Vikings Message Board.Com

Mothman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:12 pm

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:02 pm

Why?

Sports reporting is based on a bunch of speculation and intentional leaks that could be truth or outright lies.

One good reason: it fits with what we've seen over the years from Brady, Belichick and Kraft and it also fits with subsequent events.

Beside, not only is Garoppolo not a great QB at this point in his career, he definitely wasn't a great QB at the time he was traded. A second round pick for a player with his level of experience and accomplishment at the time of the trade was a fair deal. NE spent the 62nd pick in R2 to draft Garoppolo in 2017 and received what ended up as the 43rd pick in the 2018 draft. Plus, they played in 3 more Super Bowls with Brady at QB and won 2 of them. Not bad.

It absolutely does not fit. That is the most secretive organization in sports. Hearing anything about what is actually going on behind the scenes and who Bellicheck likes at QB is as unlikely as Bellicheck wearing a collared shirt on the sidelines.

VikingLord wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:49 am

CharVike wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:31 am Your one of those that thinks it's all QB.

No, I'm one that thinks if one aspect of a very talented offense is being taken away the other aspect has to compensate for it. The 49ers removed the running game as a factor, so that put the ball in Cousins' hands and the passing game and he couldn't get it done. Same thing that happened in the 2nd game against the Packers and earlier in the first loss to the Bears.

Look, I understand the claim that it doesn't all come down to the QB, specifically for the Vikings, Cousins. I get that. I agree with that. Football is a team game and there is a defense and an offense and each has to carry its own water.

What I don't get is why defenses obviously target shutting down the Vikings run game and want to force Cousins to beat them. This is consistent. This isn't one opponent doing it one time - it happened in the 3 lopsided losses listed above.

And it highlights the flaw in saying Cousins isn't the problem. He's not the problem because he's a bad QB. He's a good QB. He's talented. He's capable of making the big plays to win games. And on occasion, he does make them. No, the flaw in saying Cousins isn't the problem is that he doesn't do that often enough. When a defense takes away the run game, if the offense can't compensate with the pass game, then that is when you start to see historically poor performances of things like 7 first downs in multiple games. Cousins is a huge part of that result. He's the guy taking the snaps and who has to get the ball out accurately and on time. Yeah, he might be under pressure often. He might not have wide open guys. But he has to be able to compensate for that or it won't happen and he doesn't do that very often or consistently. Defenses aren't afraid of him. Quite the opposite, actually.

You can keep telling yourself that the problem isn't Cousins. I'd agree with you provided the rest of the team does it's part. If the run game works well and the defense plays well, the problem isn't Cousins. The problem becomes Cousins when the other aspects of the team *don't* work well, especially the run game. That's when Cousins' limitations become obvious.

And your point about his play against New Orleans doesn't alter that fact, because the Vikings were able to run it against the Saints and the defense played well in that game. The pressure was off Cousins to some degree and he stepped up and made a play. That doesn't absolve him or alter the conclusion that he isn't likely to do that in games like the ones against the Packers and 49ers, and at this point in his career, he's not likely to improve in this aspect either.

I give this post 2 thumbs up.
In the opening drive, on 3rd & 8, Cousins threw the ball to DIggs on the sideline who had position on the defender, but the pas went WAY over DIggs head. Result...Punt. Who knows if DIggs catches it, but with that throw he didn't have a chance. Maybe the Vikings continue that drive and score with a better throw.

On the very next possession, on 2nd down, Cousins did the exact same thing....way over Diggs head, but luckily there was a PI flag thrown. The pass was uncatchable, but the drive continued thanks to the flag.

On both of these throws, there was no pressure on him, and I remember other instances throughout the game where better throws would have continued drives. So I don't want to hear that it wouldn't have mattered if we had better QB play, because it may very well have.

Cousins had pretty many bad throws like this in the Saints game too. Luckily, the two that will be remembered will be the last two. And that's okay. If you're going to throw interceptions or awful throws in a game, the best way to make up for it is to win.

