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

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

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?

How much what?

[Beef Supreme]

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.

But the same could be said for cousins at Green Bay. Maybe you forget, but the offense laid an egg most of the game (7 points in the first 3 quarters) and exploded late (22 in the 4th) to force OT. If the offense shows up at kickoff, we win that game in regulation. Some of that is on Kirk too. Again, overall it was his best moment of the year and when he most looked like the “answer” to our QB issues. But it’s not like it was a 52-52 tie where nobody could stop anybody. The offense was bad for 3 quarters.

It’s analogous to the Seattle game, revised down overall for way worse conditions and a way better quality of opponent.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

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.

But the same could be said for cousins at Green Bay. Maybe you forget, but the offense laid an egg most of the game (7 points in the first 3 quarters) and exploded late (22 in the 4th) to force OT. If the offense shows up at kickoff, we win that game in regulation. Some of that is on Kirk too. Again, overall it was his best moment of the year and when he most looked like the “answer” to our QB issues. But it’s not like it was a 52-52 tie where nobody could stop anybody. The offense was bad for 3 quarters.

It’s analogous to the Seattle game, revised down overall for way worse conditions and a way better quality of opponent.

Ok, sure Beef. Let's do a game by game analysis, side by side, for Teddy and Cousins. You made the analogy.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

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.

But the same could be said for cousins at Green Bay. Maybe you forget, but the offense laid an egg most of the game (7 points in the first 3 quarters) and exploded late (22 in the 4th) to force OT. If the offense shows up at kickoff, we win that game in regulation. Some of that is on Kirk too. Again, overall it was his best moment of the year and when he most looked like the “answer” to our QB issues. But it’s not like it was a 52-52 tie where nobody could stop anybody. The offense was bad for 3 quarters.

It’s analogous to the Seattle game, revised down overall for way worse conditions and a way better quality of opponent.

So, kinda like the Rams game then.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

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.

Yes, we can agree on that. Given that Cousins is now out of that dumpster fire in Washington, and the pieces seem to be in place for year 2 here, the team should be able to succeed, and Cousins should be able to produce.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

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.

No, no one's contended that. That's the troll that's being pushed, but no.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

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.

No, no one's contended that. That's the troll that's being pushed, but no.

I will say this though. Only here will you hear people say, presumably with straight faces, that Teddy's one drive performance that led to nothing is analogous to a point barrage where Cousins did lots of stuff.

[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.

But the same could be said for cousins at Green Bay. Maybe you forget, but the offense laid an egg most of the game (7 points in the first 3 quarters) and exploded late (22 in the 4th) to force OT. If the offense shows up at kickoff, we win that game in regulation. Some of that is on Kirk too. Again, overall it was his best moment of the year and when he most looked like the “answer” to our QB issues. But it’s not like it was a 52-52 tie where nobody could stop anybody. The offense was bad for 3 quarters.

It’s analogous to the Seattle game, revised down overall for way worse conditions and a way better quality of opponent.

Yep, and I’m not disputing that core argument. And the Green Bay example isn’t the best because we got bailed out by the call on Matthews’ sack.

But it’s oversimplifying the argument regardless. Do you think Teddy is/was even physically capable of making that throw to Thielen to set up the tying 2-pointer?

I guess my only gripe with this argument is that it’s not just black and white.

[Ash Ketchum]

Bridgewater is the poster boy for QBs getting way too much credit for W’s.

When we struggle to amass 200 yards of passing offense for large stretches of an entire season, but the defense, running game and special teams do more than their share to compile a good W/L record, all of the sudden Teddy-apologists somehow come with the bizarre argument that it’s actually a good thing Teddy plays like he does.

[Beef Supreme]

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.

No, no one's contended that. That's the troll that's being pushed, but no.

I will say this though. Only here will you hear people say, presumably with straight faces, that Teddy's one drive performance that led to nothing is analogous to a point barrage where Cousins did lots of stuff.

You are either failing to understand or being purposely disingenuous. I’m not comparing their entire performances. I’m comparing a situation where a quarterback led his team to what should by rights have been a victory but was let down by a kicker missing an easy kick.


