Vikings Message Board.Com

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:45 pm A lot of interesting takes in this thread. My two favorite:
1. Tom Brady isn't good under pressure.

and

2. The difference between Brady and Cousins is system.

Here are the 2 biggest reasons Cousins will never be as good as Brady:

1. He does not read the field as quickly as Brady, and takes way to long to pass the ball.

and

2. When Brady plays great teams he steps up his game, when Cousins does, he wilts under the pressure.

There are a lot of other reasons he will never be as good, but those are the big ones and easiest for any fan to see.

The Giants took care of Brady in both SBs. So you could say Brady wilted in both those games. The Pats had the better team but the Giants hit Brady and he wilted under pressure as you say The Pats also play in a BS division that doesn't have a decent QB in it. So the division is there's every year in a cake walk. Brady should be the highest paid player by a long shot but Blake Bortels makes more. Who the heck is Bortels? Brady hurts other players by taking a scrum deal.

In my mind, there are THREE levels of QB:

1. One that makes any team he plays on better.

2. One that helps a good team meet their potential (keeps a good team good, or a bad team bad)

3. One that makes any team he's on worse.

Which level is Brady, Cousins, Keenum?

CharVike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:28 pm

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:45 pm A lot of interesting takes in this thread. My two favorite:
1. Tom Brady isn't good under pressure.

and

2. The difference between Brady and Cousins is system.

Here are the 2 biggest reasons Cousins will never be as good as Brady:

1. He does not read the field as quickly as Brady, and takes way to long to pass the ball.

and

2. When Brady plays great teams he steps up his game, when Cousins does, he wilts under the pressure.

There are a lot of other reasons he will never be as good, but those are the big ones and easiest for any fan to see.

The Giants took care of Brady in both SBs. So you could say Brady wilted in both those games. The Pats had the better team but the Giants hit Brady and he wilted under pressure as you say The Pats also play in a BS division that doesn't have a decent QB in it. So the division is there's every year in a cake walk. Brady should be the highest paid player by a long shot but Blake Bortels makes more. Who the heck is Bortels? Brady hurts other players by taking a scrum deal.

Outliers don't prove the norm, the norm proves the norm. The norm for Brady is him winning at least one playoff game every year but 3 since in 2001. So even outside the "BS division", against playoff caliber teams, he wins consistently. 30-10 in the playoffs.

The norm for Cousins is he plays his worst football against playoff teams. 5-25 versus playoff teams, 0-1 in the playoffs.

As for the contract, Brady took less because it opens up more cap for his teammates to make more, and it makes it easier for the Pats to win it all. The best run team in the NFL understands that paying the QB too much money, hurts your chances at winning it all. One of the worst run franchises, Jacksonville, overpaid their QB.

Which one do you think we should have emulated?

VikeFanInEagleLand wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:49 pm In my mind, there are THREE levels of QB:

1. One that makes any team he plays on better.

2. One that helps a good team meet their potential (keeps them good)

3. One that makes any team he's on worse.

Which level is Brady, Cousins, Keenum?

Brady is 1

Keenum has been able to be #2, but is typically #3.

The verdict is still out on Cousins. He has yet to keep a good team good, but I also don't think he has proven he makes the teams he is on worse.

VikeFanInEagleLand wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:49 pm In my mind, there are THREE levels of QB:

1. One that makes any team he plays on better.

2. One that helps a good team meet their potential (keeps them good)

3. One that makes any team he's on worse.

Which level is Brady, Cousins, Keenum?

That's a tough one to answer. Obviously Brady is considered the best ever. Would he lead us to the Super Bowl? Or the Lions? I doubt it. Keenum is a career backup. Look what he done for Denver. He still is a backup. Cousins? Certainly not close to Rodgers. But I think he is the 2nd best in our division. So he can keep a good team good. Or a bad team bad. Not much of a difference maker.

CharVike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:28 pm

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 1:45 pm A lot of interesting takes in this thread. My two favorite:
1. Tom Brady isn't good under pressure.

and

2. The difference between Brady and Cousins is system.

Here are the 2 biggest reasons Cousins will never be as good as Brady:

1. He does not read the field as quickly as Brady, and takes way to long to pass the ball.

and

2. When Brady plays great teams he steps up his game, when Cousins does, he wilts under the pressure.

There are a lot of other reasons he will never be as good, but those are the big ones and easiest for any fan to see.