Cousins is exactly what I said he was. A good QB, but not good enough to lead a team to the Super Bowl.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:16 pm

Mothman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:46 am

Having talked football with VikingLord a LONG time, I can assure you he is not "one of those that thinks it's all QB".

He probably won't be able to bring himself to completely stop watching either.

There is no "all about the QB crowd". Terrible and mediocre QBs have won SBs on the backs of elite defenses and elite all around teams, so clearly it is not all about the QB.

There is a group that watches Mahomes win despite a terrible defensive and STs performance last night, and wishes they had anything close to that. Or watches with envy as Wilson got his team back in a game where his defense sucks, and his run game, which the offense is built around, be virtually non-existent. That is the "QB is not everything, but boy would it be nice to have a QB who can overcome a struggling defense or poor run game and win in the playoffs crowd".

Then there are those who are content with a guy who isn't the only problem in the playoffs.

You guys are on fire! Another two thumbs up.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:16 pm

Mothman wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:46 am

Having talked football with VikingLord a LONG time, I can assure you he is not "one of those that thinks it's all QB".

He probably won't be able to bring himself to completely stop watching either.

There is no "all about the QB crowd". Terrible and mediocre QBs have won SBs on the backs of elite defenses and elite all around teams, so clearly it is not all about the QB.

There is a group that watches Mahomes win despite a terrible defensive and STs performance last night, and wishes they had anything close to that. Or watches with envy as Wilson got his team back in a game where his defense sucks, and his run game, which the offense is built around, be virtually non-existent. That is the "QB is not everything, but boy would it be nice to have a QB who can overcome a struggling defense or poor run game and win in the playoffs crowd".

Then there are those who are content with a guy who isn't the only problem in the playoffs.

I was wrong thinking that. Cousins is what he is. He's not Rodgers and never was or will be. He lacks his physical skills to start with. Rodgers can throw any pass with accuracy. IMO Cousins and Grap are about equal. I would almost edge more towards Cousins. This is the only game I saw Grap and he didn't impress me. Mahomes had a great game but he also wasn't looking himself for a few games. But he is dam good and that O takes advantage of what he's got. He'll get under pressure then we will see. Tight game and pressure.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:02 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:57 am
I don't think Belichick got fleeced on this. I think Robert Kraft did.

Belichick wanted Garoppolo. Tom Brady orchestrated the trade through Robert Kraft because the Hall-of-Fame, 6-Lombardi quarterback could see the writing on the wall. Belichick is sentimental with NO ONE, and he wouldn't have been sentimental with Brady.

In other words, I believe the reporting.

Why?

Sports reporting is based on a bunch of speculation and intentional leaks that could be truth or outright lies.

I have to disagree here.

Solid reporting, which I believe this to be, is never based on speculation or unverified leaks. Why do I believe this to be solid reporting? Because I was a sports reporter for a number of years in pro baseball. I can usually tell when a reporter has done his/her homework.

Good reporters don't just make stuff up, nor do they write speculation. They do their research, especially on a depth story like this. They have contacts inside the organization, most of whom will never be on the record, but they're people who know what's going on. These "little people" see stuff that nobody else sees, and they have a conscience just like anybody decent human being. When I was reporting baseball, I knew everybody. Batboys, janitors, secretaries, personal assistants ... everybody. You have to get friendly with those sources to cultivate the truth because you can rest assured the front office, managers and coaches aren't going to give it to you straight. You find information, then do your due diligence in finding proof to back it. If a 14-year-old batboy tells you the left fielder routinely shows up half drunk, you can't just run with that. You have to verify it from multiple sources you can trust. In the old days, at least two of them had to go on the record in order for you to publish it. Not sure if that standard still exists, but for a depth story like the TB12 thing, I'd guess it does. Only then do you confront the main parties and publish. Good investigative reporting is a lot like good police work.

