Krammer: Kirk Cousins aiming to reach 'next level' this season with multiple playoff wins

[Beef Supreme]

He's pointing out the narrative because he understands how simplistic and short sighted it is. I'm sure he's certainly worried about upsetting the people that love the narrative, and would like nothing more than to attack him and/or his family on twitter.

But why does he care about the “narrative?” Just play. He throws a very good ball. Excellent “arm talent,” powerful and accurate. He struggles to deal with pressure. That’s his “narrative” and it’s as accurate as one of his dimes to Thielen at Green Bay last year. Work on that and prove that you’ve improved on the field.

Because, as Bubu pointed out, and you so astutely confirmed, most Vikings fans blame the QB almost entirely when a season goes wrong. These are the same types that call for the back up, no matter who it is, when they don't like the QB play.

This is what you ask for when you become the highest paid player on the team. If you don’t want that responsibility, don’t take the offer. $84M comes with pressure and expectations. Kirk has 3 years to live up to that pressure and those expectations. So far he’s 0-1, but there’s good reason to believe that this year could be different.

8-7-1 is not all his fault and it’s “simplistic” and a strawman to reduce all criticism of Cousins to that false statement. The point is, he has been paid to overcome problems, to be the solution to an imperfect roster. Not to have excuses made for him. This isn’t so much about Cousins the individual as it is about the “Cousins experiment” at an unprecedented $84M fully guaranteed. I would be fellating him daily for his talents if he were on a rookie-scale deal or something similar. It’s about this question: “Is paying a good-but-not-great quarterback a record contract a move that brings the franchise to the promised land or not?” Again, so far 0-1. I don’t hate Cousins. He is a good passer with some limitations in the pocket and kind of a dork. That’s what he is.

Well, that didn't really happen last year, but you get the point. And of course, there's a more important part of this interview that would normally be included and bolded if it weren't Cunningham posting it.

Okay. Take that up with Cunningham. Well, I see that you did. Carry on.

1. That's not the narrative he's addressing. That's the narrative that you'd rather focus on here, and maybe it's annoying to you that he didn't address exactly what you wanted, but that's not it.

He addressed the morons that can't see at all past win = good QB, lose = bad QB. You consistently want to place yourself in that category, and don't let me stop you there.

Why? If there are (and you’re right, there are) people who see it that simplistically, why bother worrying about their “narrative?”

And that’s absolutely not what I’m doing. If you can’t see that, we’ll... obviously we’re unable to communicate effectively with each other and should maybe stop trying.

2. The fact that you would be blowing him if he made less money is exactly your problem. If you want to be pissed, then fucking get pissed at the team if you don't think they made the right move.

I’m not pissed at all. I specifically talked about this not being about Cousins himself and about “The Cousins experiment.” Again, are you reacting to what I’m saying or to what you think I’m saying?

But to adjust your happiness level with what the QB is doing based on the dollar amount the market offered? That's the most asinine, stupid statement you've said Beef. So, when the market changes, and he's suddenly not one of the highest paid QB's, that would make him better? Dumb. Real dumb.

Missed the point. Salary cap space is a finite resource. Every dollar invested in one area is one dollar that cannot be invested in another area. Having a $28M quarterback versus a $10M quarterback is $18M you cannot use to improve other areas of the team. So that $28M quarterback need to be able to overcome whatever deficiencies that creates vs what it would have been with the cheaper guy. That is why the salary matters. It’s not about my happiness. It’s about roster building. Is cousins worth what we paid? So far 0-1. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t hate Cousins. I don’t think he’s a bad player. I think he’s overpaid for what he brings as that presents challenges for roster construction. That’s it. I’m not sure if any of the other realistic options at QB would have been better, though I’m on record saying that I would have brought Keenum back for around $15M and tried to search for a franchise guy in the draft either last year, this year, or one of these coming years. We didn’t do that and that’s okay, because there’s no guarantee that way would work either.

If the salary cap explodes and Cousins deal becomes a bargain, then yes, that makes him a better bang-for-buck player. This is why I’m also on record wishing we had a couple non-guaranteed years at the end of this deal for around $30M/per or so. If he plays well and the cap explodes, then we’d have him for an appropriate price (which is determined by percentage of salary cap, not overall cash) for a couple years. As it is, if the cap explodes, it’s just in time for him to demand a hefty raise to stay at a rate that I consider overpaid for his ability.

3. Agreed, the team was 0-1 last year. Glad we found common ground.

Hope for better this year. I think Rick and Rob did a pretty nice job making the pieces fit this year. They’ve completely remade the offense to cater to Cousins, which is exactly what they should do, of course. I think the expectation should be (barring a rash of key injuries) 11-5 and at least one playoff win. Some are saying “hoist” this year, but I don’t think that’s a fair standard. Cousins himself said playoff wins, as in multiple, so I’ve got a lower standard for success than even he does.


And I think you should tone down the silly and insulting rhetoric. It makes you look bad, not anyone else. But whatever. I can take it. It’s a hard-hat area, I know.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

Beef, don’t bother with Joe. It is like talking to someone who only tries to reply with a rebuttal. Valiant effort, but look at his point 3.

Or point 2 that if Cousins made less money you would be blowing him.

Just a troll.

This reminds me of the TJack years listening to Childress go on and on about how great he looked in practice and then watching him shit the bed in games. Now granted, Cousins is a much better quarterback than TJoke, but when the pressure is applied he folds. Kubiak might be able to coach that up, but there are also multiple examples of where his coaching wasn’t good enough to overcome some quarterback’s faults.

The big thing that Joe obviously doesn’t get (among most things) is that from point 2 that yes, we would be in a better spot if Cousins was paid significantly less money. Has he watched this offseason? Guys are restructuring and signing all sorts of crap because of Cousins’ contract. That will get worse as time goes on.

And if Cousins isn’t leading this team to wins in big games guys will jump ship rather than take less money.

Kubiak might right this ship with Stefanski, and the article broke this down in fairly good depth, but Cousins has to produce wins with that salary. That is THE ONLY STAT WE GIVE A SHIT ABOUT AT THIS POINT!

Nope. Not even close to scoring points against my argument.

[cunningham]

Despite the troll, even Cousins understands what I am saying.

“The next level is all about winning,” Cousins said. “I’m pretty much a .500 quarterback in my career so far and I don’t think that’s where you want to be. That’s not why you are brought in or people are excited about you.”

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

But why does he care about the “narrative?” Just play. He throws a very good ball. Excellent “arm talent,” powerful and accurate. He struggles to deal with pressure. That’s his “narrative” and it’s as accurate as one of his dimes to Thielen at Green Bay last year. Work on that and prove that you’ve improved on the field.



This is what you ask for when you become the highest paid player on the team. If you don’t want that responsibility, don’t take the offer. $84M comes with pressure and expectations. Kirk has 3 years to live up to that pressure and those expectations. So far he’s 0-1, but there’s good reason to believe that this year could be different.

8-7-1 is not all his fault and it’s “simplistic” and a strawman to reduce all criticism of Cousins to that false statement. The point is, he has been paid to overcome problems, to be the solution to an imperfect roster. Not to have excuses made for him. This isn’t so much about Cousins the individual as it is about the “Cousins experiment” at an unprecedented $84M fully guaranteed. I would be fellating him daily for his talents if he were on a rookie-scale deal or something similar. It’s about this question: “Is paying a good-but-not-great quarterback a record contract a move that brings the franchise to the promised land or not?” Again, so far 0-1. I don’t hate Cousins. He is a good passer with some limitations in the pocket and kind of a dork. That’s what he is.