The Giants took care of Brady in both SBs. So you could say Brady wilted in both those games. The Pats had the better team but the Giants hit Brady and he wilted under pressure as you say The Pats also play in a BS division that doesn't have a decent QB in it. So the division is there's every year in a cake walk. Brady should be the highest paid player by a long shot but Blake Bortels makes more. Who the heck is Bortels? Brady hurts other players by taking a scrum deal.

Tom Brady is 6-3 in Super Bowls. That means he has been to NINE... yet he somehow wilts under pressure?

PurpleMustReign wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:23 pm

CharVike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:28 pm
The Giants took care of Brady in both SBs. So you could say Brady wilted in both those games. The Pats had the better team but the Giants hit Brady and he wilted under pressure as you say The Pats also play in a BS division that doesn't have a decent QB in it. So the division is there's every year in a cake walk. Brady should be the highest paid player by a long shot but Blake Bortels makes more. Who the heck is Bortels? Brady hurts other players by taking a scrum deal.

Tom Brady is 6-3 in Super Bowls. That means he has been to NINE... yet he somehow wilts under pressure?

It was stated he never wiltst. Yes he does. He and his coach have been lucky in that the division has been pathetic for a long time. Name one big time QB that division has had since BB has been there. It is and always will be a QB driven league. Yes some teams win with a dominate D. But those Ds don't come around very often. Ravens won it and the D scored many points. They didn't need an offense. Look it up. And as I said Brady taking a crap deal hurts other players. Let me make up a schedule for BB and he won't even be .500. And his players will take a beating which makes it even more difficult as it goes. Even Rodgers deal is crap. He plays on a 4 win talented team. You can string that together on nothing. He's worth 70 million a year easily and probably more. It's a one man show. He turns a loser into a contender. No other QB can do that including Cousins. But I like Cousins especially when you look at the bums we have had since Tark. We've had nothing. D Green thought we had a star in Cunningham. He was never a star and I was shouting at the TV back in 98 to get that bum out of there, We had Johnson sitting there and he was ready. Johnson also was maybe average but a much better player than RC ever was and why he has a ring. The only coach since I've been watching this game that could win it all with an average/below average QB was Gibbs. He did it several times including beating us in the Champ game on Nelsons drop with a bum at QB. And Wison by no means was he a great QB. Less than average but had a few outlier seasons.

CharVike wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:21 pm

VikeFanInEagleLand wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:49 pm In my mind, there are THREE levels of QB:

1. One that makes any team he plays on better.

2. One that helps a good team meet their potential (keeps them good)

3. One that makes any team he's on worse.

Which level is Brady, Cousins, Keenum?

That's a tough one to answer. Obviously Brady is considered the best ever. Would he lead us to the Super Bowl? Or the Lions? I doubt it. Keenum is a career backup. Look what he done for Denver. He still is a backup. Cousins? Certainly not close to Rodgers. But I think he is the 2nd best in our division. So he can keep a good team good. Or a bad team bad. Not much of a difference maker.

I wouldn't consider Brady top 10. He's the best in this era, but he wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes in the 70s, 80s, or early 90s. We wouldn't remember his name. The trouble is, this is a soft and pathetic era, the easiest era for QB play in the history of football. To be fair, a Joe Kapp, a Terry Bradshaw wouldn't be able to play today, but the position required a broad array of skills and attributes, including incredible toughness and durability. Having arm talent, reading a defense, and stepping up into the pocket wasn't all you needed to succeed. Thus the 'Golden Era' of QB play, which is a complete joke.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:49 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:00 am 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.

You can go down the line with just about any GM in the NFL and you’re going to find that.

When Donald was coming out, he was viewed as a good DT prospect but not on the level of Suh coming out. Donald came out in 2014, we drafted Floyd in 2013 and he had a promising rookie year. We also signed Joseph in 2014 to play NT. Donald was legit coming out, but nobody knew he would ever be THIS good. He was your “run of the mill” top 15 pick DT in 2014.

Yeah Ponder pick was terrible. So was just about every QB that year outside of Newton and Dalton, who neither IMO are great either. Whether it was Gabbert, Locker, Ponder or even Dalton, this team still wouldn’t have a SB right now.