Also, you’re failing to account for the epic Seattle defense vs a Swiss cheese packer “defense” and the arctic cold vs a mild September afternoon. Again, how many good drives did hall of famer Russell Wilson orchestrate that day?

[Beef Supreme]

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.

But the same could be said for cousins at Green Bay. Maybe you forget, but the offense laid an egg most of the game (7 points in the first 3 quarters) and exploded late (22 in the 4th) to force OT. If the offense shows up at kickoff, we win that game in regulation. Some of that is on Kirk too. Again, overall it was his best moment of the year and when he most looked like the “answer” to our QB issues. But it’s not like it was a 52-52 tie where nobody could stop anybody. The offense was bad for 3 quarters.

It’s analogous to the Seattle game, revised down overall for way worse conditions and a way better quality of opponent.

Yep, and I’m not disputing that core argument. And the Green Bay example isn’t the best because we got bailed out by the call on Matthews’ sack.

But it’s oversimplifying the argument regardless. Do you think Teddy is/was even physically capable of making that throw to Thielen to set up the tying 2-pointer?

I guess my only gripe with this argument is that it’s not just black and white.

I do not think that teddy was capable of making that particular throw. He was however, capable of evading the rush and buying more time in the pocket than Cousins.


Do you know that Teddy faced pressure on a higher percentage of his throws in 2015 than Cousins did last year? His OL was worse than Cousins was last year at protecting him. But the bad OL excuse (which has merit) is only thrown out for Cousins defense. Because Teddy did not have the arm that Cousins does. But Cousins doesn’t have the feet that Teddy did.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

No, no one's contended that. That's the troll that's being pushed, but no.

I will say this though. Only here will you hear people say, presumably with straight faces, that Teddy's one drive performance that led to nothing is analogous to a point barrage where Cousins did lots of stuff.

You are either failing to understand or being purposely disingenuous. I’m not comparing their entire performances. I’m comparing a situation where a quarterback led his team to what should by rights have been a victory but was let down by a kicker missing an easy kick.


Also, you’re failing to account for the epic Seattle defense vs a Swiss cheese packer “defense” and the arctic cold vs a mild September afternoon. Again, how many good drives did hall of famer Russell Wilson orchestrate that day?

But you're illustrating the point Beef. Many, many things happen during a game. It can swing one way or the other based on something the QB does, or something completely out of his control.

So pinning that record stuff primarily there, (and I don't care that people are going to do that because it's the QB, that doesn't mean it's solid logic), it's way oversimplifying what should not be simplified. It may be reality, I grasp that, but it's not fully there.

But yeah, you can continue down the Teddy path, but I suggest you stop with your best analogy, the Seattle game. As sad as that is.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

But the same could be said for cousins at Green Bay. Maybe you forget, but the offense laid an egg most of the game (7 points in the first 3 quarters) and exploded late (22 in the 4th) to force OT. If the offense shows up at kickoff, we win that game in regulation. Some of that is on Kirk too. Again, overall it was his best moment of the year and when he most looked like the “answer” to our QB issues. But it’s not like it was a 52-52 tie where nobody could stop anybody. The offense was bad for 3 quarters.

It’s analogous to the Seattle game, revised down overall for way worse conditions and a way better quality of opponent.

Yep, and I’m not disputing that core argument. And the Green Bay example isn’t the best because we got bailed out by the call on Matthews’ sack.

But it’s oversimplifying the argument regardless. Do you think Teddy is/was even physically capable of making that throw to Thielen to set up the tying 2-pointer?

I guess my only gripe with this argument is that it’s not just black and white.

I do not think that teddy was capable of making that particular throw. He was however, capable of evading the rush and buying more time in the pocket than Cousins.


Do you know that Teddy faced pressure on a higher percentage of his throws in 2015 than Cousins did last year? His OL was worse than Cousins was last year at protecting him. But the bad OL excuse (which has merit) is only thrown out for Cousins defense. Because Teddy did not have the arm that Cousins does. But Cousins doesn’t have the feet that Teddy did.

That's because Cousins produced something, while Teddy ran around and eventually threw it into the stands or moon balled it like his patented 20 yard hail mary.

[Beef Supreme]

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.

