Why did Kirk Cousins not play like Tom Brady?

[Pondering Her Percy]

Well the Ravens just traded Joe Flacco to the Broncos. Which goes to show how much confidence Denver has in Case Keenum which is none. This is why I continued to say that signing Cousins was easily our best option last year. Keenum cant be trusted and is a one year wonder. Simple as that. He's simply not a good starting QB. However, I dont think Flacco is good either but definitely better than Case. But I'm starting to think John Elway of all people, has no idea how to assess QBs. Guys think Spielman is bad....look at one of the best QBs to ever play....he doesnt have a clue.


Cant wait to hear the...."lets bring Case back" chants

I knew you'd jump all over this. I really think you're hatred of Keenum far outweighs anyone's of Cousins on here.

lol it's not even close. I dont hate Case Keenum. It's just obvious that Case Keenum isnt a good QB. I dont know why guys continue to fight it. He's been a career backup, has a miracle, luck-driven year, goes to a new team to be the starter and blew like I knew he would. I loved every minute of last season. I was a huge Case Keenum fan at the time. But I also knew in the back of my mind, that it was also too good to be true. There were too many miracle plays that went on. Too much luck flying around Minnesota. And when the offseason hit, I was one of the first ones on here to say, do NOT keep him. This year in Denver and what his future holds right now (going back to being a backup) is exactly why. He's been nothing his entire career. And now continue to be a below average starter to good backup. I mean he just got picked over for another below average starting QB. Mike Zimmer himself said it about Keenum last year.

Zimmer: “You think he can, but it’s just kind of guessing.”

Mike Zimmer on Case Keenum: “Is he the guy that played for the Rams or is he the guy that played for us?”

“He’s got a horseshoe right now,” Zimmer said after Sunday’s 24-7 win over the Rams.

Are those not alarming quotes to anyone or are we just going to say Zimmer doesnt know what a good QB looks like either? I felt the same way Zimmer did, especially when the season ended. Can you trust him? And the answer was.....no. If he actually went and performed in Denver even a little less than similar to what he did here, then I would sit here and say yeah, I was wrong, maybe we made a mistake. But that wasnt the Case. He was who I thought he was. I watched him long enough with the Rams (watch them along with the Vikings every Sunday) and he was brutal.

I have nothing against Case Keenum. I think he's a great guy and a great teammate but I dont think he is a good quarterback. Backup yes. Starter, absolutely not. Whether Kirk Cousins completely flops here or ends up winning 5 SBs, I'm still going to think that Kirk Cousins was the best pure QB of the two by quite a large margin. But if you put the two in front of me and say "you can have Kirk but he will cost a lot more money", I'm pulling the trigger 10 out of 10 times. Guys that think we should have kept Case instead of Cousins is like saying "lets keep Brian Hoyer because he had one miracle year with our team and pass on Matt Stafford in his prime". It's just not something you do.....

[Pondering Her Percy]

I knew you'd jump all over this. I really think you're hatred of Keenum far outweighs anyone's of Cousins on here.

I don't think he hates Keenum. I think he believes that Keenum being a flop in Denver validates the signing of Cousins, when in reality, it makes the signing worse. After all, if a bad QB like Keenum can win on this team, it makes Cousins only winning 8 games that much worse.

I'll address more of your posts soon but no, it doesnt make Cousins winning 8 games that much worse. I said in another post that Cousins played 9 legitimate games this year, 6 being on the road. He played the NFCs 1 seed at home, the 2 seed on the road, the 3 seed on the road and at home, the 5 seed on the road and the 6 seed on the road and the AFCs 2 seed and super bowl champion on the road. And I'll add in the Packers WITH Rodgers both home and on the road. The only NFC playoff team he didnt catch was the Cowboys. That's 9 LEGIT games. Keenum played 4 playoff teams the entire year. He played the AFCs 2 seed on the road, the NFCs 3 seed at home, the 5 seed on the road and the 6 seed on the road. And I'll add that he had a walk in the park with the Aaron Rodgers-LESS Packers.

Point being, the strength of schedule when you look at both years literally isnt even close. Cousins had a 10x tougher road and was expected to repeat the same success and beyond. And to add in, the difference in coordinators was a HUGE difference. That is why I keep saying, just by comparing the records and then judging the QBs by that is about as faulty as it comes. The two biggest differences in the two seasons, both were DRASTICALLY in Keenums favor (the OC and the schedule). And then when you add in the little things like the defense not looking the same, special team woes, Griffen going AWOL, the OGs being drastically worse, etc., Keenum couldnt possibly have had a bigger advantage than what he did.