I have mixed feelings on the Bradford trade. Spielman messed up relying on Shaun Hill as a backup that year (in a sense). You had a young QB in teddy so you put a vet backup behind him never thinking an injury of that degree would happen. You then lose teddy but have a loaded roster. You try to save the season by trading for Bradford. Granted his injury history was awful but he did play that whole season. We started 5-0 with Bradford and all looked good until we crapped the bed. However that was far from all being because of Sam Bradford. Either we soaked a losing season with Shaun Hill or gave it a shot with Bradford. If teddy suffered that injury in week 7, Spielman wouldn’t have made that trade IMO. But we would’ve had to go all season with hill in this case. I don’t think it was a great trade in the long run of course, but in a way I gotta give it to him for at least taking a chance on saving the season. I always thought Bradford was a very talented QB but just couldn’t stay healthy. So if you’re looking at a pure talent standpoint, it’s a smart trade. But yeah it couldn’t have cost us a QB the following year. But again, Deshaun Watson was the only one. And he went before we would have at #12. A trade that Houston made. So Houston would have jumped us regardless and we would have missed out. And there was nothing the rest of that draft. So did it really cost us from a QB standpoint? No. To be honest, many players drafted around 14th (our pick) were fairly weak for first round picks looking at it now. So how much did it really cost us in the end?

Patterson, huge mistake. Hopkins was there during the two picks we had before. I literally did 3 different mocks that year and had us taking Hopkins in every one. I was and still am a huge Hopkins fan. I personally think he’s the best overall WR in the nfl. Granted we got Rhodes at 25 but Floyd at 23. We didn’t have anything for DTs leading up to that and Floyd was “suppose” to go top 5. Clearly he was high on our board. We had a massive need to DT, you wouldn’t pull the trigger on Floyd if he fell to 23 and was so high on our board? He fell due to character concerns and short arms. Not because of injuries. I wouldn’t be surprised if he never ended up getting nerve damage from a meniscus surgery, he’d still be our starting 3 tech. Pete Prisco called him the 2nd best player in the draft that year. I was always impressed with Floyd but injuries ended up taking a toll.

OL, yes he should have been assessing this a lot earlier than he did in the draft. I personally think his worst move (outside of Ponder) was the Carlson signing. I don’t have a clue what he was thinking there.

But in the end, we had a dumpster for a roster after the 2013 season. He’s done an excellent job since then IMO. Of course we could nitpick things but overall, it’s been very solid IMO. Especially compared to other GMs.

Snead’s job was on the line a few years ago until he turned it around. Roseman looked like a genius drafting Wentz, had a good few drafts but the eagles weren’t anything special until last year. And his drafts the last two years have been pretty “meh”. By him trading for Wentz it drastically affected the last few drafts. Granted they won a SB but not because of Wentz. If it wasn’t for foles, I don’t know if they would’ve made the playoffs this year and I personally don’t even thing Foles is good. He’s like a Keenum, good in the right system. Ryan Grigson was once considered one of the better GMs in the league which was a joke. They had a horrid year when manning went down and it happened to be the year luck was coming out. If you don’t draft luck at #1, you’re a moron. He then showed how awful he was and was fired a year or so ago.

Point is, you can nitpick a lot of GMs out there. But from a pure talent standpoint and what you’re bringing in, he’s done pretty well since he took over in 2012. Better than a lot of GMs out there I will say that. I’ve always been a Spielman fan. He’s made some dumb moves but he’s made some great ones. That harvin trade landed us Rhodes. I could go on. We’re all gonna have our opinions and I respect yours. I just personally like Spielman as a GM. There are some things I want him to do better such as OL but overall, I think he’s solid

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:23 am

I have mixed feelings on the Bradford trade. Spielman messed up relying on Shaun Hill as a backup that year (in a sense). You had a young QB in teddy so you put a vet backup behind him never thinking an injury of that degree would happen. You then lose teddy but have a loaded roster. You try to save the season by trading for Bradford. Granted his injury history was awful but he did play that whole season. We started 5-0 with Bradford and all looked good until we crapped the bed. However that was far from all being because of Sam Bradford. Either we soaked a losing season with Shaun Hill or gave it a shot with Bradford. If teddy suffered that injury in week 7, Spielman wouldn’t have made that trade IMO. But we would’ve had to go all season with hill in this case. I don’t think it was a great trade in the long run of course, but in a way I gotta give it to him for at least taking a chance on saving the season. I always thought Bradford was a very talented QB but just couldn’t stay healthy. So if you’re looking at a pure talent standpoint, it’s a smart trade. But yeah it couldn’t have cost us a QB the following year. But again, Deshaun Watson was the only one. And he went before we would have at #12. A trade that Houston made. So Houston would have jumped us regardless and we would have missed out. And there was nothing the rest of that draft. So did it really cost us from a QB standpoint? No. To be honest, many players drafted around 14th (our pick) were fairly weak for first round picks looking at it now. So how much did it really cost us in the end?

