed my wildest expectations. In a given year I'd be ecstatic to see a single player from the previous draft make an impact. This last draft class has several who are already making substantial, consistent impacts. That alone is reason to be optimistic.

Go further though. The key guys on this team, many of whom have gotten decent criticism over the years (in many cases deserved) have bucked those criticisms. Maybe not completely, but they've stepped up. Cook, for example, struggled to stay on the field. He's had some issues but for the most part he's been an integral part of the offense. Cousins had a really rough start, not wholly due to his play, but also because the offensive line was awful on the interior. They have improved that as well, and Cousins has shown when he gets time he can make plays. Defensively it's been a struggle and I think it will likely continue to be a struggle, but against the Panther's late, the defense got two key stops that gave the offense a chance to win.

I don't know what the ceiling of this team is. This year I still think it's relatively low. They could make the playoffs, but more than likely they'll come up just a bit short and to many that will be par for the course.

But I think that with the youth movement that took place over this season coupled with keeping the core of the team in place heading into next season, this is going to be a team to be reckoned with next year. I like what I'm seeing for progression even if right now it looks like more of the same. I don't think it is, but that will only become clear with more time.

I'd love to see it happen yet this year. I think it could, although the chances of that are pretty small.

Let's set aside the quality of opponent argument for now as that was one made by someone else.

There are a number of people who are of the opinion this is a rebuilding year. Some may argue reloading but at the end of the day, the message is this sort of season is to be expected.

The problem I have with this assumption is if we were going into this season with eyes wide open that we're laying the foundation for the future, why trade a 2nd and change for a Yannick rental? That doesn't sound like a GM who thinks this is a rebuild year. It sounds like a GM who rather largely miscalculated the direction this season would go.

Moreover, if an offseason was REQUIRED then why draft 15 rookies? By the time the draft rolled around it was abundantly clear there would be no offseason.

This is the haphazard approach Spielman uses that irks me. He preaches building through the draft and yet chucks draft picks into the abyss (Bradford, Vedvik, Yannick). In a "next man up" league he never has any sort of contingency at QB. Is that gambling? Or is he shortsighted?

There are always going to be risks that are unknown and circumstances beyond ones control. But he should have absolutely have seen the huge loss of veteran experience and the looming pandemic well before he made key decisions this year.

[psjordan]

The problem I have with this assumption is if we were going into this season with eyes wide open that we're laying the foundation for the future, why trade a 2nd and change for a Yannick rental? That doesn't sound like a GM who thinks this is a rebuild year.

Sure it does, if you look at it through a different lens. My take was always that yes, they obviously realized they lost a ton of DB experience and may have to start two rookies. As soon as the Hunter injury became threatening, they knew they needed a pass rusher to help the rookie DB's. Yannick was the best around, so Rick did what he had to do. In the big scheme, it became apparent sooner rather than later that it was not going to work out long-term, so he got what he could for they guy. While I wish the sequence had not happened that way, I can't throw stones at the thought process. I'm 100% sure the trade was done to help the secondary once it became apparent DH was not playing.

Moreover, if an offseason was REQUIRED then why draft 15 rookies? By the time the draft rolled around it was abundantly clear there would be no offseason.

Again, maybe they thought this was an EXCEPTIONAL year for the draft. They DO in fact rank the drafts going out two, three, even four years. Maybe they had 2020 down as a "9 out of 10" draft back in 2018/2019. Who knows. But I am sure everyone involved in the NFL realized that even if the pandemic lasts 1-2 full seasons, scrimping on draft picks in 2020 was probably not a reasonable response. The reasonable response is to get as much talent as you can, even if it takes an extra year to develop.

This is the haphazard approach Spielman uses that irks me. He preaches building through the draft and yet chucks draft picks into the abyss (Bradford, Vedvik, Yannick). In a "next man up" league he never has any sort of contingency at QB. Is that gambling? Or is he shortsighted?