So again, you cant look at it as "well Case went 13-3 and went to the NFCCG and Kirk went 8-7-1 and missed the playoffs, Keenum was definitely the better bet to keep". It's such an "on the surface" way of looking at things. And let's not forget, if it wasnt for Daniel Carlson, the Vikings would have been in the playoffs. Either way, the two seasons in no way, shape or form are legitimately comparable. Two COMPLETELY different years in more areas than one.

[StumpHunter]

Guys that think we should have kept Case instead of Cousins is like saying "lets keep Brian Hoyer because he had one miracle year with our team and pass on Matt Stafford in his prime". It's just not something you do.....

What does Detroit have to show for going with Matt Stafford? Where is the upside with paying a QB like him over a tenth of the cap?

[StumpHunter]

I don't think he hates Keenum. I think he believes that Keenum being a flop in Denver validates the signing of Cousins, when in reality, it makes the signing worse. After all, if a bad QB like Keenum can win on this team, it makes Cousins only winning 8 games that much worse.

I'll address more of your posts soon but no, it doesnt make Cousins winning 8 games that much worse. I said in another post that Cousins played 9 legitimate games this year, 6 being on the road. He played the NFCs 1 seed at home, the 2 seed on the road, the 3 seed on the road and at home, the 5 seed on the road and the 6 seed on the road and the AFCs 2 seed and super bowl champion on the road. And I'll add in the Packers WITH Rodgers both home and on the road. The only NFC playoff team he didnt catch was the Cowboys. That's 9 LEGIT games. Keenum played 4 playoff teams the entire year. He played the AFCs 2 seed on the road, the NFCs 3 seed at home, the 5 seed on the road and the 6 seed on the road. And I'll add that he had a walk in the park with the Aaron Rodgers-LESS Packers.

Point being, the strength of schedule when you look at both years literally isnt even close. Cousins had a 10x tougher road and was expected to repeat the same success and beyond. And to add in, the difference in coordinators was a HUGE difference. That is why I keep saying, just by comparing the records and then judging the QBs by that is about as faulty as it comes. The two biggest differences in the two seasons, both were DRASTICALLY in Keenums favor (the OC and the schedule). And then when you add in the little things like the defense not looking the same, special team woes, Griffen going AWOL, the OGs being drastically worse, etc., Keenum couldnt possibly have had a bigger advantage than what he did.

So again, you cant look at it as "well Case went 13-3 and went to the NFCCG and Kirk went 8-7-1 and missed the playoffs, Keenum was definitely the better bet to keep". It's such an "on the surface" way of looking at things. And let's not forget, if it wasnt for Daniel Carlson, the Vikings would have been in the playoffs. Either way, the two seasons in no way, shape or form are legitimately comparable. Two COMPLETELY different years in more areas than one.

I will readily concede that Keenum had an easier schedule last year, and had a better OC. Not 5 more wins easier though, and again, this is 5 more wins from a bad QB. A good QB should make an impact, and Cousins just didn’t, or at least he didn’t in a positive way.

I would also say that I don’t think we go as far with Cousins in 2017 as we did with Case. Until he proves otherwise, I don’t see him being able to pull of that comeback against the Saints. Throw a pick and let the Saints back in it like Case did I can see Cousins doing, but not the comeback afterword’s.

[Pondering Her Percy]

I'll address more of your posts soon but no, it doesnt make Cousins winning 8 games that much worse. I said in another post that Cousins played 9 legitimate games this year, 6 being on the road. He played the NFCs 1 seed at home, the 2 seed on the road, the 3 seed on the road and at home, the 5 seed on the road and the 6 seed on the road and the AFCs 2 seed and super bowl champion on the road. And I'll add in the Packers WITH Rodgers both home and on the road. The only NFC playoff team he didnt catch was the Cowboys. That's 9 LEGIT games. Keenum played 4 playoff teams the entire year. He played the AFCs 2 seed on the road, the NFCs 3 seed at home, the 5 seed on the road and the 6 seed on the road. And I'll add that he had a walk in the park with the Aaron Rodgers-LESS Packers.

Point being, the strength of schedule when you look at both years literally isnt even close. Cousins had a 10x tougher road and was expected to repeat the same success and beyond. And to add in, the difference in coordinators was a HUGE difference. That is why I keep saying, just by comparing the records and then judging the QBs by that is about as faulty as it comes. The two biggest differences in the two seasons, both were DRASTICALLY in Keenums favor (the OC and the schedule). And then when you add in the little things like the defense not looking the same, special team woes, Griffen going AWOL, the OGs being drastically worse, etc., Keenum couldnt possibly have had a bigger advantage than what he did.

