Wilson is arguably a top 3 QB in the NFC, top 5 for sure. It's a travesty he got snubbed for Rodgers. He would certainly elevate the offense but a Wilson would never be available on the market. Even a guy like Cousins (top 10-15) is a rare occurrence.
So the Vikings had to overpay to get a decent QB. That's just the way it is. The problem was Rick's inability to realize Cousins would need help and can't work with a patchwork line.
This is the second time Rick has done this type of crap move that just leaves us another 2-3 years behind again. He did the same thing with Bradford. I hated that move and I hated the Cousins move. Some people act like Case would have just forgotten everything he just did as a Viking. What kind of GM over pays a QB that much, and doesnt realize the guy is almost imobile? With ur Oline. I just cant believe it.
Thats what Rick thought when he over paid for the QB who had only beaten 4(?) winning teams in his career. I want Rick gone. That ticks off some people but I cant help that. Nor can I help when someone wants to goad me. Im not going to sit back like they are right. The Vikings are too important to me.
The "beating winning teams" stat is a bit of a misnomer because by definition when you beat a team, you give them a loss thus hurting your own metric. Miami is a good example of this, they were a winning team until we beat them and so somehow that no longer counts. But if we lost, it would be another "winning" team we can't beat.
The stat needs perspective. It's like people who slobber all over the Patriots yet never talk about how SIX of their games are against the Bills, Dolphins and Jets every year. Not to mention the AFC is a vastly weaker conference (playoff games against the Bills and Titans? C'mon). There's no way the Pats are as successful as they are having to run the NFC gauntlet every year.
I'm not saying it isn't a concern, just that I feel it's a vastly overused stat and not one I'd put a lot of weight on when picking a QB. I do agree with you that Cousins is incredibly immobile and that should have been factored especially with our line.
This is the second time Rick has done this type of crap move that just leaves us another 2-3 years behind again. He did the same thing with Bradford. I hated that move and I hated the Cousins move. Some people act like Case would have just forgotten everything he just did as a Viking. What kind of GM over pays a QB that much, and doesnt realize the guy is almost imobile? With ur Oline. I just cant believe it.
Thats what Rick thought when he over paid for the QB who had only beaten 4(?) winning teams in his career. I want Rick gone. That ticks off some people but I cant help that. Nor can I help when someone wants to goad me. Im not going to sit back like they are right. The Vikings are too important to me.
The "beating winning teams" stat is a bit of a misnomer because by definition when you beat a team, you give them a loss thus hurting your own metric. Miami is a good example of this, they were a winning team until we beat them and so somehow that no longer counts. But if we lost, it would be another "winning" team we can't beat.
The stat needs perspective. It's like people who slobber all over the Patriots yet never talk about how SIX of their games are against the Bills, Dolphins and Jets every year. Not to mention the AFC is a vastly weaker conference (playoff games against the Bills and Titans? C'mon). There's no way the Pats are as successful as they are having to run the NFC gauntlet every year.
I'm not saying it isn't a concern, just that I feel it's a vastly overused stat and not one I'd put a lot of weight on when picking a QB. I do agree with you that Cousins is incredibly immobile and that should have been factored especially with our line.
And again, it's a Stat. It's noise.
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." #SKOL2018
This is the second time Rick has done this type of crap move that just leaves us another 2-3 years behind again. He did the same thing with Bradford. I hated that move and I hated the Cousins move. Some people act like Case would have just forgotten everything he just did as a Viking. What kind of GM over pays a QB that much, and doesnt realize the guy is almost imobile? With ur Oline. I just cant believe it.
Thats what Rick thought when he over paid for the QB who had only beaten 4(?) winning teams in his career. I want Rick gone. That ticks off some people but I cant help that. Nor can I help when someone wants to goad me. Im not going to sit back like they are right. The Vikings are too important to me.
The "beating winning teams" stat is a bit of a misnomer because by definition when you beat a team, you give them a loss thus hurting your own metric. Miami is a good example of this, they were a winning team until we beat them and so somehow that no longer counts. But if we lost, it would be another "winning" team we can't beat.