I understand the "QB situation" is a major hot button all Vikes fans. But it's also a major hot button for about 2/3's of the league at any given time. "When will WE get our franchise QB Rick?!?" is a common thought/theme. But really, when a large portion of the league whiffs at QB's on a regular basis I can't throw too many stones. Sure, Rick's had enough time to logically have hit on at least a decent QB in the draft, but IMO he's done that with Cousins. But it's not like we've been drafting top-5 in the first round and whiffed on the QB spot. The perennial "midpack" finish each season keeps us out of the running for those guys.

And in today's NFL, no matter what fans think of Kirk, he's simply not a horrible or even bad QB. He's in the top half for sure (where he actually would rank I have no idea).

I'd love to have the Vikes hire a young, smarter-than-most GM and HC. And then have their first act to get ahold of our franchise QB for the next 12 years. This would defy all NFL probabilities and simply is not going to happen.

In the big scheme of the real, current world, I see Zim and staff as a five-factor larger problem than Rick.

And I'm not necessarily stumping to fire Zim. It's just that to me, our mediocrity is WAY more to do with coaching than talent.

[CharVike]

Spielman is a gambler. He took quite a few risks this offseason along with Zimmer to reset things, especially on the defensive side of the ball, and they've also had to deal with some unexpected circumstances (e.g. nobody expected Hunter to be out for the season). Obviously, it's been an odd year for every NFL team with the pandemic and sometimes key players sitting out, so that isn't an excuse, but you make those wholesale changes like the Vikings did and with no offseason program to get things in sync they end up having to do a lot of that during the early part of the season unfortunately.

Does that offer a viable alternative to the "quality of opponent" argument? I think it does. For example, you can't point at the Packers as a low quality opponent. Sure, you can say the Vikings got a few breaks in that win, and they did, but they also played pretty well, away, against a team that had been eating their lunch for a few games in a row. I thought it was an impressive win myself.

And while the other "low quality" opponents have struggled and have had their own run of bad luck this year, it's hard to argue they're incapable of competing. Take the Cowboys as an example. That team took the undefeated Steelers to the wire and was coming of their bye. The Bears have a bad offense, yes, but their defense has also eaten the Vikings for breakfast for several games in a row now, and it's never easy to win in Chicago, especially for Zimmer and the Vikings. The Lions and Panthers are pretty average teams, but both have shown some punch at times and all have decent weapons on offense and defense.

I'm not arguing the Vikings are a great team or playoff bound or whatever. I saying they made some bold offseason moves that required (and I emphasize that word - required) a full offseason program to have any chance of hitting the ground running. They didn't get that offseason.

But based on the development they've shown to this point, there are real reasons to be optimistic about the team's future. Spielman's 2020 draft class has outperformed my wildest expectations. In a given year I'd be ecstatic to see a single player from the previous draft make an impact. This last draft class has several who are already making substantial, consistent impacts. That alone is reason to be optimistic.

Go further though. The key guys on this team, many of whom have gotten decent criticism over the years (in many cases deserved) have bucked those criticisms. Maybe not completely, but they've stepped up. Cook, for example, struggled to stay on the field. He's had some issues but for the most part he's been an integral part of the offense. Cousins had a really rough start, not wholly due to his play, but also because the offensive line was awful on the interior. They have improved that as well, and Cousins has shown when he gets time he can make plays. Defensively it's been a struggle and I think it will likely continue to be a struggle, but against the Panther's late, the defense got two key stops that gave the offense a chance to win.

I don't know what the ceiling of this team is. This year I still think it's relatively low. They could make the playoffs, but more than likely they'll come up just a bit short and to many that will be par for the course.

But I think that with the youth movement that took place over this season coupled with keeping the core of the team in place heading into next season, this is going to be a team to be reckoned with next year. I like what I'm seeing for progression even if right now it looks like more of the same. I don't think it is, but that will only become clear with more time.

I'd love to see it happen yet this year. I think it could, although the chances of that are pretty small.

Let's set aside the quality of opponent argument for now as that was one made by someone else.

There are a number of people who are of the opinion this is a rebuilding year. Some may argue reloading but at the end of the day, the message is this sort of season is to be expected.

The problem I have with this assumption is if we were going into this season with eyes wide open that we're laying the foundation for the future, why trade a 2nd and change for a Yannick rental? That doesn't sound like a GM who thinks this is a rebuild year. It sounds like a GM who rather largely miscalculated the direction this season would go.