But the same could be said for cousins at Green Bay. Maybe you forget, but the offense laid an egg most of the game (7 points in the first 3 quarters) and exploded late (22 in the 4th) to force OT. If the offense shows up at kickoff, we win that game in regulation. Some of that is on Kirk too. Again, overall it was his best moment of the year and when he most looked like the “answer” to our QB issues. But it’s not like it was a 52-52 tie where nobody could stop anybody. The offense was bad for 3 quarters.

It’s analogous to the Seattle game, revised down overall for way worse conditions and a way better quality of opponent.

So, kinda like the Rams game then.

He was pretty good in the rams game, but he didn’t take care of the ball on the last drive when he was going for the tie. Bad protection, but Cousins has a history of poor ball security. It got him there. It got him in the Bills debacle too.

[Beef Supreme]

Yep, and I’m not disputing that core argument. And the Green Bay example isn’t the best because we got bailed out by the call on Matthews’ sack.

But it’s oversimplifying the argument regardless. Do you think Teddy is/was even physically capable of making that throw to Thielen to set up the tying 2-pointer?

I guess my only gripe with this argument is that it’s not just black and white.

I do not think that teddy was capable of making that particular throw. He was however, capable of evading the rush and buying more time in the pocket than Cousins.


Do you know that Teddy faced pressure on a higher percentage of his throws in 2015 than Cousins did last year? His OL was worse than Cousins was last year at protecting him. But the bad OL excuse (which has merit) is only thrown out for Cousins defense. Because Teddy did not have the arm that Cousins does. But Cousins doesn’t have the feet that Teddy did.

That's because Cousins produced something, while Teddy ran around and eventually threw it into the stands or moon balled it like his patented 20 yard hail mary.

This is nonsense.

[Beef Supreme]

I will say this though. Only here will you hear people say, presumably with straight faces, that Teddy's one drive performance that led to nothing is analogous to a point barrage where Cousins did lots of stuff.

You are either failing to understand or being purposely disingenuous. I’m not comparing their entire performances. I’m comparing a situation where a quarterback led his team to what should by rights have been a victory but was let down by a kicker missing an easy kick.


Also, you’re failing to account for the epic Seattle defense vs a Swiss cheese packer “defense” and the arctic cold vs a mild September afternoon. Again, how many good drives did hall of famer Russell Wilson orchestrate that day?

But you're illustrating the point Beef. Many, many things happen during a game. It can swing one way or the other based on something the QB does, or something completely out of his control.

Yes. Many things happen during a game that are beyond a QB’s control. But a QB controls more than any other individual player. That’s why they make more money than any other position and so they should bear more responsibility as well.

So pinning that record stuff primarily there, (and I don't care that people are going to do that because it's the QB, that doesn't mean it's solid logic), it's way oversimplifying what should not be simplified. It may be reality, I grasp that, but it's not fully there.

It’s on the QB more than any other player. That is a general nfl truth. You can find games that are exceptions to that, but big picture, that’s the rule.

But yeah, you can continue down the Teddy path, but I suggest you stop with your best analogy, the Seattle game. As sad as that is.

It’s a fine analogy, if you don’t try to make it into a strawman and pretend it’s something it isn’t.


To be clear. Cousins is a better quarterback then teddy. But it’s easy to argue that Teddy at $2M helps a team win more than Cousins at $28M. Unfortunately, Teddy’s knee exploded sonwe don’t have as much data as we would, but the data we have supports that argument.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

I do not think that teddy was capable of making that particular throw. He was however, capable of evading the rush and buying more time in the pocket than Cousins.


Do you know that Teddy faced pressure on a higher percentage of his throws in 2015 than Cousins did last year? His OL was worse than Cousins was last year at protecting him. But the bad OL excuse (which has merit) is only thrown out for Cousins defense. Because Teddy did not have the arm that Cousins does. But Cousins doesn’t have the feet that Teddy did.

That's because Cousins produced something, while Teddy ran around and eventually threw it into the stands or moon balled it like his patented 20 yard hail mary.

This is nonsense.

Nope.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

You are either failing to understand or being purposely disingenuous. I’m not comparing their entire performances. I’m comparing a situation where a quarterback led his team to what should by rights have been a victory but was let down by a kicker missing an easy kick.