The stat needs perspective. It's like people who slobber all over the Patriots yet never talk about how SIX of their games are against the Bills, Dolphins and Jets every year. Not to mention the AFC is a vastly weaker conference (playoff games against the Bills and Titans? C'mon). There's no way the Pats are as successful as they are having to run the NFC gauntlet every year.
I'm not saying it isn't a concern, just that I feel it's a vastly overused stat and not one I'd put a lot of weight on when picking a QB. I do agree with you that Cousins is incredibly immobile and that should have been factored especially with our line.
Is beating a 9-7 team that impressive?
I put more weight on that stat than meaningless yards and tds thrown in blowouts. Good QBs have winning records. Not every year, and not on every team, but they certainly win more than 9 on a team that won 13 the season before.
The "beating winning teams" stat is a bit of a misnomer because by definition when you beat a team, you give them a loss thus hurting your own metric. Miami is a good example of this, they were a winning team until we beat them and so somehow that no longer counts. But if we lost, it would be another "winning" team we can't beat.
The stat needs perspective. It's like people who slobber all over the Patriots yet never talk about how SIX of their games are against the Bills, Dolphins and Jets every year. Not to mention the AFC is a vastly weaker conference (playoff games against the Bills and Titans? C'mon). There's no way the Pats are as successful as they are having to run the NFC gauntlet every year.
I'm not saying it isn't a concern, just that I feel it's a vastly overused stat and not one I'd put a lot of weight on when picking a QB. I do agree with you that Cousins is incredibly immobile and that should have been factored especially with our line.
Is beating a 9-7 team that impressive?
I put more weight on that stat than meaningless yards and tds thrown in blowouts. Good QBs have winning records. Not every year, and not on every team, but they certainly win more than 9 on a team that won 13 the season before.
So I guess that makes Rodgers no longer a good QB. After all, they went 12-4, 10-6, 10-6 7-9 and now 6-8-1, right?
Vikings fan since Nov. 6, 1966. Annoying Packer fans since Nov. 7, 1966
Well yes. You apparently know more that Spielman, so who is your choice and how would you have handled it.
This thread literally mentions every QB that he passed over or missed out on. So my answer would be any of those... I don't understand why you came after me when I probably hsve one anti-spielman post on here. All I did was add on to what Jim said earlier.
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." #SKOL2018
Well yes. You apparently know more that Spielman, so who is your choice and how would you have handled it.
This thread literally mentions every QB that he passed over or missed out on. So my answer would be any of those... I don't understand why you came after me when I probably hsve one anti-spielman post on here. All I did was add on to what Jim said earlier.
Cousin's didn't beat a wining team before he came here, we should have kept Keenum, who did squat before he was with the Vikings last year. I have come to the conclusion that no matter who the Vikings get at QB some people will never be happy. There is zero evidence that keenum or any other QB could have done any better than Cousins did this year. Period. You can't play the "what if we had......." game. It's a team game. One man does not win or lose the game every week. Some other QB is always better.
Vikings fan since Nov. 6, 1966. Annoying Packer fans since Nov. 7, 1966
This thread literally mentions every QB that he passed over or missed out on. So my answer would be any of those... I don't understand why you came after me when I probably hsve one anti-spielman post on here. All I did was add on to what Jim said earlier.
Cousin's didn't beat a wining team before he came here, we should have kept Keenum, who did squat before he was with the Vikings last year. I have come to the conclusion that no matter who the Vikings get at QB some people will never be happy. There is zero evidence that keenum or any other QB could have done any better than Cousins did this year. Period. You can't play the "what if we had......." game. It's a team game. One man does not win or lose the game every week. Some other QB is always better.
Whatever dude. I have ko idea why you came after me when there are at least 10 other posters saying the same thing.