Okay. Take that up with Cunningham. Well, I see that you did. Carry on.

1. That's not the narrative he's addressing. That's the narrative that you'd rather focus on here, and maybe it's annoying to you that he didn't address exactly what you wanted, but that's not it.

He addressed the morons that can't see at all past win = good QB, lose = bad QB. You consistently want to place yourself in that category, and don't let me stop you there.

Why? If there are (and you’re right, there are) people who see it that simplistically, why bother worrying about their “narrative?”

And that’s absolutely not what I’m doing. If you can’t see that, we’ll... obviously we’re unable to communicate effectively with each other and should maybe stop trying.

2. The fact that you would be blowing him if he made less money is exactly your problem. If you want to be pissed, then fucking get pissed at the team if you don't think they made the right move.

I’m not pissed at all. I specifically talked about this not being about Cousins himself and about “The Cousins experiment.” Again, are you reacting to what I’m saying or to what you think I’m saying?

But to adjust your happiness level with what the QB is doing based on the dollar amount the market offered? That's the most asinine, stupid statement you've said Beef. So, when the market changes, and he's suddenly not one of the highest paid QB's, that would make him better? Dumb. Real dumb.

Missed the point. Salary cap space is a finite resource. Every dollar invested in one area is one dollar that cannot be invested in another area. Having a $28M quarterback versus a $10M quarterback is $18M you cannot use to improve other areas of the team. So that $28M quarterback need to be able to overcome whatever deficiencies that creates vs what it would have been with the cheaper guy. That is why the salary matters. It’s not about my happiness. It’s about roster building. Is cousins worth what we paid? So far 0-1. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t hate Cousins. I don’t think he’s a bad player. I think he’s overpaid for what he brings as that presents challenges for roster construction. That’s it. I’m not sure if any of the other realistic options at QB would have been better, though I’m on record saying that I would have brought Keenum back for around $15M and tried to search for a franchise guy in the draft either last year, this year, or one of these coming years. We didn’t do that and that’s okay, because there’s no guarantee that way would work either.

If the salary cap explodes and Cousins deal becomes a bargain, then yes, that makes him a better bang-for-buck player. This is why I’m also on record wishing we had a couple non-guaranteed years at the end of this deal for around $30M/per or so. If he plays well and the cap explodes, then we’d have him for an appropriate price (which is determined by percentage of salary cap, not overall cash) for a couple years. As it is, if the cap explodes, it’s just in time for him to demand a hefty raise to stay at a rate that I consider overpaid for his ability.

3. Agreed, the team was 0-1 last year. Glad we found common ground.

Hope for better this year. I think Rick and Rob did a pretty nice job making the pieces fit this year. They’ve completely remade the offense to cater to Cousins, which is exactly what they should do, of course. I think the expectation should be (barring a rash of key injuries) 11-5 and at least one playoff win. Some are saying “hoist” this year, but I don’t think that’s a fair standard. Cousins himself said playoff wins, as in multiple, so I’ve got a lower standard for success than even he does.


And I think you should tone down the silly and insulting rhetoric. It makes you look bad, not anyone else. But whatever. I can take it. It’s a hard-hat area, I know.

Nope. Didn't miss the point at all. When your analysis of the QB is dictated by what the market paid, you're way off. Your problem is with the team that decided to pay him, not inflating your production expectation. Then expect the team to do better if you have a problem with what they paid.

But again, the market is not stagnant, and changes between seasons. The market does not change in flux with QB production. So during the offseason, when contracts change, that should not change your evaluation of whether a player has done their job.

And the 4th round pick that plays QB for the Vikings has already exceeded expectations based on being a 4th round pick. Because draft results are stagnant, and we can look back and evaluate. But, just because Wentz just signed that big contract, that shouldn't change your evaluation of Cousins. And that's what your theory dictates.

As far as rhetoric, I can have a discussion with you because I think you're generally a fair guy. Except on this Cousins troll. I know that there's some truth to your point, but honestly, it's a bit of a troll to align yourself with Cunningham. We all know you're kinda doing that here.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

Honestly, the anti-Spielman crowd should be thrilled with the Cousins contract. I mean, yes, we could lose some big pieces (still waiting on that one), but this may force the team to let go of players a year before they get too "old".

Additionally, the team continues to retain players even with a tight cap situation. If we lose a bigger player in the future (as was predicted to already happen by posters here), I'd be a bit more pissed at the recent decision making process in light of the Cousins contract and cap situation.

[Dude]

Cousins lost to every winning team

False.

Was it Philly? That was a pretty good win though the eagles were in a bit of turmoil at the time and he got helped by a Linval Joseph “fat guy” touchdown from the defense.

Cousins played okay in that game iirc. Not great, but not bad. And philly is a tough place to play. I’ll give him credit for coming out of there with a win, even if it was kind of ugly.

Cousins was 30-37 for 301 and a TD in that game- I'm not going to qualify that as "okay" or "good," but it's a road win against a playoff team.

I admit it's relatively nitpicky but let's not sell Cousins short.

[Beef Supreme]

1. That's not the narrative he's addressing. That's the narrative that you'd rather focus on here, and maybe it's annoying to you that he didn't address exactly what you wanted, but that's not it.

He addressed the morons that can't see at all past win = good QB, lose = bad QB. You consistently want to place yourself in that category, and don't let me stop you there.

Why? If there are (and you’re right, there are) people who see it that simplistically, why bother worrying about their “narrative?”

And that’s absolutely not what I’m doing. If you can’t see that, we’ll... obviously we’re unable to communicate effectively with each other and should maybe stop trying.

2. The fact that you would be blowing him if he made less money is exactly your problem. If you want to be pissed, then fucking get pissed at the team if you don't think they made the right move.

I’m not pissed at all. I specifically talked about this not being about Cousins himself and about “The Cousins experiment.” Again, are you reacting to what I’m saying or to what you think I’m saying?

But to adjust your happiness level with what the QB is doing based on the dollar amount the market offered? That's the most asinine, stupid statement you've said Beef. So, when the market changes, and he's suddenly not one of the highest paid QB's, that would make him better? Dumb. Real dumb.

Missed the point. Salary cap space is a finite resource. Every dollar invested in one area is one dollar that cannot be invested in another area. Having a $28M quarterback versus a $10M quarterback is $18M you cannot use to improve other areas of the team. So that $28M quarterback need to be able to overcome whatever deficiencies that creates vs what it would have been with the cheaper guy. That is why the salary matters. It’s not about my happiness. It’s about roster building. Is cousins worth what we paid? So far 0-1. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t hate Cousins. I don’t think he’s a bad player. I think he’s overpaid for what he brings as that presents challenges for roster construction. That’s it. I’m not sure if any of the other realistic options at QB would have been better, though I’m on record saying that I would have brought Keenum back for around $15M and tried to search for a franchise guy in the draft either last year, this year, or one of these coming years. We didn’t do that and that’s okay, because there’s no guarantee that way would work either.

If the salary cap explodes and Cousins deal becomes a bargain, then yes, that makes him a better bang-for-buck player. This is why I’m also on record wishing we had a couple non-guaranteed years at the end of this deal for around $30M/per or so. If he plays well and the cap explodes, then we’d have him for an appropriate price (which is determined by percentage of salary cap, not overall cash) for a couple years. As it is, if the cap explodes, it’s just in time for him to demand a hefty raise to stay at a rate that I consider overpaid for his ability.