So again, you cant look at it as "well Case went 13-3 and went to the NFCCG and Kirk went 8-7-1 and missed the playoffs, Keenum was definitely the better bet to keep". It's such an "on the surface" way of looking at things. And let's not forget, if it wasnt for Daniel Carlson, the Vikings would have been in the playoffs. Either way, the two seasons in no way, shape or form are legitimately comparable. Two COMPLETELY different years in more areas than one.

I will readily concede that Keenum had an easier schedule last year, and had a better OC. Not 5 more wins easier though, and again, this is 5 more wins from a bad QB. A good QB should make an impact, and Cousins just didn’t, or at least he didn’t in a positive way.

I would also say that I don’t think we go as far with Cousins in 2017 as we did with Case. Until he proves otherwise, I don’t see him being able to pull of that comeback against the Saints. Throw a pick and let the Saints back in it like Case did I can see Cousins doing, but not the comeback afterword’s.

This is just an agree to disagree situation. The schedule Cousins had was insane compared to Keenum.

As for the playoff game, I would imagine Cousins doesnt make that ridiculous throw that gets picked either that initially put the Saints back in the game....

[Pondering Her Percy]

Guys that think we should have kept Case instead of Cousins is like saying "lets keep Brian Hoyer because he had one miracle year with our team and pass on Matt Stafford in his prime". It's just not something you do.....

What does Detroit have to show for going with Matt Stafford? Where is the upside with paying a QB like him over a tenth of the cap?

Where is the upside of keeping a career backup as your starter? If you had those two guys sitting in front of you with this team, you keep Case over Stafford? That's an easy decision for me. You take that chance that he will get over the hump with a talented team like ours. Just like we did with Cousins. You dont sign a career backup and drastically increase your chances of flushing your window down the drain when you have a shot at one of the better pure passers in the league. Why did the Packers sign Aaron Rodgers for $35 million a year? The Packers havent touched a SB in 8 years with him at the helm. Why did the Falcons pay Matt Ryan $30 million a year, why did the 49ers pay $28 million a year to Jimmy G when he's started like 7 games? Why did Derek Carr get $25 million a year? Or Luck getting $25 million a year? Because the market is all about leverage. If you're a prolific passer in this league, you're going to get paid. That's just how it goes. Keenum is far from a prolific passer and has a pretty brutal history.

[Pondering Her Percy]

Honestly, you and Cliff could both be right. Case might have won more games with his ability to scramble and chemistry with the players. He might also have had the same year here as he did in Denver, although I doubt it since this is a much better team than Denver's. I do agree with you that Case was clearly not the answer long term. The problem is, neither is Cousins, and Cousins cost a lot more.

Again, chemistry?? How did Case have any more "chemistry" than Cousins had given how his WRs performed this year? They had a completely different offensive style. Thats what they had. Case was no more "in sync" with Thielen and Diggs than Cousins was. Probably less in sync given the damage both those WRs did this year. As for Cousins not being the answer, I think that is way too soon to judge. Especially given what happened at OC this year. It's way too early to tell still IMO.

What you are essentially saying here is that the results of the signing are irrelevant to it being a good decision to sign him. That the team could regress in part because of Cousins contract, miss the playoffs every year he is here, and it still would have been a good idea. I think your point is that with Cousins, we are least guaranteed capable QB play, and I would agree that we would. I don't ever see Cousins having the kind of year statistically Case had this year.

The point is, there was nobody out there that was any better. In turn, we have to obviously pick someone. You pick the best player available. The object here is to win a SB. Not worry about what is going to happen in 2022. The Eagles have been BURIED in cap for the past few years but it won them a SB along the way. You put the best possible team together you can. Sure it would be great to have a dynasty like the Pats but that's unbelievably tough to pull off.

For me though, that isn't good enough, and I would give up a couple of years of capable quarterbacking for the chance at greatness, since greatness at QB is what it takes to win it all the vast majority of the time. Plus, the times it hasn't taken greatness at QB, it has required elite play at nearly every other position to overcome a mediocre QB play. Something that will be incredibly difficult to accomplish if we have to let go of good players, because we can't afford to keep them due in large part to the QB's contract.