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." #SKOL2018
The "beating winning teams" stat is a bit of a misnomer because by definition when you beat a team, you give them a loss thus hurting your own metric. Miami is a good example of this, they were a winning team until we beat them and so somehow that no longer counts. But if we lost, it would be another "winning" team we can't beat.
The stat needs perspective. It's like people who slobber all over the Patriots yet never talk about how SIX of their games are against the Bills, Dolphins and Jets every year. Not to mention the AFC is a vastly weaker conference (playoff games against the Bills and Titans? C'mon). There's no way the Pats are as successful as they are having to run the NFC gauntlet every year.
I'm not saying it isn't a concern, just that I feel it's a vastly overused stat and not one I'd put a lot of weight on when picking a QB. I do agree with you that Cousins is incredibly immobile and that should have been factored especially with our line.
Is beating a 9-7 team that impressive?
I put more weight on that stat than meaningless yards and tds thrown in blowouts. Good QBs have winning records. Not every year, and not on every team, but they certainly win more than 9 on a team that won 13 the season before.
Are you factoring in a #1 schedule this year? Bucs, Ravens, Browns, Bengals, Skins all had losing records last year. Bradford beat the Saints in game 1. The Vikings had some wins against good teams last year (Rams, Falcons) but it was an easier schedule, which accounts for at least a few of the win differential. I think the North teams are also better this year. The Bears definitely are and GB didn't have Rodgers most of last year.
Case had an amazing year for us so I don't want to take too much away from him but I don't know if he gets to 13 with this years schedule and OL.
I put more weight on that stat than meaningless yards and tds thrown in blowouts. Good QBs have winning records. Not every year, and not on every team, but they certainly win more than 9 on a team that won 13 the season before.
Are you factoring in a #1 schedule this year? Bucs, Ravens, Browns, Bengals, Skins all had losing records last year. Bradford beat the Saints in game 1. The Vikings had some wins against good teams last year (Rams, Falcons) but it was an easier schedule, which accounts for at least a few of the win differential. I think the North teams are also better this year. The Bears definitely are and GB didn't have Rodgers most of last year.
Case had an amazing year for us so I don't want to take too much away from him but I don't know if he gets to 13 with this years schedule and OL.
And he likely doesn't. But... I think his strengths fit this team's weaknesses better than Cousins, if that makes sense.
The Devil whispered in the Viking's ear, "There's a storm coming." The Viking replied, "I am the storm." #SKOL2018
Cliff wrote: ↑Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:30 am
I know a lot of people are complaining about how the offense started and it was pretty terrible. However, I don't see it as a problem. Sometimes when a game starts the plan doesn't work. It's super encouraging to see the offense make adjustments and turn it around. I could complain about Cousins but that's silly at this point. Salary aside Cousins isnt a "great" qb but he's good enough if he doesn't have to carry the team. He performed as expected. Not great, not terrible.
The defense was terrific and held up until the offense finally figured themselves out. Not much else to say. Couldn't have asked for much more out of them.
Next week we'll learn if the improvement in the offense is real or we just played Miami and Detroit (which the 'old' offense beat too). Here's hoping!
My big concern about the slow start is that against a better team, 4 drives like that would have put the vikings in a hole they couldnt have gotten out of. I also dont know if there were adjustments made that got things figured out, or if the Lions quit after the first TD was scored.
To me that's where the "championship defense" comes in. Obviously they're not going to stop every team on every play but the defense being great and the offense being "good enough" is basically how the team is built. The defense is going to have to hold up sometimes while the offense gets on track.
S197 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 25, 2018 2:56 pmThe "beating winning teams" stat is a bit of a misnomer because by definition when you beat a team, you give them a loss thus hurting your own metric. Miami is a good example of this, they were a winning team until we beat them and so somehow that no longer counts. But if we lost, it would be another "winning" team we can't beat.
The stat needs perspective. It's like people who slobber all over the Patriots yet never talk about how SIX of their games are against the Bills, Dolphins and Jets every year. Not to mention the AFC is a vastly weaker conference (playoff games against the Bills and Titans? C'mon). There's no way the Pats are as successful as they are having to run the NFC gauntlet every year.