Also, a good reporter can smell the difference between B.S. and solid information. Yes, sometimes that information comes from people who have an axe to grind, but those people aren't just toeing the company line. You listen to them, then do the hard work to verify what they're saying.

Does every reporter do that? No. Some are less diligent than others. However, based on the ESPN reporter's track record for accuracy, and based on WHO actually went on the record, I'm confident the Brady-Garoppolo-Belichick story was done with diligence. That story likely was months in the making. It was extremely thorough in its details.

Here's the other thing. In the modern world, networks pay ex-players, ex-coaches and other personalities a lot of money to have "hot takes" and give their opinions. Those guys, I believe, base a LOT of stuff on speculation and unverified rumors. I take everything they say with a grain of salt. They're there to entertain. But the REPORTERS at ESPN, NFL Network, etc. ... they won't last if they put out unverified garbage. Get a big story wrong, and they likely lose their jobs. They are paid to find the news. They're dealing in facts, not opinion. That's different than the talking heads. The reporters are the guys I trust.

Whether Brady and Kraft orchestrated the exit of Garoppolo doesn't really matter now because it's over and done with, but a telltale sign will be what happens this offseason. If Belichick thinks Brady is finished, either he or Brady will be gone. Bill Belichick is brutal when it comes to cutting players he no longer feels have the value he needs. He will not hesitate to part ways with Tom Brady if he feels that way, and if Robert Kraft will let him.

VikingLord wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:49 am

CharVike wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:31 am Your one of those that thinks it's all QB.

No, I'm one that thinks if one aspect of a very talented offense is being taken away the other aspect has to compensate for it. The 49ers removed the running game as a factor, so that put the ball in Cousins' hands and the passing game and he couldn't get it done. Same thing that happened in the 2nd game against the Packers and earlier in the first loss to the Bears.

Look, I understand the claim that it doesn't all come down to the QB, specifically for the Vikings, Cousins. I get that. I agree with that. Football is a team game and there is a defense and an offense and each has to carry its own water.

What I don't get is why defenses obviously target shutting down the Vikings run game and want to force Cousins to beat them. This is consistent. This isn't one opponent doing it one time - it happened in the 3 lopsided losses listed above.

And it highlights the flaw in saying Cousins isn't the problem. He's not the problem because he's a bad QB. He's a good QB. He's talented. He's capable of making the big plays to win games. And on occasion, he does make them. No, the flaw in saying Cousins isn't the problem is that he doesn't do that often enough. When a defense takes away the run game, if the offense can't compensate with the pass game, then that is when you start to see historically poor performances of things like 7 first downs in multiple games. Cousins is a huge part of that result. He's the guy taking the snaps and who has to get the ball out accurately and on time. Yeah, he might be under pressure often. He might not have wide open guys. But he has to be able to compensate for that or it won't happen and he doesn't do that very often or consistently. Defenses aren't afraid of him. Quite the opposite, actually.

You can keep telling yourself that the problem isn't Cousins. I'd agree with you provided the rest of the team does it's part. If the run game works well and the defense plays well, the problem isn't Cousins. The problem becomes Cousins when the other aspects of the team *don't* work well, especially the run game. That's when Cousins' limitations become obvious.

And your point about his play against New Orleans doesn't alter that fact, because the Vikings were able to run it against the Saints and the defense played well in that game. The pressure was off Cousins to some degree and he stepped up and made a play. That doesn't absolve him or alter the conclusion that he isn't likely to do that in games like the ones against the Packers and 49ers, and at this point in his career, he's not likely to improve in this aspect either.

You hit the nail on the head here.

Look, I was excited when we signed Cousins. He had the numbers, and he was playing on a less-than-stellar team. I thought he could be the difference.

But you only have to look at his personality, his personal habits, to see where the flaws in his game come from. He always talks about "being the CEO out there." I get that he's talking about emotion, but his play also suggests that he's great when things go according to plan. Just like a CEO. You work hard to develop a plan, with all its details and nuances, and then implement it. The problem comes when the plan doesn't work. I used to work for a publicly traded company in the 2008 time frame. One CEO didn't know how to stop the bleeding of falling share prices, which fell from about $60 per share to less than $20. They got rid of him and brought in somebody who turned it around. The new guy was a dick, but he knew what he was doing.