Also, you’re failing to account for the epic Seattle defense vs a Swiss cheese packer “defense” and the arctic cold vs a mild September afternoon. Again, how many good drives did hall of famer Russell Wilson orchestrate that day?

But you're illustrating the point Beef. Many, many things happen during a game. It can swing one way or the other based on something the QB does, or something completely out of his control.

Yes. Many things happen during a game that are beyond a QB’s control. But a QB controls more than any other individual player. That’s why they make more money than any other position and so they should bear more responsibility as well.

So pinning that record stuff primarily there, (and I don't care that people are going to do that because it's the QB, that doesn't mean it's solid logic), it's way oversimplifying what should not be simplified. It may be reality, I grasp that, but it's not fully there.

It’s on the QB more than any other player. That is a general nfl truth. You can find games that are exceptions to that, but big picture, that’s the rule.

But yeah, you can continue down the Teddy path, but I suggest you stop with your best analogy, the Seattle game. As sad as that is.

It’s a fine analogy, if you don’t try to make it into a strawman and pretend it’s something it isn’t.


To be clear. Cousins is a better quarterback then teddy. But it’s easy to argue that Teddy at $2M helps a team win more than Cousins at $28M. Unfortunately, Teddy’s knee exploded sonwe don’t have as much data as we would, but the data we have supports that argument.

That "general NFL rule" is not enough to support any argument that puts 200 yards and less than a TD a game ahead of 300 something yards and a couple TD's per game.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

But the same could be said for cousins at Green Bay. Maybe you forget, but the offense laid an egg most of the game (7 points in the first 3 quarters) and exploded late (22 in the 4th) to force OT. If the offense shows up at kickoff, we win that game in regulation. Some of that is on Kirk too. Again, overall it was his best moment of the year and when he most looked like the “answer” to our QB issues. But it’s not like it was a 52-52 tie where nobody could stop anybody. The offense was bad for 3 quarters.

It’s analogous to the Seattle game, revised down overall for way worse conditions and a way better quality of opponent.

So, kinda like the Rams game then.

He was pretty good in the rams game, but he didn’t take care of the ball on the last drive when he was going for the tie. Bad protection, but Cousins has a history of poor ball security. It got him there. It got him in the Bills debacle too.

Oh, so we can credit a QB for doing nothing all game, and doing a little something on one drive, but we can't credit a QB for doing a lot the whole game because he made an error at the end. Because doing essentially nothing all game was a Teddy trademark, and it wasn't solely because of weather conditions in one game.

[RubeTube]

You are either failing to understand or being purposely disingenuous. I’m not comparing their entire performances. I’m comparing a situation where a quarterback led his team to what should by rights have been a victory but was let down by a kicker missing an easy kick.


Also, you’re failing to account for the epic Seattle defense vs a Swiss cheese packer “defense” and the arctic cold vs a mild September afternoon. Again, how many good drives did hall of famer Russell Wilson orchestrate that day?

But you're illustrating the point Beef. Many, many things happen during a game. It can swing one way or the other based on something the QB does, or something completely out of his control.

Yes. Many things happen during a game that are beyond a QB’s control. But a QB controls more than any other individual player. That’s why they make more money than any other position and so they should bear more responsibility as well.

So pinning that record stuff primarily there, (and I don't care that people are going to do that because it's the QB, that doesn't mean it's solid logic), it's way oversimplifying what should not be simplified. It may be reality, I grasp that, but it's not fully there.

It’s on the QB more than any other player. That is a general nfl truth. You can find games that are exceptions to that, but big picture, that’s the rule.

But yeah, you can continue down the Teddy path, but I suggest you stop with your best analogy, the Seattle game. As sad as that is.

It’s a fine analogy, if you don’t try to make it into a strawman and pretend it’s something it isn’t.


To be clear. Cousins is a better quarterback then teddy. But it’s easy to argue that Teddy at $2M helps a team win more than Cousins at $28M. Unfortunately, Teddy’s knee exploded sonwe don’t have as much data as we would, but the data we have supports that argument.

And if Teddy Bridgewaters knee Didn't explode he wouldn't be making 2 million dollars right now.

He would be paid a fat starting QB contract. Not as much as Kirk but probably only enough to net you one more solid player.

My guess is it would of been a Tannehill or Dalton type deal and gave you the same mediocrity those two gave their respective teams.