Moreover, if an offseason was REQUIRED then why draft 15 rookies? By the time the draft rolled around it was abundantly clear there would be no offseason.

This is the haphazard approach Spielman uses that irks me. He preaches building through the draft and yet chucks draft picks into the abyss (Bradford, Vedvik, Yannick). In a "next man up" league he never has any sort of contingency at QB. Is that gambling? Or is he shortsighted?

There are always going to be risks that are unknown and circumstances beyond ones control. But he should have absolutely have seen the huge loss of veteran experience and the looming pandemic well before he made key decisions this year.

contingency at QB -- Lets see. the best GM in football history based on Super Bowls is Bill B. That Pats had the best QB ever based on winning the ultimate goal but he was getting old by football standards. Certainly Bill had a contingency. He looked in the hole and it was empty. How could he allow that? So he signed a former MVP Super Bowl QB for nothing. It looks like a great signing at this point. They are still in the hunt. They won last week with Cam's 80 yards passing. Some fans here wanted Cam. IMO he was never an elite passer. One great year. I don't see Bill winning another Super Bowl with this guy and Bill's the best ever. I don't see them making the playoffs. That was the great GM contingency plan. Bill Walsh is the only guy who ever got it right. HOFer starting and a young HOFer in the hole. That was pre CAP. The Packers did the same thing with Farve and Rodgers. Rick failed with the contingency. But I don't see a future HOFer available or even a good QB available. The NFL needs QBs. With the CAP you can't afford that any more. I wanted Lock in the draft but Rick picked Bradbury. We needed a center but the QB hole was and still is empty. Your right there is no contingency at this point.

[S197]

Sure it does, if you look at it through a different lens. My take was always that yes, they obviously realized they lost a ton of DB experience and may have to start two rookies. As soon as the Hunter injury became threatening, they knew they needed a pass rusher to help the rookie DB's. Yannick was the best around, so Rick did what he had to do. In the big scheme, it became apparent sooner rather than later that it was not going to work out long-term, so he got what he could for they guy. While I wish the sequence had not happened that way, I can't throw stones at the thought process. I'm 100% sure the trade was done to help the secondary once it became apparent DH was not playing.

If the thought process was to help the DB's, which is certainly plausible, then why trade him away in less than a month? Like you said, it became apparent very quick that things weren't going to work out and that points to some form of dysfunction. He was relatively productive here particularly after getting a few games under his belt so I don't think it was a schematic issue. It's really hard to not knock a GM when he trades for a guy and then trades him away a month later for a lower pick. That's a lot of egg on your face.

Again, maybe they thought this was an EXCEPTIONAL year for the draft. They DO in fact rank the drafts going out two, three, even four years. Maybe they had 2020 down as a "9 out of 10" draft back in 2018/2019. Who knows. But I am sure everyone involved in the NFL realized that even if the pandemic lasts 1-2 full seasons, scrimping on draft picks in 2020 was probably not a reasonable response. The reasonable response is to get as much talent as you can, even if it takes an extra year to develop.

Maybe. But if that's the reasonable response then surely there would be copycats. Did anyone else trade down for that many picks? You also need a trade partner to do said trade downs, so there were a lot of teams actively willing to part with picks this year. So either Rick is smarter than 31 other GM's or it wasn't a very good strategy.

I understand the "QB situation" is a major hot button all Vikes fans. But it's also a major hot button for about 2/3's of the league at any given time. "When will WE get our franchise QB Rick?!?" is a common thought/theme. But really, when a large portion of the league whiffs at QB's on a regular basis I can't throw too many stones. Sure, Rick's had enough time to logically have hit on at least a decent QB in the draft, but IMO he's done that with Cousins. But it's not like we've been drafting top-5 in the first round and whiffed on the QB spot. The perennial "midpack" finish each season keeps us out of the running for those guys.

You misunderstand me. My gripe isn't that he hasn't found a franchise QB, although that's a whole other issue. My gripe is that he doesn't even try. You can go all the way back to Favre and since that time, Rick has never drafted a QB to groom. Outside of UDFA's and the very rare 7th rounder he runs with his guy and absolutely no contingency. Sure he'll draft a Ponder or Bridgewater when there's basically no one at the helm but that's not a contingency plan, that's panic. And it leads to poor draft picks like Ponder.