It's also been reported that Cousins schedules his days on a spreadsheet in 10-minute increments. Essentially, he's the dad who goes on vacation with his family and must have every detail planned out. He could be driving along and a herd of buffalo could start crossing the highway, and all he'd be worried about it making it to the World's Largest Ball of String before it closes -- and completely miss the buffalo. When you've got to have your entire life planned to that kind of detail, it sort of makes you less likely to be able to deal with a missed block, or a receiver slipping on his route, or the defense not biting on play action.

Does that make Cousins a bad quarterback? Heck no. He's got all the arm talent he needs. He's detailed in his planning. He reads defenses well, especially pre-snap. But what he lacks is the ability to improvise. To go off-script, especially once the ball is snapped. He can go through progressions, but he loses his progressions if there's a break in protection.

That means he's a guy who could win a Super Bowl ONLY IF all the pieces around him are juuuuust right. Like a Brad Johnson with the Bucs or Trent Dilfer with the Ravens. He needs a line who can hold blocks in pass protection, and a running game that can dominate. Heck, look at the drive in OT against NOLA. What preceded the bomb to Thielen? An 11-yard run by Cook, then play-action on the pass to Thielen. Everything went just right. On the TD to Rudy, he made a good read at the line and made the right play. What if NOLA had faked a zero blitz?

The unfortunate thing is that guys like Patrick Mahomes and Tom Brady come along about once in a lifetime. I've said it many times ... put Russell Wilson on this team, and we have as good a shot at the Lombardi Trophy as anybody. How we're ever going to win a Super Bowl with the current configuration is beyond me. All I can do is cheer for my team and hope.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:16 pm There is a group that watches Mahomes win despite a terrible defensive and STs performance last night, and wishes they had anything close to that. Or watches with envy as Wilson got his team back in a game where his defense sucks, and his run game, which the offense is built around, be virtually non-existent. That is the "QB is not everything, but boy would it be nice to have a QB who can overcome a struggling defense or poor run game and win in the playoffs crowd".

I'm far from a Cousins hater, but watching Mahomes (and to a lesser extent Watson) making plays out of nothing, really drove it home that I want a QB more like that. Hell, even Jackson in a losing effort still probably gave the Baltimore fan's hope for a while. Cousins can be really, really good, but you're correct that he is missing the things that makes you think you always have a chance to win. More often than not, you can tell immediately what Cousins you're getting early in the game, and you know (with VERY rare exceptions) that this is the QB you'll be getting the entire game. There is very little hope that suddenly he'll flip a switch and start playing differently.

Some will point to the Denver game and as proof against that, but those games are so few and far between.

I know Mahomes is a RARE talent, but being down 21-0 and still having hope that the game is in reach would be amazing. It doesn't have to be a Mahomes.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:13 pm The unfortunate thing is that guys like Patrick Mahomes and Tom Brady come along about once in a lifetime. I've said it many times ... put Russell Wilson on this team, and we have as good a shot at the Lombardi Trophy as anybody. How we're ever going to win a Super Bowl with the current configuration is beyond me. All I can do is cheer for my team and hope.

The don't come along often, but they do come along, and many times they are available in the later rounds. The Vikings had 2 shots at Rodgers in the draft he came out. Brady was a 6th rounder. Wilson was a 3rd.

Luck is involved, maybe even heavily involved, in finding that guy, but just like you can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket, you can't find a franchise QB if you don't take a few swings for one.

I hope if Spielman remains the GM he takes that swing as well as avoids doubling down on Cousins going forward.