[Beef Supreme]

So, kinda like the Rams game then.

He was pretty good in the rams game, but he didn’t take care of the ball on the last drive when he was going for the tie. Bad protection, but Cousins has a history of poor ball security. It got him there. It got him in the Bills debacle too.

Oh, so we can credit a QB for doing nothing all game, and doing a little something on one drive, but we can't credit a QB for doing a lot the whole game because he made an error at the end. Because doing essentially nothing all game was a Teddy trademark, and it wasn't solely because of weather conditions in one game.

Again. Did you miss where I said Cousins is a better quarterback than teddy? Because he is.

The argument is Teddy for less than $2M or Cousins for $28M. You can win with a QB doing less if you have an extra $26M to spend on other guys (like hall of fame running backs, for example).

Teddy was a “game manager” who did a pretty good job of that. Cousins is supposed to win you games. That’s what he’s paid to do. He’s not doing his (admittedly harder) job as well as Teddy did his.

If Teddy signed a $84M contract, he’d be held to that standard too. But he was on a late first round pick rookie deal.

[Beef Supreme]

But you're illustrating the point Beef. Many, many things happen during a game. It can swing one way or the other based on something the QB does, or something completely out of his control.

Yes. Many things happen during a game that are beyond a QB’s control. But a QB controls more than any other individual player. That’s why they make more money than any other position and so they should bear more responsibility as well.

So pinning that record stuff primarily there, (and I don't care that people are going to do that because it's the QB, that doesn't mean it's solid logic), it's way oversimplifying what should not be simplified. It may be reality, I grasp that, but it's not fully there.

It’s on the QB more than any other player. That is a general nfl truth. You can find games that are exceptions to that, but big picture, that’s the rule.

But yeah, you can continue down the Teddy path, but I suggest you stop with your best analogy, the Seattle game. As sad as that is.

It’s a fine analogy, if you don’t try to make it into a strawman and pretend it’s something it isn’t.


To be clear. Cousins is a better quarterback then teddy. But it’s easy to argue that Teddy at $2M helps a team win more than Cousins at $28M. Unfortunately, Teddy’s knee exploded sonwe don’t have as much data as we would, but the data we have supports that argument.

And if Teddy Bridgewaters knee Didn't explode he wouldn't be making 2 million dollars right now.

He would be paid a fat starting QB contract. Not as much as Kirk but probably only enough to net you one more solid player.

My guess is it would of been a Tannehill or Dalton type deal and gave you the same mediocrity those two gave their respective teams.

And he’d be judged based on his production relative to that hypothetical contract.

[RubeTube]

Yes. Many things happen during a game that are beyond a QB’s control. But a QB controls more than any other individual player. That’s why they make more money than any other position and so they should bear more responsibility as well.




It’s on the QB more than any other player. That is a general nfl truth. You can find games that are exceptions to that, but big picture, that’s the rule.



It’s a fine analogy, if you don’t try to make it into a strawman and pretend it’s something it isn’t.


To be clear. Cousins is a better quarterback then teddy. But it’s easy to argue that Teddy at $2M helps a team win more than Cousins at $28M. Unfortunately, Teddy’s knee exploded sonwe don’t have as much data as we would, but the data we have supports that argument.

And if Teddy Bridgewaters knee Didn't explode he wouldn't be making 2 million dollars right now.

He would be paid a fat starting QB contract. Not as much as Kirk but probably only enough to net you one more solid player.

My guess is it would of been a Tannehill or Dalton type deal and gave you the same mediocrity those two gave their respective teams.

And he’d be judged based on his production relative to that hypothetical contract.

It makes no sense to talk about Teddy being on a 2 million dollar deal though when that scenario would never exsist if he was still the starter here.

He would be making way too much money like all the starting QBs do. He would probably make a chunk less than Cousins but Cousins is the better QB so it would all equal out.

It's basically would you rather have Teddy,Keenum etc and one more higher paid player or Kirk?

I'm taking the better QB.

[Beef Supreme]

And if Teddy Bridgewaters knee Didn't explode he wouldn't be making 2 million dollars right now.

He would be paid a fat starting QB contract. Not as much as Kirk but probably only enough to net you one more solid player.

