Vikings Message Board.Com

As someone who lives within a few miles of OU and watches all games, that is a painful watch. He hasnt translated to the NFL well.

VikingLord wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 7:27 pm

808vikingsfan wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 5:05 pm I think the contrast in QB play was glaring. Stats don't matter.

I'll give Wilson credit for a nice throw on the TD to win the game, but apart from that his play was far from demonstrably better than Cousins, if it was better at all (which I don't think it was).

In my mind it's that Wilson got the win and Cousins got another lost. It's not who played better...it's all about winning.
And that's why the Seahawks are 5-0. Wilson is probably one of the best in the league.
Until Cousins can win against winning teams. Your going to have a hard time convincing me he is nothing more than a average QB on the Vikings.

VikingLord wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:02 pm

808vikingsfan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:32 pm

So except for that TD pass (IMO was 10x better than just "a nice throw" since it was 4th down), you don't give RW any credit for the game winning TD drive that started from the 6 yard line? The 17 yd run to get his team out of the endzone, the 4th and 10 pass, him accounting for every yard on that drive? Contrast that to the Vikings potential game winning drive. How many yards did KC account for? zero. Even the coaches don't trust their QB with the ball when it matters. A sweep on 3rd and 4? That close to the endzone?

He had a lot of misses on that final drive. He hardly looked amazing.

The Vikings needed to run clock at the end, so run they did. I don't take that as not trusting Cousins. Had they been behind and needed 95 yards to win as the Seahawks did, they would have called on Cousins to throw.

Why is it so necessary to lionize Wilson, who didn't play all that great along with the rest of the Seahawks, and demonize Cousins, who made some key mistakes but played pretty well along with the rest of the Vikings? I understand the frustration of losing in classic Vikings fashion, and there are many things to criticize on the Vikings, but Cousins was far from the reason the team lost that game. He wasn't on the field when the Seahawks marched 95 yards for the win. He wasn't the ball carrier on the failed 4th down to ice the game. He made some nice plays and generally has overcome some of the worst interior pass blocking I think I've seen in my many years of watching the NFL.

Cousins isn't perfect, but he's not the main problem with this team. Far from it IMHO. He wasn't outplayed by Wilson in the loss, either. I give Wilson credit where I see credit is due, but I'm going to be fair and do the same for Cousins where he earns it.

Because if we have Wilson instead of cousins we win that game the titan game and who knows how many others that was Wilson 34 game winning drive how many does Kirk have? If Kirk does play well and actually does something to carry the team I’ll give him credit
I’m not so sure shouldn’t just cut him and eat the 42 million or whatever ungodly figure it is and get it over with

Was starting to feel better, then I saw the Titans convert a 4th and 1 easily when THEY DIDN'T EVEN NEED IT! *Sigh*

Raz wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:55 pm Because if we have Wilson instead of cousins we win that game the titan game and who knows how many others that was Wilson 34 game winning drive how many does Kirk have? If Kirk does play well and actually does something to carry the team I’ll give him credit
I’m not so sure shouldn’t just cut him and eat the 42 million or whatever ungodly figure it is and get it over with

I don't know how many game-winning drives Cousins has. He had one against the Saints in the playoffs last year that I can think of of right off the top of my head, but obviously not as many as Wilson.

Still, if we focus on just the most recent game against the Seahawks, I can't agree that Wilson was the better QB overall.

If the Vikings had Wilson I don't think it would have mattered on the final drive. The Vikings were running clock and and I doubt they would have altered that approach if they had Wilson instead of Cousins. The Vikings needed 6 inches to get a first down that would end the game and they didn't get it.

Going to the other side, had the Vikings been in the position of needing 95 yards to drive for a TD to win, if I had to bet money on which of Wilson or Cousins would get that done, I'd bet on Wilson. Still, I can't say that Cousins couldn't do it if called upon.

The Vikings have Cousins under contract. The only way it makes sense to move on is if they find someone better. So far, they've failed to do that.

VikingLord wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:24 pm

Raz wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:55 pm Because if we have Wilson instead of cousins we win that game the titan game and who knows how many others that was Wilson 34 game winning drive how many does Kirk have? If Kirk does play well and actually does something to carry the team I’ll give him credit
I’m not so sure shouldn’t just cut him and eat the 42 million or whatever ungodly figure it is and get it over with

I don't know how many game-winning drives Cousins has. He had one against the Saints in the playoffs last year that I can think of of right off the top of my head, but obviously not as many as Wilson.

He has 2 since he came to the Vikings.

During that time Wilson has 11 and for more context, that is the fewest number of game winning drives among the 17 QBs with 30+ starts.

He also has 2 4th quarter comebacks, which again is dead last in the NFL.

To be fair, he hasn't been in as many losing situations in the 4th as a guy like Mayfield who has 5, but then again, but on the flip side he has been in more than a guy like Wilson who has 8.

Ideally you could come up with a formula for opportunities for "clutchness" and how successful a QB was in those spots, but the best I can do is post his numbers compared to other QBs in games where he was down a score in the 4th.