Dames wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:16 pm

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:16 pm There is a group that watches Mahomes win despite a terrible defensive and STs performance last night, and wishes they had anything close to that. Or watches with envy as Wilson got his team back in a game where his defense sucks, and his run game, which the offense is built around, be virtually non-existent. That is the "QB is not everything, but boy would it be nice to have a QB who can overcome a struggling defense or poor run game and win in the playoffs crowd".

I'm far from a Cousins hater, but watching Mahomes (and to a lesser extent Watson) making plays out of nothing, really drove it home that I want a QB more like that. Hell, even Jackson in a losing effort still probably gave the Baltimore fan's hope for a while. Cousins can be really, really good, but you're correct that he is missing the things that makes you think you always have a chance to win. More often than not, you can tell immediately what Cousins you're getting early in the game, and you know (with VERY rare exceptions) that this is the QB you'll be getting the entire game. There is very little hope that suddenly he'll flip a switch and start playing differently.

Some will point to the Denver game and as proof against that, but those games are so few and far between.

I know Mahomes is a RARE talent, but being down 21-0 and still having hope that the game is in reach would be amazing. It doesn't have to be a Mahomes.

By no means am I comparing the two but we were down 20-0 to Denver and Cousins brought us back. And dont say Houston and Denver arent comparable. All I know is, Houston has one of the worst defense in the entire NFL. Denver was roughly top 10.

And Mahomes is the real deal yes. Watson though....I'm pretty sure Watson has won about as many big games as Cousins has. That team was the new version of the Bengals and made the playoffs but couldnt ever win a game in the playoffs, until Buffalo this year who IMO was probably the worst of any playoff team in both conferences. Houston and Watson are about as inconsistent as inconsistent gets. Sometimes I feel like fans get too caught up in the "oooo and ahhhh" of Watson, but in the end, what has the guy done? Make cool plays?

Again, I'm NOT comparing either of these guys to Cousins. It's just I dont buy the drooling all the time over Watson.

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:27 pm

Dames wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:16 pm
I'm far from a Cousins hater, but watching Mahomes (and to a lesser extent Watson) making plays out of nothing, really drove it home that I want a QB more like that. Hell, even Jackson in a losing effort still probably gave the Baltimore fan's hope for a while. Cousins can be really, really good, but you're correct that he is missing the things that makes you think you always have a chance to win. More often than not, you can tell immediately what Cousins you're getting early in the game, and you know (with VERY rare exceptions) that this is the QB you'll be getting the entire game. There is very little hope that suddenly he'll flip a switch and start playing differently.

Some will point to the Denver game and as proof against that, but those games are so few and far between.

I know Mahomes is a RARE talent, but being down 21-0 and still having hope that the game is in reach would be amazing. It doesn't have to be a Mahomes.

By no means am I comparing the two but we were down 20-0 to Denver and Cousins brought us back. And dont say Houston and Denver arent comparable. All I know is, Houston has one of the worst defense in the entire NFL. Denver was roughly top 10.

And Mahomes is the real deal yes. Watson though....I'm pretty sure Watson has won about as many big games as Cousins has. That team was the new version of the Bengals and made the playoffs but couldnt ever win a game in the playoffs, until Buffalo this year who IMO was probably the worst of any playoff team in both conferences. Houston and Watson are about as inconsistent as inconsistent gets. Sometimes I feel like fans get too caught up in the "oooo and ahhhh" of Watson, but in the end, what has the guy done? Make cool plays?

Again, I'm NOT comparing either of these guys to Cousins. It's just I dont buy the drooling all the time over Watson.

Watson, to me, is the polar opposite of Cousins.

Cousins is at his best when he's on script and doesn't have to improvise. Watson freelances SO MUCH that he hurts his team at times. He's kind of undisciplined.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:13 pm

VikingLord wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:49 am

No, I'm one that thinks if one aspect of a very talented offense is being taken away the other aspect has to compensate for it. The 49ers removed the running game as a factor, so that put the ball in Cousins' hands and the passing game and he couldn't get it done. Same thing that happened in the 2nd game against the Packers and earlier in the first loss to the Bears.