See thats where you and I see completely different. You cant "give up a couple years of capable quarterbacking for a chance at greatness" because this team you currently have, will be gone by the time the dream QB comes along. You're wasting years. We have the ability to draft a QB any time we want and we could land the next great one at any moment. Kirk Cousins isnt preventing us from doing that. We are still able to go sign FAs and stay above the cap. The thing with you is that he costs "a lot of money". How many teams that go balls deep in free agency actually become successful? Hardly ever. TB and Miami were recent teams that did it and they went nowhere. You build through the draft. And Kirk Cousins has zero effect on the draft. We are sitting at 18 this year. No reason we couldnt move up a few spots and take a QB.

But either way, I still think Cousins can get it done here with the right system in place and the right players in place. Who knows. My brain is fried from the Cousins/Keenum talk though and my fingers are killing me because we have 10 different conversations going on lol. I respect your opinion and you bring a lot to the board. Keep it up with the informative posts Agree to disagree brother.

[StumpHunter]

What does Detroit have to show for going with Matt Stafford? Where is the upside with paying a QB like him over a tenth of the cap?

Where is the upside of keeping a career backup as your starter? If you had those two guys sitting in front of you with this team, you keep Case over Stafford? That's an easy decision for me. You take that chance that he will get over the hump with a talented team like ours. Just like we did with Cousins. You dont sign a career backup and drastically increase your chances of flushing your window down the drain when you have a shot at one of the better pure passers in the league. Why did the Packers sign Aaron Rodgers for $35 million a year? The Packers havent touched a SB in 8 years with him at the helm. Why did the Falcons pay Matt Ryan $30 million a year, why did the 49ers pay $28 million a year to Jimmy G when he's started like 7 games? Why did Derek Carr get $25 million a year? Or Luck getting $25 million a year? Because the market is all about leverage. If you're a prolific passer in this league, you're going to get paid. That's just how it goes. Keenum is far from a prolific passer and has a pretty brutal history.

If I had Matt Stafford and Case sitting in front of me as my options as Vet QBs, I don't take either and draft a QB.

Also, I don't know if that window is still open. I hope I am wrong, but barring another draft like we had in 2015, I don't know how this team stays as good as last year, let alone gets better.

Agreed that you have to take chances at QB to get greatness there. Disagree that is what we did. I think Rick knew exactly what Cousins was, and thought that was good enough to keep him employed. Not win a SB, not even win a playoff game, but keep him getting pay checks. Signing Matt Stafford or Kirk Cousins to massive contracts isn't taking a chance, it is the opposite. It is holding onto a mediocre QB in Matt Staffords case, in order to not have to start over, or signing a slightly above average loser in our case in order to not have to start over.

Let me ask you this, would you rather have Haskins on a rookie contract next season, or Kirk Cousins? Be looking at 15 years of possible greatness at QB, or be looking at 2 more years of overpriced QB play that might get us a playoff birth? I know what would make 2019 a much more enjoyable season to watch for me. Instead I get to watch yet another Vikings season with yet another band-aid at QB.

[VikingLord]

Let me ask you this, would you rather have Haskins on a rookie contract next season, or Kirk Cousins? Be looking at 15 years of possible greatness at QB, or be looking at 2 more years of overpriced QB play that might get us a playoff birth? I know what would make 2019 a much more enjoyable season to watch for me. Instead I get to watch yet another Vikings season with yet another band-aid at QB.

A rookie QB as a starter on a veteran team that otherwise has high expectations?

I don't know about that. I see what you're saying but at the same time, sometimes slow and steady wins the race, especially if the team is overall sound. Many teams have won Superbowls with merely competent QB play, and many teams have not won one despite outstanding QB play.

I agree with you that Spielman knew exactly what he was getting when he signed Cousins. I also think Spielman thought he'd have a much better offensive line than he ended up with. He couldn't foresee what happened with injuries there, but he did cut it a little close in terms of depth and that is on him. I also don't think Spielman could have foreseen the impact the death of the OL coach would have, and it seems that did have some impact. If the Vikings went into the season with the offensive line play I think they had reason to expect going into the season, the outcome could have been different.

Not to say better QB is not valuable. It is, and if you can find it, that is great. In fact, we just have to look at the year Rodgers was drafted to see why. Tice passed him up twice in the first round for what turned out to be marginal and speculative need picks. So I agree with you that if a QB is there at #18 that is a great prospect, Spielman would be foolish to pass on him (no pun intended).

Is Haskins that guy? That's harder to tell for me. I don't see the next Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers in this draft, but what do I know?

[Pondering Her Percy]

If I had Matt Stafford and Case sitting in front of me as my options as Vet QBs, I don't take either and draft a QB.

But you're just continuing to prove my point. We were picking 30th last year. Outside of Lamar Jackson, we weren't in position to draft a QB. And to be honest, I wouldn't want Lamar Jackson. Bottom line is, we pretty much had to choose Cousins, Case, Teddy or Bradford last year. So your choice wasn't really an option.