What's ironic about this is Cousins is the absolute embodiment of Rick's failure. Cousins was a mid-round pick that was taken as a contingency. He wasn't drafted in Washington to be a starter. RG3 was the starter and the Redskin's gave up a ton to trade up to get him. But even though they had that much faith in RG3, they still took Cousins as a contingency. That's smart drafting. Not having QB1, washed out journeyman #2, and UDFA from Montana Technical Institute as QB3. That's Rick's MO for over a decade. It's hard to find a franchise QB, it's even harder when you don't try.

[S197]

Let's set aside the quality of opponent argument for now as that was one made by someone else.

There are a number of people who are of the opinion this is a rebuilding year. Some may argue reloading but at the end of the day, the message is this sort of season is to be expected.

The problem I have with this assumption is if we were going into this season with eyes wide open that we're laying the foundation for the future, why trade a 2nd and change for a Yannick rental? That doesn't sound like a GM who thinks this is a rebuild year. It sounds like a GM who rather largely miscalculated the direction this season would go.

Moreover, if an offseason was REQUIRED then why draft 15 rookies? By the time the draft rolled around it was abundantly clear there would be no offseason.

This is the haphazard approach Spielman uses that irks me. He preaches building through the draft and yet chucks draft picks into the abyss (Bradford, Vedvik, Yannick). In a "next man up" league he never has any sort of contingency at QB. Is that gambling? Or is he shortsighted?

There are always going to be risks that are unknown and circumstances beyond ones control. But he should have absolutely have seen the huge loss of veteran experience and the looming pandemic well before he made key decisions this year.

contingency at QB -- Lets see. the best GM in football history based on Super Bowls is Bill B. That Pats had the best QB ever based on winning the ultimate goal but he was getting old by football standards. Certainly Bill had a contingency. He looked in the hole and it was empty. How could he allow that?

Bill B actually proves my point quite well. The Patriots had Tom Brady, the GOAT, and they drafted Jimmy G and Jacoby Brissett who both went on to start for other teams. So it's ridiculous to compare the Patriots and Vikings in terms of contingency planning. Ultimately they didn't need either of them but that's the point of a contingency plan, they're there in case things go south. Luckily for them Brady stayed healthy and they weren't needed but they were there in the event something happened (and they recouped picks by trading them away). Who do we have? Mannion? The 7th rounder from Iowa? It's not even comparable. The Patriots are struggling this year but we've had a decade of QB's walking in and out the door. You would think a GM who sees this, and especially since two of them were due to injury, would take the QB position a little more seriously. Even if you think Cousins is amazing, injuries are a part of football.

The Packers are also trying to repeat what they did with Favre/Rodgers with Love. So it's possible in the modern NFL, two of the more successful franchises have shown that to be true.

[J. Kapp 11]

And in today's NFL, no matter what fans think of Kirk, he's simply not a horrible or even bad QB. He's in the top half for sure (where he actually would rank I have no idea).

ESPN, using their idiotic and highly subjective "Total QBR," currently has Cousins ranked 17th. There is a long list of reasons I disagree with that assessment.

Let's start with a notable list of players they have ranked ahead of Cousins.
• Drew Brees, 3rd (see below)
• Dak Prescott, 4th (um ... he's on IR)
• Ryan Tannehill, 5th (seriously?)
• Ryan Fitzpatrick, 9th (again, seriously?)
• Derek Carr, 10th (questionable at best)
• Teddy Bridgewater, 12th (well THAT theory got shot all to hell with Sunday's game, but ESPN is sticking with it)
• Tom Brady, 13th (see below)
• Baker Mayfield, 16th (OK, now we're just getting silly)

Now let's address a couple of these, plus a couple other interesting rankings.

Drew Brees
Yeah, the Saints have a great record. But they're now 7-0 over the past two years in games that Brees HASN'T played, so how much of that is Brees and how much of that is the talent around him? Brees can't throw downfield anymore, and he has one of the top dual-threat players in the NFL at his disposal in Alvin Kamara, who makes Brees look really good in the passing game. Also, their defense wins a lot of games for them.