Look, I understand the claim that it doesn't all come down to the QB, specifically for the Vikings, Cousins. I get that. I agree with that. Football is a team game and there is a defense and an offense and each has to carry its own water.

What I don't get is why defenses obviously target shutting down the Vikings run game and want to force Cousins to beat them. This is consistent. This isn't one opponent doing it one time - it happened in the 3 lopsided losses listed above.

And it highlights the flaw in saying Cousins isn't the problem. He's not the problem because he's a bad QB. He's a good QB. He's talented. He's capable of making the big plays to win games. And on occasion, he does make them. No, the flaw in saying Cousins isn't the problem is that he doesn't do that often enough. When a defense takes away the run game, if the offense can't compensate with the pass game, then that is when you start to see historically poor performances of things like 7 first downs in multiple games. Cousins is a huge part of that result. He's the guy taking the snaps and who has to get the ball out accurately and on time. Yeah, he might be under pressure often. He might not have wide open guys. But he has to be able to compensate for that or it won't happen and he doesn't do that very often or consistently. Defenses aren't afraid of him. Quite the opposite, actually.

You can keep telling yourself that the problem isn't Cousins. I'd agree with you provided the rest of the team does it's part. If the run game works well and the defense plays well, the problem isn't Cousins. The problem becomes Cousins when the other aspects of the team *don't* work well, especially the run game. That's when Cousins' limitations become obvious.

And your point about his play against New Orleans doesn't alter that fact, because the Vikings were able to run it against the Saints and the defense played well in that game. The pressure was off Cousins to some degree and he stepped up and made a play. That doesn't absolve him or alter the conclusion that he isn't likely to do that in games like the ones against the Packers and 49ers, and at this point in his career, he's not likely to improve in this aspect either.

You hit the nail on the head here.

Look, I was excited when we signed Cousins. He had the numbers, and he was playing on a less-than-stellar team. I thought he could be the difference.

But you only have to look at his personality, his personal habits, to see where the flaws in his game come from. He always talks about "being the CEO out there." I get that he's talking about emotion, but his play also suggests that he's great when things go according to plan. Just like a CEO. You work hard to develop a plan, with all its details and nuances, and then implement it. The problem comes when the plan doesn't work. I used to work for a publicly traded company in the 2008 time frame. One CEO didn't know how to stop the bleeding of falling share prices, which fell from about $60 per share to less than $20. They got rid of him and brought in somebody who turned it around. The new guy was a dick, but he knew what he was doing.

It's also been reported that Cousins schedules his days on a spreadsheet in 10-minute increments. Essentially, he's the dad who goes on vacation with his family and must have every detail planned out. He could be driving along and a herd of buffalo could start crossing the highway, and all he'd be worried about it making it to the World's Largest Ball of String before it closes -- and completely miss the buffalo. When you've got to have your entire life planned to that kind of detail, it sort of makes you less likely to be able to deal with a missed block, or a receiver slipping on his route, or the defense not biting on play action.

Does that make Cousins a bad quarterback? Heck no. He's got all the arm talent he needs. He's detailed in his planning. He reads defenses well, especially pre-snap. But what he lacks is the ability to improvise. To go off-script, especially once the ball is snapped. He can go through progressions, but he loses his progressions if there's a break in protection.

That means he's a guy who could win a Super Bowl ONLY IF all the pieces around him are juuuuust right. Like a Brad Johnson with the Bucs or Trent Dilfer with the Ravens. He needs a line who can hold blocks in pass protection, and a running game that can dominate. Heck, look at the drive in OT against NOLA. What preceded the bomb to Thielen? An 11-yard run by Cook, then play-action on the pass to Thielen. Everything went just right. On the TD to Rudy, he made a good read at the line and made the right play. What if NOLA had faked a zero blitz?

The unfortunate thing is that guys like Patrick Mahomes and Tom Brady come along about once in a lifetime. I've said it many times ... put Russell Wilson on this team, and we have as good a shot at the Lombardi Trophy as anybody. How we're ever going to win a Super Bowl with the current configuration is beyond me. All I can do is cheer for my team and hope.