3. Agreed, the team was 0-1 last year. Glad we found common ground.

Hope for better this year. I think Rick and Rob did a pretty nice job making the pieces fit this year. They’ve completely remade the offense to cater to Cousins, which is exactly what they should do, of course. I think the expectation should be (barring a rash of key injuries) 11-5 and at least one playoff win. Some are saying “hoist” this year, but I don’t think that’s a fair standard. Cousins himself said playoff wins, as in multiple, so I’ve got a lower standard for success than even he does.


And I think you should tone down the silly and insulting rhetoric. It makes you look bad, not anyone else. But whatever. I can take it. It’s a hard-hat area, I know.

Nope. Didn't miss the point at all. When your analysis of the QB is dictated by what the market paid, you're way off. Your problem is with the team that decided to pay him, not inflating your production expectation. Then expect the team to do better if you have a problem with what they paid.

I know the issue is with the decision to give him all the money. That’s what I’m saying. That’s why I’ve said he’s a good player who throws a really good ball. He’s not a bum. You’re not breaking any news here. That’s been my point all along. Obviously, it has something to do with cousins as my opinion is based on the flaws in his game when compared to the elites like Brees, Brady, etc. But it’s not “hate” on cousins or anything. He’s a good player who’s paid like a great one. Good For him, but it presents challenges for his team due to the salary cap.

I’m also on record saying that I think Cousins is capable of winning a super bowl if the team around him is good enough. He has enough arm talent to get it done. I see him as a potential Eli Manning or joe Flacco type SB winner, not a Drew Brees or Tom Brady type, but I’ll take it happily if it comes.

But again, the market is not stagnant, and changes between seasons. The market does not change in flux with QB production. So during the offseason, when contracts change, that should not change your evaluation of whether a player has done their job.

I disagree. The evaluation metric changes year to year. It’s always about percent of the cap and it’s relative to his peers.

Let’s say cousins makes 20% of the cap. Let’s also say that no other QB makes more than 18% of the cap (these numbers are made up, just to make re math easy and prove a point). That would be a bad deal for the team since he is clearly not the best quarterback in the league and only borderline top-12 or so. We would have less money to spend on the rest of our roster than teams with better quarterbacks. That would but us at a significant disadvantage when competing with those teams.

Let’s say the cap jumps up the next year and Cousins is now only making 17% of the cap. Let’s also say that a dozen QBs sign contracts that are larger than Cousins’ deal. Now, he’s about the 12th best QB in the league and paid about the 12th most money, in terms of percent of the salary cap. We are no longer at a competitive disadvantage when building a roster to compete with other teams.

Obviously, that’s a hypothetical and can be mitigated by having really good players at other positions paid lower than their market value, but the point with regards to Cousins is clear: If you pay him more than players quarterbacks that are better than him, it puts you at a disadvantage. This is part of why the patriots have been so good for so long. Brady has consistently played for less than his market value, allowing the patriots to luxury of having the best QB maybe ever and more salary cap space to fill out their roster than other teams with good quarterbacks. It’s also why the Seahawks were able to be so dominant when Wilson was making 3rd round rookie money and are struggling now that he's appropriately paid and have lost that competitive advantage. Rams and Goff too.

And the 4th round pick that plays QB for the Vikings has already exceeded expectations based on being a 4th round pick. Because draft results are stagnant, and we can look back and evaluate. But, just because Wentz just signed that big contract, that shouldn't change your evaluation of Cousins. And that's what your theory dictates.

And it’s exactly correct. Because now the eagles, one of the teams we compete with, have lost the advantage of having a cheap quarterback. They had that advantage over us and now they don’t. That matters. That is one fewer team that cousins deal hurts us with regard to building a roster to compete against.

As far as rhetoric, I can have a discussion with you because I think you're generally a fair guy. Except on this Cousins troll. I know that there's some truth to your point, but honestly, it's a bit of a troll to align yourself with Cunningham. We all know you're kinda doing that here.

It’s not a troll. It’s absolutely not. I won’t say I’ve never made a cheeky troll-ish post about it. I probably have. But the overall point is 100% legit and not trolling at all.

If I share part of this opinion with Cunningham (I think he dislikes cousins more than I do), I’m now “aligned” with him? Okay. I missed the summit meeting with him, but I guess we’re allies. Whatever.

[Beef Supreme]

False.

Was it Philly? That was a pretty good win though the eagles were in a bit of turmoil at the time and he got helped by a Linval Joseph “fat guy” touchdown from the defense.

Cousins played okay in that game iirc. Not great, but not bad. And philly is a tough place to play. I’ll give him credit for coming out of there with a win, even if it was kind of ugly.

Cousins was 30-37 for 301 and a TD in that game- I'm not going to qualify that as "okay" or "good," but it's a road win against a playoff team.

I admit it's relatively nitpicky but let's not sell Cousins short.

Sure. He was good. But he wasn’t great. 301 yards is a good number, but on 37 attempts (8.2ypa) is not amazing. He threw for 1 TD and the offense didn’t score a lot (14 points, I think). Okay. Solid. Good. I give him credit. But he didn’t blow any doors off that game. He gets credit for beating a good team on the road, but it’s not like he was rallying the team around his brilliant throws (like he did at Lambert last year in a game that he absolutely should have won and the team let him down).

[Beef Supreme]

Honestly, the anti-Spielman crowd should be thrilled with the Cousins contract. I mean, yes, we could lose some big pieces (still waiting on that one), but this may force the team to let go of players a year before they get too "old".

Additionally, the team continues to retain players even with a tight cap situation. If we lose a bigger player in the future (as was predicted to already happen by posters here), I'd be a bit more pissed at the recent decision making process in light of the Cousins contract and cap situation.

Agreed. And I’ve been a pretty pro-Spielman guy for most of his tenure. I thought the cousins deal would cost us more, but then again, we would have lost Barr if he hadn’t taken less than what NYJ offered. I didn’t see that coming.


But you’ve also got to factor in the opportunity cost of not being able to pursue top FAs due to the contract as well.

[Beef Supreme]

Despite the troll, even Cousins understands what I am saying.

“The next level is all about winning,” Cousins said. “I’m pretty much a .500 quarterback in my career so far and I don’t think that’s where you want to be. That’s not why you are brought in or people are excited about you.”

And this is the point. This roster is talented enough to go about .500 with a modestly-paid quarterback. Cousins has to be able to elevate the roster to greater things than that or he’s not worth it.


It’s a 3-year experiment. So far 0-1.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

Why? If there are (and you’re right, there are) people who see it that simplistically, why bother worrying about their “narrative?”

And that’s absolutely not what I’m doing. If you can’t see that, we’ll... obviously we’re unable to communicate effectively with each other and should maybe stop trying.



I’m not pissed at all. I specifically talked about this not being about Cousins himself and about “The Cousins experiment.” Again, are you reacting to what I’m saying or to what you think I’m saying?



Missed the point. Salary cap space is a finite resource. Every dollar invested in one area is one dollar that cannot be invested in another area. Having a $28M quarterback versus a $10M quarterback is $18M you cannot use to improve other areas of the team. So that $28M quarterback need to be able to overcome whatever deficiencies that creates vs what it would have been with the cheaper guy. That is why the salary matters. It’s not about my happiness. It’s about roster building. Is cousins worth what we paid? So far 0-1. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t hate Cousins. I don’t think he’s a bad player. I think he’s overpaid for what he brings as that presents challenges for roster construction. That’s it. I’m not sure if any of the other realistic options at QB would have been better, though I’m on record saying that I would have brought Keenum back for around $15M and tried to search for a franchise guy in the draft either last year, this year, or one of these coming years. We didn’t do that and that’s okay, because there’s no guarantee that way would work either.