Its not an accurate assumption to say it was either trade for Bradford or start Hill. They could have traded for a player such as Case Keenum for far less draft capital. Also not accurate to assume we would have #12 pick if Hill started all season. We may have been 8-8, 10-6, or 3-13. This was unquestionably Spielman's worst moment as a GM. You can slam him for only having Shaun Hill on the roster AND for panicking and trading the farm for a middling journeyman QB. Both criticisms are just and fair. The 'could have drafted player x' or 'player y didn't work out and he should have known' type of criticisms are pretty silly for the most part, and apply to literally every GM in every sport throughout history. A guy like Matt Millen made such a habit of picking misses that such a criticism has validity, but its not a fair criticism of Spielman who has found his fair share of diamonds.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:23 am
You can go down the line with just about any GM in the NFL and you’re going to find that.

When Donald was coming out, he was viewed as a good DT prospect but not on the level of Suh coming out. Donald came out in 2014, we drafted Floyd in 2013 and he had a promising rookie year. We also signed Joseph in 2014 to play NT. Donald was legit coming out, but nobody knew he would ever be THIS good. He was your “run of the mill” top 15 pick DT in 2014.

He missed on HOF talent for a guy who will only give us 5 years. That is inexcusable.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:23 am Yeah Ponder pick was terrible. So was just about every QB that year outside of Newton and Dalton, who neither IMO are great either. Whether it was Gabbert, Locker, Ponder or even Dalton, this team still wouldn’t have a SB right now.

Here is an idea, how about not drafting a QB that year then? Also, it seems like you might be implying sometimes it isn't always the best move to get the best QB available, and that mediocrity at QB (Dalton) can be worse for your team than just outright bad.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:23 am
I have mixed feelings on the Bradford trade. Spielman messed up relying on Shaun Hill as a backup that year (in a sense). You had a young QB in teddy so you put a vet backup behind him never thinking an injury of that degree would happen. You then lose teddy but have a loaded roster. You try to save the season by trading for Bradford. Granted his injury history was awful but he did play that whole season. We started 5-0 with Bradford and all looked good until we crapped the bed. However that was far from all being because of Sam Bradford. Either we soaked a losing season with Shaun Hill or gave it a shot with Bradford. If teddy suffered that injury in week 7, Spielman wouldn’t have made that trade IMO. But we would’ve had to go all season with hill in this case. I don’t think it was a great trade in the long run of course, but in a way I gotta give it to him for at least taking a chance on saving the season. I always thought Bradford was a very talented QB but just couldn’t stay healthy. So if you’re looking at a pure talent standpoint, it’s a smart trade. But yeah it couldn’t have cost us a QB the following year. But again, Deshaun Watson was the only one. And he went before we would have at #12. A trade that Houston made. So Houston would have jumped us regardless and we would have missed out. And there was nothing the rest of that draft. So did it really cost us from a QB standpoint? No. To be honest, many players drafted around 14th (our pick) were fairly weak for first round picks looking at it now. So how much did it really cost us in the end?

Uh, "mixed feelings"? How could anyone have mixed feelings about a trade that cost us any chance of drafting a franchise QB we desperately needed in 2017 (KC moved up from 27 to get Mahomes, it would have cost us far less to move up from 14, not to mention we could have easily had a worse record with Hill starting). A trade that gave valuable assets to the team that kept us out of the Super Bowl in 2018. All for an 8-8 season from a QB WHO WAS NEVER GOOD IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER. Healthy, hurt, it didn't matter. Bradford sucked hard statistically, while losing games. There is 0 argument for him being a good QB. None.

Trades aren't judged on intentions, they are judged on results, and the results were as bad as you could possibly imagine.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:23 am But in the end, we had a dumpster for a roster after the 2013 season. He’s done an excellent job since then IMO. Of course we could nitpick things but overall, it’s been very solid IMO. Especially compared to other GMs.

An excellent job? He was a big part of the reason we were a dumpster fire in 2013. Right now he has the 2017 season where he put together a SB caliber roster(minus the QB). That's it. 2015 was solid, but that team was never going to win it all with what we had at WR and on the Oline. 2018 he either made a horrible decision at QB, and the team he built outside of the QB was very good, or he put together a .500 team around a QB who doesn't make the team better. Neither of those options make him an excellent GM.