Also, I don't know if that window is still open. I hope I am wrong, but barring another draft like we had in 2015, I don't know how this team stays as good as last year, let alone gets better.

I wouldn't see why it's not open. It's not like we are losing a bunch of big name players if any at all. Guys like Hunter, Cook, Kendricks, Thielen, Diggs, Harris, Waynes, Alexander, Hughes, etc. aren't getting worse. If anything they will be better.

Agreed that you have to take chances at QB to get greatness there. Disagree that is what we did. I think Rick knew exactly what Cousins was, and thought that was good enough to keep him employed. Not win a SB, not even win a playoff game, but keep him getting pay checks. Signing Matt Stafford or Kirk Cousins to massive contracts isn't taking a chance, it is the opposite. It is holding onto a mediocre QB in Matt Staffords case, in order to not have to start over, or signing a slightly above average loser in our case in order to not have to start over.

I completely disagree with Spielmans intentions of signing Cousins. He did it because he was the best option out there. Was there a QB out there that would win him a SB that he had a shot at?? If anyone, Cousins. Surely not Teddy or Bradford and Case was a giant mystery of inconsistency. So what was he expected to do?? He took a shot at the best of the bunch. And I'd do it over again if I was him. The point is, there was no other options out there that were "hey, this guy could definitely bring a SB here" that he passed on. So your assumption of how Spielman looked at it, is 100% false.

Let me ask you this, would you rather have Haskins on a rookie contract next season, or Kirk Cousins? Be looking at 15 years of possible greatness at QB, or be looking at 2 more years of overpriced QB play that might get us a playoff birth? I know what would make 2019 a much more enjoyable season to watch for me. Instead I get to watch yet another Vikings season with yet another band-aid at QB.

For one, I see Haskins as another Cam Newton/Jameis Winston. A great athlete that has too many inconsistencies in his game to ever get it done. If anything, I take Jones And what is Spielman suppose to do right now other than possibly draft a QB early? Cut Kirk Cousins? He can't given his contract. So regardless of how you think Spielman should be doing his job, Kirk Cousins is our QB next year. Who is behind him is where the mystery is. If anyone I take Drew Lock. Then probably Jones. Jones remind me a lot of Josh Allen. Good athlete but still wonder about the overall passing aspect of his game. Then I would say Haskins followed by Murray. But I think Lock is the best QB in the class. I'm not opposed to us taking Lock to groom. But Kirk Cousins isn't going anywhere and I still believe that Kirk Cousins can do big things with this team.

[Pondering Her Percy]

A rookie QB as a starter on a veteran team that otherwise has high expectations?

I don't know about that. I see what you're saying but at the same time, sometimes slow and steady wins the race, especially if the team is overall sound. Many teams have won Superbowls with merely competent QB play, and many teams have not won one despite outstanding QB play.

This.

[S197]

Repost from Reddit but meme was too good.

[StumpHunter]

A rookie QB as a starter on a veteran team that otherwise has high expectations?

I don't know about that. I see what you're saying but at the same time, sometimes slow and steady wins the race, especially if the team is overall sound. Many teams have won Superbowls with merely competent QB play, and many teams have not won one despite outstanding QB play.

This.

What are the examples of "slow and steady winning the race" (in this case paying a QB that has never won more than 9 games in a season 84 million guaranteed)?

I look at the list of QBs who have won the SB, and in the modern era teams have won with three types of QBs: Ones they drafted (the majority), QBs who were hurt and the team took a chance on them (Brees and Manning), and journeymen carried by an all time great defense (Dilfer and Johnson).

It seems like the blue print for success in the NFL is not to go out and get the best FA QB possible. In fact, that is almost always the worst possible solution.

[Pondering Her Percy]

FWIW, Founder of OverTheCap’s tweet when asked who the top 5 GMs in the league are:

“In no particular order Roseman, Belichick, Schneider, Spielman, and Snead”

[StumpHunter]

FWIW, Founder of OverTheCap’s tweet when asked who the top 5 GMs in the league are:

“In no particular order Roseman, Belichick, Schneider, Spielman, and Snead”

The Bradford trade, Ponder, Patterson, Barr over Donald and a horrible Oline every year versus, finding Diggs in the 5th, Hunter and Griff in the 4th, trading Harvin for a 1st, and trading up for Smith.

There has been some good, but to me the bad at key positions far outweighs it. If we have to add Cousins to the bad decisions column I don't know how anyone could justify he is even an above average GM.