Tom Brady
Brady may be the GOAT, but he is clearly not the QB he once was. And with Bruce "No Risk It No Biscuit" Ariens calling a bunch of downfield throws that Brady can't make anymore, Brady has been borderline awful at times.

Ben Roethlisberger
Ranked one spot behind Cousins at 18th. I'm not kidding. Ben Roethlisberger, QB of the 10-0 Pittsburgh Steelers, with 24 TDs and 5 picks, is ranked 18th.

Lamar Jackson
Ranked 21st. At least they got this one right.

Cousins' poor start hurt him in rankings like these. Over the past 5 games, he would have to rank right up there with Mahomes and Rodgers in terms of his play. IMO, he should be ranked ahead of all the quarterbacks on that list, which would put him at 9th. However, we all know that ESPN will NEVER rank Kirk Cousins in the Top 10 of NFL quarterbacks.

[Frozen Rope]

And in today's NFL, no matter what fans think of Kirk, he's simply not a horrible or even bad QB. He's in the top half for sure (where he actually would rank I have no idea).

ESPN, using their idiotic and highly subjective "Total QBR," currently has Cousins ranked 17th. There is a long list of reasons I disagree with that assessment.

Let's start with a notable list of players they have ranked ahead of Cousins.
• Drew Brees, 3rd (see below)
• Dak Prescott, 4th (um ... he's on IR)
• Ryan Tannehill, 5th (seriously?)
• Ryan Fitzpatrick, 9th (again, seriously?)
• Derek Carr, 10th (questionable at best)
• Teddy Bridgewater, 12th (well THAT theory got shot all to hell with Sunday's game, but ESPN is sticking with it)
• Tom Brady, 13th (see below)
• Baker Mayfield, 16th (OK, now we're just getting silly)

Now let's address a couple of these, plus a couple other interesting rankings.

Drew Brees
Yeah, the Saints have a great record. But they're now 7-0 over the past two years in games that Brees HASN'T played, so how much of that is Brees and how much of that is the talent around him? Brees can't throw downfield anymore, and he has one of the top dual-threat players in the NFL at his disposal in Alvin Kamara, who makes Brees look really good in the passing game. Also, their defense wins a lot of games for them.

Tom Brady
Brady may be the GOAT, but he is clearly not the QB he once was. And with Bruce "No Risk It No Biscuit" Ariens calling a bunch of downfield throws that Brady can't make anymore, Brady has been borderline awful at times.

Ben Roethlisberger
Ranked one spot behind Cousins at 18th. I'm not kidding. Ben Roethlisberger, QB of the 10-0 Pittsburgh Steelers, with 24 TDs and 5 picks, is ranked 18th.

Lamar Jackson
Ranked 21st. At least they got this one right.

Cousins' poor start hurt him in rankings like these. Over the past 5 games, he would have to rank right up there with Mahomes and Rodgers in terms of his play. IMO, he should be ranked ahead of all the quarterbacks on that list, which would put him at 9th. However, we all know that ESPN will NEVER rank Kirk Cousins in the Top 10 of NFL quarterbacks.

Dead on Kapp!

[fiestavike]

I have been wondering whether the decision by Michael Pierce to opt out this season left the team without enough depth at a key position to execute the transition to a cover 3 which so many speculated about before the season. It's supposed to be a much simpler scheme for young secondary pieces in terms of mental processing and a lot of the moves the vikings made in the off season pointed toward possibly making that transition.

[S197]

I don't know how ESPN does their rankings and I'm honestly not a huge fan but I think it's tough to rank a QB by the numbers. I think if Cousins played every game like he played against Carolina, then sure the numbers make sense. But even if you go back to Dallas, I mean he's throwing 2-yard screens and Cook is taking it 50-yards to the house. I think over a 4-game span Cook had something like 750+ all purpose yards, which is pretty crazy.

So maybe guys like Brees are ranked too high and a lot of that may be reputational but my gut feeling is that ranking for Cousins isn't that far off. I think he should be pushed up a bit but I don't think he's in the top 10.