Cousins is 29th among 43 QBs in passer rating in that spot.
29th in YPA.
3rd highest INT %.

Every QB with a worse passer than him:
Cam Newton - Cut
Kyle Allen - Backup
Kyler Murray - Rookie
Baker Mayfield - Underperforming #1 overall pick
Jameis Winston - Let walk
Philip Rivers - Let walk
Daniel Jones - Rookie
Jacoby Brissett - Benched
C.J. Beathard - Backup
Blake Bortles - Cut
Dwayne Haskins - Benched
Sam Darnold - Bust
Devlin Hodges - Backup
Jeff Driskel - Backup
Nick Mullens - Backup

Not the company you want to be in.

Cliff wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:58 pm Samia Cut up

That was horrifying. Like a nightmare, only real.

Don't know if you guys remember "O Brother Where Art Thou." In that movie, they steal a pie that's cooling in a window, and Delmar O'Donnell runs away with the other two. The way he runs is so stinking funny ... arms flailing, almost falling down.

That's Dru Samia in these clips, trying to block.

Cliff wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:58 pm Samia Cut up

I groaned audibly when Elflein was announced as the starter at RG this year. I thought that didn't bode well for the quality we'd see on the offensive line, and wondered if anyone could truly be worse than Elflein.

Well, I got my answer in Samia. Yes, someone can play the position worse than Elflein, and the Vikings happen to have that guy in their starting lineup now.

I still find it hard to believe the OL has taken this big of a step backwards while the GM invests "cusp-of-the-Superbowl' money into the QB and RB positions. As if the players at either of those positions don't really need competent line play in front of them. When I think they were considering cutting Reiff if he didn't take a pay cut (largely to finance the contract given to the oft-injured RB), I really wonder whether Spielman knows what the heck he's doing. Can anyone imagine what the Vikings OL would look like without Reiff at this point?

I shudder to think.

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:46 pm Not the company you want to be in.

Very true. I'm not trying to say Kirk Cousins is the guy you want if you're down late in the 4th.

I'm just pointing out that in that last game, the Vikings didn't need Cousins to do anything more than he did, which was hand it off. That should have been enough to win in that situation. The coaches weren't avoiding him because he's Kirk Cousins and not Russell Wilson.

VikingLord wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 4:15 pm

StumpHunter wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:46 pm Not the company you want to be in.

Very true. I'm not trying to say Kirk Cousins is the guy you want if you're down late in the 4th.

I'm just pointing out that in that last game, the Vikings didn't need Cousins to do anything more than he did, which was hand it off. That should have been enough to win in that situation. The coaches weren't avoiding him because he's Kirk Cousins and not Russell Wilson.

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but I disagree.

If Mike Zimmer really wanted to win this game, he should have pushed HARD for a touchdown to go up by 12.

Why were his only choices "make the 4th down conversion and run out the clock" and "kick a field goal to go up 8"?

How about maybe throwing on 3rd down instead of running a jet sweep with Adam Thielen? Or even second down. Seattle was geared up to stop the run. We'd been running it down their throats the entire drive. So how about play action and a shot into the end zone?

I realize that's not on Cousins, and it may not even be totally on Zimmer, since Kubiak calls the plays. But you just KNOW Zimmer's "play not to lose ... let's run out the clock" mindset played into this.

Maybe the right answer is that we didn't NEED Cousins to do anything more than he did, but if we'd have ALLOWED him to, he might have put the game away for us.

Not to beat a dead horse but cousins just doesn’t have “IT” I’m not really sure what all goes into having “IT” but he clearly doesn’t, which is fine if you have everything else perfect and get some break maybe get u to the big game.
I thought the signing was a good deal at first and the redskins just didn’t want to or knew what they were doing, but they clearly are smarter than the Vikings.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:25 amJim, something just occurred to me.

My dad died on January 11, 1977 ... the day after the Vikings' last Super Bowl appearance. I had not yet reached my 17th birthday.

I'm going to retire next year.

That means I've lived my entire adult, working life and never witnessed a return to the Super Bowl by the Minnesota Vikings.

It's looking less and less like I'm going to witness it before I die. Not that I had any illusions that this was going to be the year. But that loss last night was soul-crushing.

The optimist in me wants to believe that the team will take this as a huge step forward, dominating an undefeated team at a place they rarely lose. Unfortunately, the optimist in me is on the brink of retiring, as well.

Kapp, sorry I didn't see your post until this morning.

I'm in the same boat. I was in my teens when the Vikes lost their last Super Bowl so I've lived most of my adult life waiting for them to return to the big game too. When I was younger, I assumed it was inevitable, they would get their turn. Now I know better. It doesn't work out that way for every team.

My optimist retired a few years ago when it comes to the Vikings. I still have hope but without some big changes to the team, it's just a spark these days.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:44 pm The perfect example of this "burn clock" mentality was the drive that ended in the failed 4th down conversion. I've said it before on here: My problem wasn't with going for it on 4th down. I would have preferred a QB sneak, but I don't even have that big a problem with the play call. My problem was with the entire sequence. Zimmer's entire thought process. He wasn't trying to score a touchdown to win the game. He was trying to burn clock. And I hate that.