If the salary cap explodes and Cousins deal becomes a bargain, then yes, that makes him a better bang-for-buck player. This is why I’m also on record wishing we had a couple non-guaranteed years at the end of this deal for around $30M/per or so. If he plays well and the cap explodes, then we’d have him for an appropriate price (which is determined by percentage of salary cap, not overall cash) for a couple years. As it is, if the cap explodes, it’s just in time for him to demand a hefty raise to stay at a rate that I consider overpaid for his ability.



Hope for better this year. I think Rick and Rob did a pretty nice job making the pieces fit this year. They’ve completely remade the offense to cater to Cousins, which is exactly what they should do, of course. I think the expectation should be (barring a rash of key injuries) 11-5 and at least one playoff win. Some are saying “hoist” this year, but I don’t think that’s a fair standard. Cousins himself said playoff wins, as in multiple, so I’ve got a lower standard for success than even he does.


And I think you should tone down the silly and insulting rhetoric. It makes you look bad, not anyone else. But whatever. I can take it. It’s a hard-hat area, I know.

Nope. Didn't miss the point at all. When your analysis of the QB is dictated by what the market paid, you're way off. Your problem is with the team that decided to pay him, not inflating your production expectation. Then expect the team to do better if you have a problem with what they paid.

I know the issue is with the decision to give him all the money. That’s what I’m saying. That’s why I’ve said he’s a good player who throws a really good ball. He’s not a bum. You’re not breaking any news here. That’s been my point all along. Obviously, it has something to do with cousins as my opinion is based on the flaws in his game when compared to the elites like Brees, Brady, etc. But it’s not “hate” on cousins or anything. He’s a good player who’s paid like a great one. Good For him, but it presents challenges for his team due to the salary cap.

I’m also on record saying that I think Cousins is capable of winning a super bowl if the team around him is good enough. He has enough arm talent to get it done. I see him as a potential Eli Manning or joe Flacco type SB winner, not a Drew Brees or Tom Brady type, but I’ll take it happily if it comes.

But again, the market is not stagnant, and changes between seasons. The market does not change in flux with QB production. So during the offseason, when contracts change, that should not change your evaluation of whether a player has done their job.

I disagree. The evaluation metric changes year to year. It’s always about percent of the cap and it’s relative to his peers.

Let’s say cousins makes 20% of the cap. Let’s also say that no other QB makes more than 18% of the cap (these numbers are made up, just to make re math easy and prove a point). That would be a bad deal for the team since he is clearly not the best quarterback in the league and only borderline top-12 or so. We would have less money to spend on the rest of our roster than teams with better quarterbacks. That would but us at a significant disadvantage when competing with those teams.

Let’s say the cap jumps up the next year and Cousins is now only making 17% of the cap. Let’s also say that a dozen QBs sign contracts that are larger than Cousins’ deal. Now, he’s about the 12th best QB in the league and paid about the 12th most money, in terms of percent of the salary cap. We are no longer at a competitive disadvantage when building a roster to compete with other teams.

Obviously, that’s a hypothetical and can be mitigated by having really good players at other positions paid lower than their market value, but the point with regards to Cousins is clear: If you pay him more than players quarterbacks that are better than him, it puts you at a disadvantage. This is part of why the patriots have been so good for so long. Brady has consistently played for less than his market value, allowing the patriots to luxury of having the best QB maybe ever and more salary cap space to fill out their roster than other teams with good quarterbacks. It’s also why the Seahawks were able to be so dominant when Wilson was making 3rd round rookie money and are struggling now that he's appropriately paid and have lost that competitive advantage. Rams and Goff too.

And the 4th round pick that plays QB for the Vikings has already exceeded expectations based on being a 4th round pick. Because draft results are stagnant, and we can look back and evaluate. But, just because Wentz just signed that big contract, that shouldn't change your evaluation of Cousins. And that's what your theory dictates.

And it’s exactly correct. Because now the eagles, one of the teams we compete with, have lost the advantage of having a cheap quarterback. They had that advantage over us and now they don’t. That matters. That is one fewer team that cousins deal hurts us with regard to building a roster to compete against.

As far as rhetoric, I can have a discussion with you because I think you're generally a fair guy. Except on this Cousins troll. I know that there's some truth to your point, but honestly, it's a bit of a troll to align yourself with Cunningham. We all know you're kinda doing that here.

It’s not a troll. It’s absolutely not. I won’t say I’ve never made a cheeky troll-ish post about it. I probably have. But the overall point is 100% legit and not trolling at all.

If I share part of this opinion with Cunningham (I think he dislikes cousins more than I do), I’m now “aligned” with him? Okay. I missed the summit meeting with him, but I guess we’re allies. Whatever.

For clarification, your evaluation of QB play is relative to their percentage of the cap in a given year, and the higher percentage of the cap, you look at their play accordingly? That's not something you would place 99% of the onus on the team?

So you look at how a guy is playing, his record, stats, all of that stuff, and before you make your evaluation, you look at his cap percentage? I'm sorry, I'm probably repeating myself but this is kinda weird Beef. The effect his contract has on the team is the team's fucking problem.

But here you are going further, saying he should take less money so that his play can be evaluated more positively. This is fascinating. I'm honestly shocked at how unbelievable that is (if I'm reading correctly).

[Beef Supreme]

Nope. Didn't miss the point at all. When your analysis of the QB is dictated by what the market paid, you're way off. Your problem is with the team that decided to pay him, not inflating your production expectation. Then expect the team to do better if you have a problem with what they paid.

I know the issue is with the decision to give him all the money. That’s what I’m saying. That’s why I’ve said he’s a good player who throws a really good ball. He’s not a bum. You’re not breaking any news here. That’s been my point all along. Obviously, it has something to do with cousins as my opinion is based on the flaws in his game when compared to the elites like Brees, Brady, etc. But it’s not “hate” on cousins or anything. He’s a good player who’s paid like a great one. Good For him, but it presents challenges for his team due to the salary cap.

I’m also on record saying that I think Cousins is capable of winning a super bowl if the team around him is good enough. He has enough arm talent to get it done. I see him as a potential Eli Manning or joe Flacco type SB winner, not a Drew Brees or Tom Brady type, but I’ll take it happily if it comes.

But again, the market is not stagnant, and changes between seasons. The market does not change in flux with QB production. So during the offseason, when contracts change, that should not change your evaluation of whether a player has done their job.

I disagree. The evaluation metric changes year to year. It’s always about percent of the cap and it’s relative to his peers.

Let’s say cousins makes 20% of the cap. Let’s also say that no other QB makes more than 18% of the cap (these numbers are made up, just to make re math easy and prove a point). That would be a bad deal for the team since he is clearly not the best quarterback in the league and only borderline top-12 or so. We would have less money to spend on the rest of our roster than teams with better quarterbacks. That would but us at a significant disadvantage when competing with those teams.

Let’s say the cap jumps up the next year and Cousins is now only making 17% of the cap. Let’s also say that a dozen QBs sign contracts that are larger than Cousins’ deal. Now, he’s about the 12th best QB in the league and paid about the 12th most money, in terms of percent of the salary cap. We are no longer at a competitive disadvantage when building a roster to compete with other teams.