I'm not saying it isn't a concern, just that I feel it's a vastly overused stat and not one I'd put a lot of weight on when picking a QB. I do agree with you that Cousins is incredibly immobile and that should have been factored especially with our line.
The stat the way I'm thinking of it is "winning record at the end of the season". The record at the end of a season is certainly a good reflection of how good that year's team was overall.
I think the Miami game counts as a solid win. They were a team on the upswing after a big win against NE. That said, when you look back at the season how else can you look at the win over a 7-9 or 8-8 Miami team? It's a solid win over an average/slightly below average team. Those are the kinds of teams Kirk historically has success against and it's continued as a Viking.
Football is a team sport and Kirk has been on some bad/average teams so it's far from a complete stat but what it shows me is that Kirk isn't "elevating" the teams he's on. I think that's pretty accepted at this point; Kirk is a good but not great QB. The Vikings can win with Kirk if they handle the roster right but he'll need more help than a "great" would and they haven't given it to him yet.
My big concern about the slow start is that against a better team, 4 drives like that would have put the vikings in a hole they couldnt have gotten out of. I also dont know if there were adjustments made that got things figured out, or if the Lions quit after the first TD was scored.
To me that's where the "championship defense" comes in. Obviously they're not going to stop every team on every play but the defense being great and the offense being "good enough" is basically how the team is built. The defense is going to have to hold up sometimes while the offense gets on track.
Meant to have a "caliber" in there. They are not a championship defense like the 2015 Broncos were, but with even an above average offense they are good enough to win it all.
The number of defenses that could stop 3 good teams in a row(the minimum it would take to win it all) while their offense continually gives the other teams good field position, I could count on one hand. Lack of production on offense has been a problem all of Zims career both on the Bengals where he had zero control over that side of the ball, and here where he has some control but where he too often differs to others.
Expectations for Zims defense are way too high in an era where all the rules favor the offense. If the offense struggles to sustain drives and has the other team starting at the 50 on a regular basis, you are going to lose.
StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:31 amMeant to have a "caliber" in there. They are not a championship defense like the 2015 Broncos were, but with even an above average offense they are good enough to win it all.
The number of defenses that could stop 3 good teams in a row(the minimum it would take to win it all) while their offense continually gives the other teams good field position, I could count on one hand. Lack of production on offense has been a problem all of Zims career both on the Bengals where he had zero control over that side of the ball, and here where he has some control but where he too often differs to others.
Expectations for Zims defense are way too high in an era where all the rules favor the offense. If the offense struggles to sustain drives and has the other team starting at the 50 on a regular basis, you are going to lose.
But that's not what happened against Detroit. The defense had to hold out for 4 drives early in the game but the offense did show up and do their part. I saw a game where the defense picked up the slack for the offense until they put it together. If the offense doesn't put it together within the entire game then I agree they won't win. That's asking too much from nearly any defense.
StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:31 amMeant to have a "caliber" in there. They are not a championship defense like the 2015 Broncos were, but with even an above average offense they are good enough to win it all.
The number of defenses that could stop 3 good teams in a row(the minimum it would take to win it all) while their offense continually gives the other teams good field position, I could count on one hand. Lack of production on offense has been a problem all of Zims career both on the Bengals where he had zero control over that side of the ball, and here where he has some control but where he too often differs to others.
Expectations for Zims defense are way too high in an era where all the rules favor the offense. If the offense struggles to sustain drives and has the other team starting at the 50 on a regular basis, you are going to lose.
But that's not what happened against Detroit. The defense had to hold out for 4 drives early in the game but the offense did show up and do their part. I saw a game where the defense picked up the slack for the offense until they put it together. If the offense doesn't put it together within the entire game then I agree they won't win. That's asking too much from nearly any defense.
That is what happened against the Lions. It is not what has happened against any team that wasn't complete garbage. Spotting a good team 9 points will lose you games against the Rams, Bears, Saints, Cowboys, and Seattle.