Mediocre at best.

https://vikingsterritory.com/2019/gener ... th-cousins

Great read and exactly what I’ve been preaching on here. How Keenum had more of a “lucky” year than anything and that in no way shape or form was he the “better option”. Also that the OL was considerably worse this year, especially at the G position

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:45 am https://vikingsterritory.com/2019/gener ... th-cousins

Great read and exactly what I’ve been preaching on here. How Keenum had more of a “lucky” year than anything and that in no way shape or form was he the “better option”. Also that the OL was considerably worse this year, especially at the G position

Keenum not having success in Denver by no means makes the Cousins signing a success.

It also doesn't mean that this franchise wouldn't be better off having a QB making 18 million this year (most of it not guaranteed), who might barely win 8 games, rather than a QB making 29 million, all of it guaranteed, who barely won 8 games.

Nothing any of the QBs available in 2018 do will make signing Cousins the right decision. What Cousins does for the Vikings will make the signing the right or wrong decision, and so far, what he has done has not justified the signing. Until he wins, the move to sign him was a bad move.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:05 am

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:45 am https://vikingsterritory.com/2019/gener ... th-cousins

Great read and exactly what I’ve been preaching on here. How Keenum had more of a “lucky” year than anything and that in no way shape or form was he the “better option”. Also that the OL was considerably worse this year, especially at the G position

Keenum not having success in Denver by no means makes the Cousins signing a success.

It also doesn't mean that this franchise wouldn't be better off having a QB making 18 million this year (most of it not guaranteed), who might barely win 8 games, rather than a QB making 29 million, all of it guaranteed, who barely won 8 games.

Nothing any of the QBs available in 2018 do will make signing Cousins the right decision. What Cousins does for the Vikings will make the signing the right or wrong decision, and so far, what he has done has not justified the signing. Until he wins, the move to sign him was a bad move.

I wouldn’t say Cousins “barely won 8 games”. He did win 8 games. 9 if we had a kicker. The point is, case wouldn’t have touched 8 games IMO. And I’m not the only one that believes that. Saying the cousins signing is a bad move right now, is premature. To repeat the success of last year given the schedule, is way harder than many think. Nor were our losses solely on cousins. 9 legit games compared to Keenums 4 last year....Keenum wasn’t winning 8 games this year. Not even close IMO. I don’t think he beats Philly. He got blown out by the jets and 49ers (no jimmy G) this year in Denver, and I don’t think he’s beating or even getting a tie vs GB. Even Detroit is a question mark with him. I mean given Arizona, New York and SF, I would hope he could squeeze out a win or two. The rest are a complete toss up with him. I’d say he’d have around 4-5 wins max if he was our QB this year

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 11:41 pm

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:05 am

Keenum not having success in Denver by no means makes the Cousins signing a success.

It also doesn't mean that this franchise wouldn't be better off having a QB making 18 million this year (most of it not guaranteed), who might barely win 8 games, rather than a QB making 29 million, all of it guaranteed, who barely won 8 games.

Nothing any of the QBs available in 2018 do will make signing Cousins the right decision. What Cousins does for the Vikings will make the signing the right or wrong decision, and so far, what he has done has not justified the signing. Until he wins, the move to sign him was a bad move.

I wouldn’t say Cousins “barely won 8 games”. He did win 8 games. 9 if we had a kicker. The point is, case wouldn’t have touched 8 games IMO. And I’m not the only one that believes that. Saying the cousins signing is a bad move right now, is premature. To repeat the success of last year given the schedule, is way harder than many think. Nor were our losses solely on cousins. 9 legit games compared to Keenums 4 last year....Keenum wasn’t winning 8 games this year. Not even close IMO. I don’t think he beats Philly. He got blown out by the jets and 49ers (no jimmy G) this year in Denver, and I don’t think he’s beating or even getting a tie vs GB. Even Detroit is a question mark with him. I mean given Arizona, New York and SF, I would hope he could squeeze out a win or two. The rest are a complete toss up with him. I’d say he’d have around 4-5 wins max if he was our QB this year

You're right, Case would have won 13 IMO. The Cousins signing WAS and IS bad news, after one year, and his history in WAS, its easy for an objective fan to see IMO. You hatred of Case is unbelievable. What did he ever do to you? You sure liked him when he was winning here IMO.