Yes! And against the top teams, the playoff teams, they tend to force things to go pear shaped more often. That requires a type of play from a QB that Cousins has shown 0 ability to provide at any point in his NFL career.

VikingLord wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:21 pm

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:13 pm The unfortunate thing is that guys like Patrick Mahomes and Tom Brady come along about once in a lifetime. I've said it many times ... put Russell Wilson on this team, and we have as good a shot at the Lombardi Trophy as anybody. How we're ever going to win a Super Bowl with the current configuration is beyond me. All I can do is cheer for my team and hope.

The don't come along often, but they do come along, and many times they are available in the later rounds. The Vikings had 2 shots at Rodgers in the draft he came out. Brady was a 6th rounder. Wilson was a 3rd.

Luck is involved, maybe even heavily involved, in finding that guy, but just like you can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket, you can't find a franchise QB if you don't take a few swings for one.

I hope if Spielman remains the GM he takes that swing as well as avoids doubling down on Cousins going forward.

Good point on buying a ticket, I guess. Maybe Sloter was the answer.

Seriously though, I'm not sure these superstar mid-rounders come along all that frequently. In 2012, when the Seahawks took Wilson at 75, we took Matt Kalil (ugh), Harrison Smith (good pick) and Josh Robinson (swing and a miss) ahead of him. So it could be said that was a miss (although Christian Ponder was just about to take over the reigns, so we were SET!!!!!!!).

Other than that, over the past decade, only Dak Prescott (4th round 2016) and Jimmy Garoppolo (2nd round 2014) have been remotely successful other than the high first-rounders. Who else are we talking about? Jacoby Brissett? Brett Hundley? DeShone Kizer? C.J. Beathard? Mason Rudolph? That's who we're picking from. Brady was 20 years ago. Rodgers was 15 years ago.

Where we got hurt the most was in 2017, when Philly got our No. 14 pick in the Sam Bradford trade. It might have been possible to move up and get Mahomes (10) or Watson (12). I understand why management made that deal, but it definitely hurt us. Of course, if Bridgewater hadn't gotten hurt, we never would have made the deal, which means we also never would have even considered selecting a QB that high.

Sometimes things just don't work out. Especially when you're the Minnesota Vikings.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:03 pm

VikingLord wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:21 pm

The don't come along often, but they do come along, and many times they are available in the later rounds. The Vikings had 2 shots at Rodgers in the draft he came out. Brady was a 6th rounder. Wilson was a 3rd.

Luck is involved, maybe even heavily involved, in finding that guy, but just like you can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket, you can't find a franchise QB if you don't take a few swings for one.

I hope if Spielman remains the GM he takes that swing as well as avoids doubling down on Cousins going forward.

Good point on buying a ticket, I guess. Maybe Sloter was the answer.

Seriously though, I'm not sure these superstar mid-rounders come along all that frequently. In 2012, when the Seahawks took Wilson at 75, we took Matt Kalil (ugh), Harrison Smith (good pick) and Josh Robinson (swing and a miss) ahead of him. So it could be said that was a miss (although Christian Ponder was just about to take over the reigns, so we were SET!!!!!!!).

Other than that, over the past decade, only Dak Prescott (4th round 2016) and Jimmy Garoppolo (2nd round 2014) have been remotely successful other than the high first-rounders. Who else are we talking about? Jacoby Brissett? Brett Hundley? DeShone Kizer? C.J. Beathard? Mason Rudolph? That's who we're picking from. Brady was 20 years ago. Rodgers was 15 years ago.

Where we got hurt the most was in 2017, when Philly got our No. 14 pick in the Sam Bradford trade. It might have been possible to move up and get Mahomes (10) or Watson (12). I understand why management made that deal, but it definitely hurt us. Of course, if Bridgewater hadn't gotten hurt, we never would have made the deal, which means we also never would have even considered selecting a QB that high.