Does anyone here think Andy Reid would have simply tried to run out the clock with a 5-point lead? Bill Belichick? Hell, I don't even think Kevin Stefanski would have done that. Zimmer had one goal for that entire drive, and that was to run out the clock. But we should have been trying to SCORE.

My gut tells me that the raw speed that Reid/Belichick/et. al. believe in at the RB position gives them scoring chances in those situations beyond teams like us. IOW, I am not sure those HC's are "going for the score" as much as they end up scoring due to the raw speed employed. Our "we ALL know we are going to run the ball" offense is more plodding than explosive, IMO.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:44 pm A) They were committing 8 guys to stop the run. B) We had been running the ball at will. C) Why was there not even ONE play-action pass?

I re-ordered your statements and can now say that C did not happen due to A and B. And seriously, with Cousins' penchant for the ill-timed INT, this board would have been positively apoplectic if we play-actioned into an INT at the 10 yard line. I was OK with continuing the running game.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:44 pm
They would have been powerless to stop it. Go for the TD, get two scores ahead, and it doesn't matter what Seattle does in the last 2 minutes.

I still feel like it was a good call, and simply not having Cook in the game turned it from a 51% "winning" play into a 49% "losing" play.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:44 pm Zimmer's mindset is more in tune to 1996 than 2020.

This may be the best, most succinct summation of our current, and seemingly future status.

psjordan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:25 am

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:44 pm The perfect example of this "burn clock" mentality was the drive that ended in the failed 4th down conversion. I've said it before on here: My problem wasn't with going for it on 4th down. I would have preferred a QB sneak, but I don't even have that big a problem with the play call. My problem was with the entire sequence. Zimmer's entire thought process. He wasn't trying to score a touchdown to win the game. He was trying to burn clock. And I hate that.

Does anyone here think Andy Reid would have simply tried to run out the clock with a 5-point lead? Bill Belichick? Hell, I don't even think Kevin Stefanski would have done that. Zimmer had one goal for that entire drive, and that was to run out the clock. But we should have been trying to SCORE.

My gut tells me that the raw speed that Reid/Belichick/et. al. believe in at the RB position gives them scoring chances in those situations beyond teams like us. IOW, I am not sure those HC's are "going for the score" as much as they end up scoring due to the raw speed employed. Our "we ALL know we are going to run the ball" offense is more plodding than explosive, IMO.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:44 pm A) They were committing 8 guys to stop the run. B) We had been running the ball at will. C) Why was there not even ONE play-action pass?

I re-ordered your statements and can now say that C did not happen due to A and B. And seriously, with Cousins' penchant for the ill-timed INT, this board would have been positively apoplectic if we play-actioned into an INT at the 10 yard line. I was OK with continuing the running game.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:44 pm
They would have been powerless to stop it. Go for the TD, get two scores ahead, and it doesn't matter what Seattle does in the last 2 minutes.

I still feel like it was a good call, and simply not having Cook in the game turned it from a 51% "winning" play into a 49% "losing" play.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:44 pm Zimmer's mindset is more in tune to 1996 than 2020.

This may be the best, most succinct summation of our current, and seemingly future status.

Again, I'm not talking about the 4th down call. I was fine with that, although I still contend a sneak would have been better. As one NFL analyst asked about the logic of handing the ball off when you only need a few inches: "Why go backwards 3 yards to go forward 3 inches?" But as for going for it on 4th, I was fine with that.

I'm talking about the series of plays leading up to the 4th down call. The mindset. You could see it ... Zimmer was thinking, "Run out the clock." But again, we had driven the ball beautifully from the 50 yard line following Eric Wilson's interception. We had them on their heels, committing 8 in the box to stop the run. If I were a coach there, my approach would have been, "Screw the clock. Let's go play-action, score a touchdown and end this thing." That's the probability that nobody is talking about ... up 12 with 2+ minutes to play. Want to make a statement, both to the league and to your own team? Go for the W ... for real.

I was never a fan of Mike Tice, but I'll give him credit for one thing. I remember the Vikings scoring a TD late in a game at New Orleans, and instead of kicking the extra point that would have tied the game, he went for two and won it. THAT is going for the W. Zimmer had a desperate 1-3 team on the road with a golden opportunity to beat an undefeated Seahawks squad. Win there, and you come home for a game against a winless Atlanta team to get back to .500 going into the bye. I don't care that he went for it on 4th down. He played the entire sequence "not to lose." And guess what? He lost. Now we're 1-4 and dead in the water.

As for Cousins possibly throwing a pick at the 10 yard line ... sure, that's possible. But how would that have been different than giving up the ball on downs? Plus, Cousins is among the best in the league off play-action. He's got the ultimate man-coverage, red-zone weapon in Kyle Rudolph.

Bottom line: If Mike Zimmer really doesn't trust his $31-million quarterback to make the play he's best at, in a situation where success is just sitting there on a tee, then he's got problems that extend well beyond play-calling.