Obviously, that’s a hypothetical and can be mitigated by having really good players at other positions paid lower than their market value, but the point with regards to Cousins is clear: If you pay him more than players quarterbacks that are better than him, it puts you at a disadvantage. This is part of why the patriots have been so good for so long. Brady has consistently played for less than his market value, allowing the patriots to luxury of having the best QB maybe ever and more salary cap space to fill out their roster than other teams with good quarterbacks. It’s also why the Seahawks were able to be so dominant when Wilson was making 3rd round rookie money and are struggling now that he's appropriately paid and have lost that competitive advantage. Rams and Goff too.

And the 4th round pick that plays QB for the Vikings has already exceeded expectations based on being a 4th round pick. Because draft results are stagnant, and we can look back and evaluate. But, just because Wentz just signed that big contract, that shouldn't change your evaluation of Cousins. And that's what your theory dictates.

And it’s exactly correct. Because now the eagles, one of the teams we compete with, have lost the advantage of having a cheap quarterback. They had that advantage over us and now they don’t. That matters. That is one fewer team that cousins deal hurts us with regard to building a roster to compete against.

As far as rhetoric, I can have a discussion with you because I think you're generally a fair guy. Except on this Cousins troll. I know that there's some truth to your point, but honestly, it's a bit of a troll to align yourself with Cunningham. We all know you're kinda doing that here.

It’s not a troll. It’s absolutely not. I won’t say I’ve never made a cheeky troll-ish post about it. I probably have. But the overall point is 100% legit and not trolling at all.

If I share part of this opinion with Cunningham (I think he dislikes cousins more than I do), I’m now “aligned” with him? Okay. I missed the summit meeting with him, but I guess we’re allies. Whatever.

For clarification, your evaluation of QB play is relative to their percentage of the cap in a given year, and the higher percentage of the cap, you look at their play accordingly? That's not something you would place 99% of the onus on the team?

So you look at how a guy is playing, his record, stats, all of that stuff, and before you make your evaluation, you look at his cap percentage? I'm sorry, I'm probably repeating myself but this is kinda weird Beef. The effect his contract has on the team is the team's fucking problem.

But here you are going further, saying he should take less money so that his play can be evaluated more positively. This is fascinating. I'm honestly shocked at how unbelievable that is (if I'm reading correctly).

No. I’m saying that when his pay outpaces his play it hurts the team and he is open for criticism on that fact.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

I know the issue is with the decision to give him all the money. That’s what I’m saying. That’s why I’ve said he’s a good player who throws a really good ball. He’s not a bum. You’re not breaking any news here. That’s been my point all along. Obviously, it has something to do with cousins as my opinion is based on the flaws in his game when compared to the elites like Brees, Brady, etc. But it’s not “hate” on cousins or anything. He’s a good player who’s paid like a great one. Good For him, but it presents challenges for his team due to the salary cap.

I’m also on record saying that I think Cousins is capable of winning a super bowl if the team around him is good enough. He has enough arm talent to get it done. I see him as a potential Eli Manning or joe Flacco type SB winner, not a Drew Brees or Tom Brady type, but I’ll take it happily if it comes.




I disagree. The evaluation metric changes year to year. It’s always about percent of the cap and it’s relative to his peers.

Let’s say cousins makes 20% of the cap. Let’s also say that no other QB makes more than 18% of the cap (these numbers are made up, just to make re math easy and prove a point). That would be a bad deal for the team since he is clearly not the best quarterback in the league and only borderline top-12 or so. We would have less money to spend on the rest of our roster than teams with better quarterbacks. That would but us at a significant disadvantage when competing with those teams.

Let’s say the cap jumps up the next year and Cousins is now only making 17% of the cap. Let’s also say that a dozen QBs sign contracts that are larger than Cousins’ deal. Now, he’s about the 12th best QB in the league and paid about the 12th most money, in terms of percent of the salary cap. We are no longer at a competitive disadvantage when building a roster to compete with other teams.

Obviously, that’s a hypothetical and can be mitigated by having really good players at other positions paid lower than their market value, but the point with regards to Cousins is clear: If you pay him more than players quarterbacks that are better than him, it puts you at a disadvantage. This is part of why the patriots have been so good for so long. Brady has consistently played for less than his market value, allowing the patriots to luxury of having the best QB maybe ever and more salary cap space to fill out their roster than other teams with good quarterbacks. It’s also why the Seahawks were able to be so dominant when Wilson was making 3rd round rookie money and are struggling now that he's appropriately paid and have lost that competitive advantage. Rams and Goff too.



And it’s exactly correct. Because now the eagles, one of the teams we compete with, have lost the advantage of having a cheap quarterback. They had that advantage over us and now they don’t. That matters. That is one fewer team that cousins deal hurts us with regard to building a roster to compete against.



It’s not a troll. It’s absolutely not. I won’t say I’ve never made a cheeky troll-ish post about it. I probably have. But the overall point is 100% legit and not trolling at all.

If I share part of this opinion with Cunningham (I think he dislikes cousins more than I do), I’m now “aligned” with him? Okay. I missed the summit meeting with him, but I guess we’re allies. Whatever.

For clarification, your evaluation of QB play is relative to their percentage of the cap in a given year, and the higher percentage of the cap, you look at their play accordingly? That's not something you would place 99% of the onus on the team?

So you look at how a guy is playing, his record, stats, all of that stuff, and before you make your evaluation, you look at his cap percentage? I'm sorry, I'm probably repeating myself but this is kinda weird Beef. The effect his contract has on the team is the team's fucking problem.

But here you are going further, saying he should take less money so that his play can be evaluated more positively. This is fascinating. I'm honestly shocked at how unbelievable that is (if I'm reading correctly).

No. I’m saying that when his pay outpaces his play it hurts the team and he is open for criticism on that fact.

Sure, and I'm asking why you're not putting 99% of that on the team.

[Beef Supreme]

For clarification, your evaluation of QB play is relative to their percentage of the cap in a given year, and the higher percentage of the cap, you look at their play accordingly? That's not something you would place 99% of the onus on the team?

So you look at how a guy is playing, his record, stats, all of that stuff, and before you make your evaluation, you look at his cap percentage? I'm sorry, I'm probably repeating myself but this is kinda weird Beef. The effect his contract has on the team is the team's fucking problem.

But here you are going further, saying he should take less money so that his play can be evaluated more positively. This is fascinating. I'm honestly shocked at how unbelievable that is (if I'm reading correctly).

No. I’m saying that when his pay outpaces his play it hurts the team and he is open for criticism on that fact.

Sure, and I'm asking why you're not putting 99% of that on the team.

Because he didn’t play great last year. He was occasionally great, often good and sometimes bad. Just like he’s been his whole career. He has a lot to prove. He’s got to play better. I know that. Most talking heads who analyze games and players seem to know that. Even he seems to know that. The only people who don’t seem to know that are a few Froobs like yourself who seem to think his inconsistent play and career .500 record is everyone’s fault but his.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

No. I’m saying that when his pay outpaces his play it hurts the team and he is open for criticism on that fact.

Sure, and I'm asking why you're not putting 99% of that on the team.

Because he didn’t play great last year. He was occasionally great, often good and sometimes bad. Just like he’s been his whole career. He has a lot to prove. He’s got to play better. I know that. Most talking heads who analyze games and players seem to know that. Even he seems to know that. The only people who don’t seem to know that are a few Froobs like yourself who seem to think his inconsistent play and career .500 record is everyone’s fault but his.