Sometimes things just don't work out. Especially when you're the Minnesota Vikings.

I almost spit my coffee out laughing on that Sloter comment...

The lottery doesn't work out very often. At least it hasn't for me. Despite my best efforts I'm still usually coming up about 5 out of six numbers short...

There is a huge element of luck in finding that guy. Still, that guy is out there and could be out there in any given draft. Some of those younger guys you mention could still develop, too, so it's probably too early to say on all of them.

I'm also always for drafting the best players available, and in this upcoming draft there could be some good ones on the board at #25 at DT, OG, and CB. The CB class looks particularly deep, although once the run on that position starts I expect them to go pretty fast. I could see Spielman making plays along both lines with the first two picks and not being upset about it at all. But come the 3rd-5th rounds, that might be the time to take a swing at a less-heralded but intriguing QB like James Morgan of Florida International. A prospect like that likely lasts into the 3rd-5th rounds because he played at a small school, but he shows some real promise and could be developed nicely if he has the chance to sit for a year behind Cousins. Is he the Next Coming? Most likely not. But as lottery tickets go in those rounds of a draft, he's a promising bet.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:03 pmSeriously though, I'm not sure these superstar mid-rounders come along all that frequently. In 2012, when the Seahawks took Wilson at 75, we took Matt Kalil (ugh), Harrison Smith (good pick) and Josh Robinson (swing and a miss) ahead of him. So it could be said that was a miss (although Christian Ponder was just about to take over the reigns, so we were SET!!!!!!!).

He's not a superstar but the Vikings are currently paying $84 million for a QB who was drafted in the 4th round in 2012.

In other words, in a year in which the Vikings QB depth chart read:

1.) Christian Ponder
2.) Joe freakin' Webb
3.) McLeod Bethel-Thompson

... they showed no interest in drafting a "Plan B" to play behind Ponder or improve their depth, despite some obviously solid prospects being available in the 3rd and 4th round. Obviously, nobody knew Wilson would become the star he is today and Cousins is... problematic but Spielman hasn't exactly been alert to these possibilities or, if he has, hasn't been willing to actually spend draft picks on them.

Other than that, over the past decade, only Dak Prescott (4th round 2016) and Jimmy Garoppolo (2nd round 2014) have been remotely successful other than the high first-rounders. Who else are we talking about? Jacoby Brissett? Brett Hundley? DeShone Kizer? C.J. Beathard? Mason Rudolph? That's who we're picking from. Brady was 20 years ago. Rodgers was 15 years ago.

Kirk says "Ouch". That stung a little.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:36 pm

Pondering Her Percy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:27 pm And Mahomes is the real deal yes. Watson though....I'm pretty sure Watson has won about as many big games as Cousins has. That team was the new version of the Bengals and made the playoffs but couldnt ever win a game in the playoffs, until Buffalo this year who IMO was probably the worst of any playoff team in both conferences. Houston and Watson are about as inconsistent as inconsistent gets. Sometimes I feel like fans get too caught up in the "oooo and ahhhh" of Watson, but in the end, what has the guy done? Make cool plays?

Again, I'm NOT comparing either of these guys to Cousins. It's just I dont buy the drooling all the time over Watson.

Watson, to me, is the polar opposite of Cousins.

Cousins is at his best when he's on script and doesn't have to improvise. Watson freelances SO MUCH that he hurts his team at times. He's kind of undisciplined.

That's probably fair on Watson at this point, but I would like a guy that goes off script a little. Somewhere between Cousins and Watson may be nice. Watson does a bit much sometimes, but it's not like he had a bad year (or career thus far). The element I like is the ability to make plays where Cousins simply can't. If you can get him to settle down a bit, I think he could be great, but it's fair to say that at this point he's not. That said, If I had to chose, I would pick Cousins with a better line vs Watson with a bad line. A better line is more achievable for us then drafting a great QB. (You would think).