And I'll ask again, if as you say, he played like he has his whole career and didn't live up, then why aren't you putting 99% of that on the team that knew what he was and paid that much for him?

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

No. I’m saying that when his pay outpaces his play it hurts the team and he is open for criticism on that fact.

Sure, and I'm asking why you're not putting 99% of that on the team.

Because he didn’t play great last year. He was occasionally great, often good and sometimes bad. Just like he’s been his whole career. He has a lot to prove. He’s got to play better. I know that. Most talking heads who analyze games and players seem to know that. Even he seems to know that. The only people who don’t seem to know that are a few Froobs like yourself who seem to think his inconsistent play and career .500 record is everyone’s fault but his.

So yes, you certainly have been trolling, as that false statement confirms.

[Dude]

Was it Philly? That was a pretty good win though the eagles were in a bit of turmoil at the time and he got helped by a Linval Joseph “fat guy” touchdown from the defense.

Cousins played okay in that game iirc. Not great, but not bad. And philly is a tough place to play. I’ll give him credit for coming out of there with a win, even if it was kind of ugly.

Cousins was 30-37 for 301 and a TD in that game- I'm not going to qualify that as "okay" or "good," but it's a road win against a playoff team.

I admit it's relatively nitpicky but let's not sell Cousins short.

Sure. He was good. But he wasn’t great. 301 yards is a good number, but on 37 attempts (8.2ypa) is not amazing. He threw for 1 TD and the offense didn’t score a lot (14 points, I think). Okay. Solid. Good. I give him credit. But he didn’t blow any doors off that game. He gets credit for beating a good team on the road, but it’s not like he was rallying the team around his brilliant throws (like he did at Lambert last year in a game that he absolutely should have won and the team let him down).

Right. Again, I'm not arguing that. Remember, my original response was to the post that Cousins didn't beat a winning team which again, was false.

Like I said, it's nitpicky and admittedly I'm just poking the bear, but as long as Cunningham is going to post opinions as facts or flat out post incorrect information, I'm going to call him out on it. It's the offseason. There's nothing else to do.

[Beef Supreme]

Sure, and I'm asking why you're not putting 99% of that on the team.

Because he didn’t play great last year. He was occasionally great, often good and sometimes bad. Just like he’s been his whole career. He has a lot to prove. He’s got to play better. I know that. Most talking heads who analyze games and players seem to know that. Even he seems to know that. The only people who don’t seem to know that are a few Froobs like yourself who seem to think his inconsistent play and career .500 record is everyone’s fault but his.

And I'll ask again, if as you say, he played like he has his whole career and didn't live up, then why aren't you putting 99% of that on the team that knew what he was and paid that much for him?

Okay. I thought by “putting it on the team” you meant the offensive line and the defense, etc. you mean the organization, correct? I’m clearly and unequivocally stating that this “Kirk Cousins experiment” has been a failure year 1. So I am putting it on the team. Cousins is a good quarterback being paid to be a great one. That’s only on Cousins insofar as he isn’t a great quarterback. It is on the team and Rick, etc. for paying him like a great one. They have to be near perfect to make up for that difference. Year 1, they weren’t. Hopefully, they get there this year.

[Beef Supreme]

Cousins was 30-37 for 301 and a TD in that game- I'm not going to qualify that as "okay" or "good," but it's a road win against a playoff team.

I admit it's relatively nitpicky but let's not sell Cousins short.

Sure. He was good. But he wasn’t great. 301 yards is a good number, but on 37 attempts (8.2ypa) is not amazing. He threw for 1 TD and the offense didn’t score a lot (14 points, I think). Okay. Solid. Good. I give him credit. But he didn’t blow any doors off that game. He gets credit for beating a good team on the road, but it’s not like he was rallying the team around his brilliant throws (like he did at Lambert last year in a game that he absolutely should have won and the team let him down).

Right. Again, I'm not arguing that. Remember, my original response was to the post that Cousins didn't beat a winning team which again, was false.

Like I said, it's nitpicky and admittedly I'm just poking the bear, but as long as Cunningham is going to post opinions as facts or flat out post incorrect information, I'm going to call him out on it. It's the offseason. There's nothing else to do.

Well in this case I agree with you. He played good on the road against a winning team that ended up in the playoffs. Feather in his cap. He needs to do more of that.


His best game by far, I thought, was the tie at Lambert. I guess it should have been a loss (borderline roughing call on Mathews) then should have been a win (missed easy kick). But he played great that game. He was “okay/good” in the Philly game, but it was enough to win. So that counts.


I was impressed with him after the Lambert game and willing to buy the idea that his mediocre record was due to Washington dysfunction. My opinion was further downgraded when it turned out that the packers were a bad football team last year. Then he didn’t sustain that level of play. I think it’s who he is. He’s decent/good, but really needs a strong team in all areas around him to be successful.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

Because he didn’t play great last year. He was occasionally great, often good and sometimes bad. Just like he’s been his whole career. He has a lot to prove. He’s got to play better. I know that. Most talking heads who analyze games and players seem to know that. Even he seems to know that. The only people who don’t seem to know that are a few Froobs like yourself who seem to think his inconsistent play and career .500 record is everyone’s fault but his.

And I'll ask again, if as you say, he played like he has his whole career and didn't live up, then why aren't you putting 99% of that on the team that knew what he was and paid that much for him?

Okay. I thought by “putting it on the team” you meant the offensive line and the defense, etc. you mean the organization, correct? I’m clearly and unequivocally stating that this “Kirk Cousins experiment” has been a failure year 1. So I am putting it on the team. Cousins is a good quarterback being paid to be a great one. That’s only on Cousins insofar as he isn’t a great quarterback. It is on the team and Rick, etc. for paying him like a great one. They have to be near perfect to make up for that difference. Year 1, they weren’t. Hopefully, they get there this year.

Clearly your expectations were too high, whether that be based on an arbitrary cap percentage, salary number, or feeling a team that goes 13-3, upgrades at QB, should clearly go up to like 15-1. Certainly on the team, and you, not on the guy that never pretended he was great, nor the people that have continuously admitted there are flaws.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

Sure. He was good. But he wasn’t great. 301 yards is a good number, but on 37 attempts (8.2ypa) is not amazing. He threw for 1 TD and the offense didn’t score a lot (14 points, I think). Okay. Solid. Good. I give him credit. But he didn’t blow any doors off that game. He gets credit for beating a good team on the road, but it’s not like he was rallying the team around his brilliant throws (like he did at Lambert last year in a game that he absolutely should have won and the team let him down).

Right. Again, I'm not arguing that. Remember, my original response was to the post that Cousins didn't beat a winning team which again, was false.

Like I said, it's nitpicky and admittedly I'm just poking the bear, but as long as Cunningham is going to post opinions as facts or flat out post incorrect information, I'm going to call him out on it. It's the offseason. There's nothing else to do.

Well in this case I agree with you. He played good on the road against a winning team that ended up in the playoffs. Feather in his cap. He needs to do more of that.


His best game by far, I thought, was the tie at Lambert. I guess it should have been a loss (borderline roughing call on Mathews) then should have been a win (missed easy kick). But he played great that game. He was “okay/good” in the Philly game, but it was enough to win. So that counts.


I was impressed with him after the Lambert game and willing to buy the idea that his mediocre record was due to Washington dysfunction. My opinion was further downgraded when it turned out that the packers were a bad football team last year. Then he didn’t sustain that level of play. I think it’s who he is. He’s decent/good, but really needs a strong team in all areas around him to be successful.

Ok, I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I think you made a great point about the Packer game. It illustrates the flaw in looking at straight win total as an indication of whether or not a QB had a good season. Cousins played good enough to win, as you said, likely his best game, but could have been a loss, and also could have been a win.

Well, that's kinda the point, isn't it? If you looked at that game, saw it was a tie (or a loss), would you immediately say prime time game (I think it was), Cousins shits the bed again? If you didn't know ahead of time?

[Beef Supreme]

And I'll ask again, if as you say, he played like he has his whole career and didn't live up, then why aren't you putting 99% of that on the team that knew what he was and paid that much for him?

Okay. I thought by “putting it on the team” you meant the offensive line and the defense, etc. you mean the organization, correct? I’m clearly and unequivocally stating that this “Kirk Cousins experiment” has been a failure year 1. So I am putting it on the team. Cousins is a good quarterback being paid to be a great one. That’s only on Cousins insofar as he isn’t a great quarterback. It is on the team and Rick, etc. for paying him like a great one. They have to be near perfect to make up for that difference. Year 1, they weren’t. Hopefully, they get there this year.

Clearly your expectations were too high, whether that be based on an arbitrary cap percentage, salary number, or feeling a team that goes 13-3, upgrades at QB, should clearly go up to like 15-1. Certainly on the team, and you, not on the guy that never pretended he was great, nor the people that have continuously admitted there are flaws.

My expectations for a team that made the NFC title game and then added an $84M quarterback were to at least make the playoffs. I don’t think that’s unreasonable or too high. They failed.

And yes, Kirk deserves some of the flack for thy. He signed up for it when he accepted the contract. I bet he’d even agree with that.

[Beef Supreme]

Right. Again, I'm not arguing that. Remember, my original response was to the post that Cousins didn't beat a winning team which again, was false.

Like I said, it's nitpicky and admittedly I'm just poking the bear, but as long as Cunningham is going to post opinions as facts or flat out post incorrect information, I'm going to call him out on it. It's the offseason. There's nothing else to do.

Well in this case I agree with you. He played good on the road against a winning team that ended up in the playoffs. Feather in his cap. He needs to do more of that.


His best game by far, I thought, was the tie at Lambert. I guess it should have been a loss (borderline roughing call on Mathews) then should have been a win (missed easy kick). But he played great that game. He was “okay/good” in the Philly game, but it was enough to win. So that counts.


I was impressed with him after the Lambert game and willing to buy the idea that his mediocre record was due to Washington dysfunction. My opinion was further downgraded when it turned out that the packers were a bad football team last year. Then he didn’t sustain that level of play. I think it’s who he is. He’s decent/good, but really needs a strong team in all areas around him to be successful.

Ok, I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I think you made a great point about the Packer game. It illustrates the flaw in looking at straight win total as an indication of whether or not a QB had a good season. Cousins played good enough to win, as you said, likely his best game, but could have been a loss, and also could have been a win.

Well, that's kinda the point, isn't it? If you looked at that game, saw it was a tie (or a loss), would you immediately say prime time game (I think it was), Cousins shits the bed again? If you didn't know ahead of time?

If he did everything he did in that game but the final kick was blocked and returned for a score so we lose then yes, I’d argue he played very well and shouldn’t be on the hook for the loss.


You can argue that on a game-to-game basis. And I’ve said the same thing about teddy and the Seahawks playoff game where he played well enough to win and got the team in position and a kicker blew it for him. Very similar situations. One led to a loss, one to a tie. But both QBs did what they had to do to win (which in itself were very different things given the different conditions and quality of opponent). Neither QB deserves to be ripped for those games.

But that’s one game. Every QB loses games where they play well and wins games where they don’t. Sooner or later, though, it washes out and you are what you are. Cousins is 34-37-2. How many games is enough that it becomes his record to own? If we grant him the packer win, he’s 35-37-1 and it doesn’t change anything about his career. He has not been able to take his teams to victory with more than mediocre results.


If he goes 9-7 or worse this year, then what? At some point, you are what your record says you are.


I know what your response will be. That w/l is a bad way to judge quarterbacks. But it’s really all that matters. And if we can’t get to 10+ wins with Cousins, then what is the point? Is it all on Cousins? Maybe not. But it is about the decision to get Cousins. If we fail with him it means that he wasn’t that good. He’s kinda good, but not that good. So it’s on the team for paying a kinda good player a lot of money, but it’s also on Cousins for only being kinda good when we needed him to be, expected him to be, and paid him to be, great.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

Okay. I thought by “putting it on the team” you meant the offensive line and the defense, etc. you mean the organization, correct? I’m clearly and unequivocally stating that this “Kirk Cousins experiment” has been a failure year 1. So I am putting it on the team. Cousins is a good quarterback being paid to be a great one. That’s only on Cousins insofar as he isn’t a great quarterback. It is on the team and Rick, etc. for paying him like a great one. They have to be near perfect to make up for that difference. Year 1, they weren’t. Hopefully, they get there this year.

Clearly your expectations were too high, whether that be based on an arbitrary cap percentage, salary number, or feeling a team that goes 13-3, upgrades at QB, should clearly go up to like 15-1. Certainly on the team, and you, not on the guy that never pretended he was great, nor the people that have continuously admitted there are flaws.

My expectations for a team that made the NFC title game and then added an $84M quarterback were to at least make the playoffs. I don’t think that’s unreasonable or too high. They failed.

And yes, Kirk deserves some of the flack for thy. He signed up for it when he accepted the contract. I bet he’d even agree with that.

Of course. That's why, when you upgrade at QB, and a team that was 13-3 suddenly doesn't make the playoffs, it prob suggests there's much more going on, other than the QB. Some of it, yes, certainly not as much as your expectations have led you to.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

Well in this case I agree with you. He played good on the road against a winning team that ended up in the playoffs. Feather in his cap. He needs to do more of that.


His best game by far, I thought, was the tie at Lambert. I guess it should have been a loss (borderline roughing call on Mathews) then should have been a win (missed easy kick). But he played great that game. He was “okay/good” in the Philly game, but it was enough to win. So that counts.


I was impressed with him after the Lambert game and willing to buy the idea that his mediocre record was due to Washington dysfunction. My opinion was further downgraded when it turned out that the packers were a bad football team last year. Then he didn’t sustain that level of play. I think it’s who he is. He’s decent/good, but really needs a strong team in all areas around him to be successful.

Ok, I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I think you made a great point about the Packer game. It illustrates the flaw in looking at straight win total as an indication of whether or not a QB had a good season. Cousins played good enough to win, as you said, likely his best game, but could have been a loss, and also could have been a win.

Well, that's kinda the point, isn't it? If you looked at that game, saw it was a tie (or a loss), would you immediately say prime time game (I think it was), Cousins shits the bed again? If you didn't know ahead of time?

If he did everything he did in that game but the final kick was blocked and returned for a score so we lose then yes, I’d argue he played very well and shouldn’t be on the hook for the loss.


You can argue that on a game-to-game basis. And I’ve said the same thing about teddy and the Seahawks playoff game where he played well enough to win and got the team in position and a kicker blew it for him. Very similar situations. One led to a loss, one to a tie. But both QBs did what they had to do to win (which in itself were very different things given the different conditions and quality of opponent). Neither QB deserves to be ripped for those games.

But that’s one game. Every QB loses games where they play well and wins games where they don’t. Sooner or later, though, it washes out and you are what you are. Cousins is 34-37-2. How many games is enough that it becomes his record to own? If we grant him the packer win, he’s 35-37-1 and it doesn’t change anything about his career. He has not been able to take his teams to victory with more than mediocre results.


If he goes 9-7 or worse this year, then what? At some point, you are what your record says you are.


I know what your response will be. That w/l is a bad way to judge quarterbacks. But it’s really all that matters. And if we can’t get to 10+ wins with Cousins, then what is the point? Is it all on Cousins? Maybe not. But it is about the decision to get Cousins. If we fail with him it means that he wasn’t that good. He’s kinda good, but not that good. So it’s on the team for paying a kinda good player a lot of money, but it’s also on Cousins for only being kinda good when we needed him to be, expected him to be, and paid him to be, great.

Not exactly "very similar situations" at all Beef. Teddy played "well enough" on basically one drive. Kirk played very well nearly the entire game. Surely you can separate those two. Because if you can't, I've given you far too much credit.

But yes, I would say it's fair to judge the 2nd year here, given no coaches die or get fired, no kickers sent packing, etc, etc. I agree that it's all basically set up now.

[cunningham]

Beef, it isn’t worth it. Joe is blaming you for your opinion.

We were a 13-3 team and we added an $84 million dollar quarterback because the assumption was that would make us improve. We go worse.

That Packers game would have been a loss because Cousins threw a pick 6 at the end of the game. It was called back because of a one of the most questionable calls of last season. The NFL gave us that and we still tied. Cousins couldn’t score and so it was another missed field goal.

I don’t hate Cousins. I hate what we are paying him, I hate that this isn’t the first time Spielman has screwed up the quarterback position. I’m tired of it from this team. I’m tired of hearing shit from Packer fans. I’m done making excuses when year in and year out we have a quarterback issue. We just keep spending more and more money on it with similar results.

Now we have the coach and all that. No more excuses for Kirk. He wins games or we trade him. For sure we need to draft a quarterback to build with.

We will see what happens this season. Just because I disagree with Joe/Dude/Rube doesn’t mean I think they are morons.

If Kubiak can’t get Cousins to the next level he never will.

And as far as a 4th round pick. WTF is that point? So we should lower our expectations? We paid for a top 5 quarterback and we deserve that. Otherwise we wasted money. Other players will get frustrated by that too.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

Beef, it isn’t worth it. Joe is blaming you for your opinion.

We were a 13-3 team and we added an $84 million dollar quarterback because the assumption was that would make us improve. We go worse.

That Packers game would have been a loss because Cousins threw a pick 6 at the end of the game. It was called back because of a one of the most questionable calls of last season. The NFL gave us that and we still tied. Cousins couldn’t score and so it was another missed field goal.

I don’t hate Cousins. I hate what we are paying him, I hate that this isn’t the first time Spielman has screwed up the quarterback position. I’m tired of it from this team. I’m tired of hearing shit from Packer fans. I’m done making excuses when year in and year out we have a quarterback issue. We just keep spending more and more money on it with similar results.

Now we have the coach and all that. No more excuses for Kirk. He wins games or we trade him. For sure we need to draft a quarterback to build with.

We will see what happens this season. Just because I disagree with Joe/Dude/Rube doesn’t mean I think they are morons.

If Kubiak can’t get Cousins to the next level he never will.

And as far as a 4th round pick. WTF is that point? So we should lower our expectations? We paid for a top 5 quarterback and we deserve that. Otherwise we wasted money. Other players will get frustrated by that too.

If you can't address me personally, instead of this passive aggressive bullshit, then maybe let the non-vulnerable adults have this conversation. Thanks in advance!

[Beef Supreme]

Clearly your expectations were too high, whether that be based on an arbitrary cap percentage, salary number, or feeling a team that goes 13-3, upgrades at QB, should clearly go up to like 15-1. Certainly on the team, and you, not on the guy that never pretended he was great, nor the people that have continuously admitted there are flaws.

My expectations for a team that made the NFC title game and then added an $84M quarterback were to at least make the playoffs. I don’t think that’s unreasonable or too high. They failed.

And yes, Kirk deserves some of the flack for thy. He signed up for it when he accepted the contract. I bet he’d even agree with that.

Of course. That's why, when you upgrade at QB, and a team that was 13-3 suddenly doesn't make the playoffs, it prob suggests there's much more going on, other than the QB. Some of it, yes, certainly not as much as your expectations have led you to.

And how much, exactly, was that?

[Beef Supreme]

Ok, I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I think you made a great point about the Packer game. It illustrates the flaw in looking at straight win total as an indication of whether or not a QB had a good season. Cousins played good enough to win, as you said, likely his best game, but could have been a loss, and also could have been a win.

Well, that's kinda the point, isn't it? If you looked at that game, saw it was a tie (or a loss), would you immediately say prime time game (I think it was), Cousins shits the bed again? If you didn't know ahead of time?

If he did everything he did in that game but the final kick was blocked and returned for a score so we lose then yes, I’d argue he played very well and shouldn’t be on the hook for the loss.


You can argue that on a game-to-game basis. And I’ve said the same thing about teddy and the Seahawks playoff game where he played well enough to win and got the team in position and a kicker blew it for him. Very similar situations. One led to a loss, one to a tie. But both QBs did what they had to do to win (which in itself were very different things given the different conditions and quality of opponent). Neither QB deserves to be ripped for those games.

But that’s one game. Every QB loses games where they play well and wins games where they don’t. Sooner or later, though, it washes out and you are what you are. Cousins is 34-37-2. How many games is enough that it becomes his record to own? If we grant him the packer win, he’s 35-37-1 and it doesn’t change anything about his career. He has not been able to take his teams to victory with more than mediocre results.


If he goes 9-7 or worse this year, then what? At some point, you are what your record says you are.


I know what your response will be. That w/l is a bad way to judge quarterbacks. But it’s really all that matters. And if we can’t get to 10+ wins with Cousins, then what is the point? Is it all on Cousins? Maybe not. But it is about the decision to get Cousins. If we fail with him it means that he wasn’t that good. He’s kinda good, but not that good. So it’s on the team for paying a kinda good player a lot of money, but it’s also on Cousins for only being kinda good when we needed him to be, expected him to be, and paid him to be, great.

Not exactly "very similar situations" at all Beef. Teddy played "well enough" on basically one drive. Kirk played very well nearly the entire game. Surely you can separate those two. Because if you can't, I've given you far too much credit.

Given the elite defense (compared to soft Green Bay) they were playing against and the Arctic condition (compared to a nice September day), I absolutely argue that one quality drive was enough. How many quality drives did future hall of famer Russell Wilson put together that day?

Both QBs put their teams in position to win. Not with a long shot 50-yarder, but with a chip shot. It’s very comparable.

But yes, I would say it's fair to judge the 2nd year here, given no coaches die or get fired, no kickers sent packing, etc, etc. I agree that it's all basically set up now.

Got to be 10+ wins and a playoff birth unless there’s a rash of key injuries right? In other words, Kirk Cousins needs to take a team where no Kirk Cousins-led team has gone before.


Can we agree to that? If we can, I suggest we stop there and leave it alone.

[Ash Ketchum]

1. Is anyone even contending that Kirk doesn’t have to play better in 2019?

2. It’s ignoring the complete argument to say “Teddy played well enough against Seattle” and that he can’t be blamed for the loss since Walsh missed the kick at the end. Had we scored more than zero non-Blair Walsh at any point of that game, we win that easily.