My guess is it would of been a Tannehill or Dalton type deal and gave you the same mediocrity those two gave their respective teams.

And he’d be judged based on his production relative to that hypothetical contract.

It makes no sense to talk about Teddy being on a 2 million dollar deal though when that scenario would never exsist if he was still the starter here.

He would be making way too much money like all the starting QBs do. He would probably make a chunk less than Cousins but Cousins is the better QB so it would all equal out.

It's basically would you rather have Teddy,Keenum etc and one more higher paid player or Kirk?

I'm taking the better QB.

Absolutely.

It’s always a QBs job to deliver wins. Everyone’s job, really, but as I said; the quarterback has more influence on w/l than any other single position.

But the higher a QB is paid, the more the burden of production falls on his shoulders. If Teddy’s knee never exploded and he were still our QB, he would almost certainly be making in the neighborhood of $20M/per and would have the expectation of producing much more than 200 yards/game. Could he do that? Hard to say. But we’ll never know.

But if we’re talking cousins now and teddy I’m 2015, then their salary disparity is very relevant to their respective analysis and to the conversation overall.

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

He was pretty good in the rams game, but he didn’t take care of the ball on the last drive when he was going for the tie. Bad protection, but Cousins has a history of poor ball security. It got him there. It got him in the Bills debacle too.

Oh, so we can credit a QB for doing nothing all game, and doing a little something on one drive, but we can't credit a QB for doing a lot the whole game because he made an error at the end. Because doing essentially nothing all game was a Teddy trademark, and it wasn't solely because of weather conditions in one game.

Again. Did you miss where I said Cousins is a better quarterback than teddy? Because he is.

The argument is Teddy for less than $2M or Cousins for $28M. You can win with a QB doing less if you have an extra $26M to spend on other guys (like hall of fame running backs, for example).

Teddy was a “game manager” who did a pretty good job of that. Cousins is supposed to win you games. That’s what he’s paid to do. He’s not doing his (admittedly harder) job as well as Teddy did his.

If Teddy signed a $84M contract, he’d be held to that standard too. But he was on a late first round pick rookie deal.

No, no, no. Maybe others didn't notice you slightly change the argument here Beef, but I did. So now, in addition to looking up QB contracts relative to the cap, I need to also look up when every other player's contract was signed, and see if that was indeed part of the "extra $26m spent".

I need to do that in order to judge whether or not my QB had a good game or, a good season, and I need to do that on a rolling basis because the cap changes. And guys sign new contracts. Is that part of the extra $26m? No? Ok, then that 300+, 2 TD performance is no good. Oh, we did spend that extra $26m on the RB that did his job? Sweet, great job managing the game oh great QB.

I mean, normally that's how you would evaluate whether or not the team made the right decision for the team. But, I know how you like to separate the team from the QB. So now we have. We're looking at their cap number and contract, and what that extra money could have been used for, in order to evaluate whether or not they've done well.

We have literally NO idea if the team would have used that extra money as you wish they would because of course, we don't have that extra money. Cousins has it. Well, ain't that a bitch. I mean, we see Barr getting signed, we see Rudolph getting signed, but we can still say what if. Because there is no way to find evidence for that. How convenient.

[Beef Supreme]

Oh, so we can credit a QB for doing nothing all game, and doing a little something on one drive, but we can't credit a QB for doing a lot the whole game because he made an error at the end. Because doing essentially nothing all game was a Teddy trademark, and it wasn't solely because of weather conditions in one game.

Again. Did you miss where I said Cousins is a better quarterback than teddy? Because he is.

The argument is Teddy for less than $2M or Cousins for $28M. You can win with a QB doing less if you have an extra $26M to spend on other guys (like hall of fame running backs, for example).

Teddy was a “game manager” who did a pretty good job of that. Cousins is supposed to win you games. That’s what he’s paid to do. He’s not doing his (admittedly harder) job as well as Teddy did his.

If Teddy signed a $84M contract, he’d be held to that standard too. But he was on a late first round pick rookie deal.

No, no, no. Maybe others didn't notice you slightly change the argument here Beef, but I did. So now, in addition to looking up QB contracts relative to the cap, I need to also look up when every other player's contract was signed, and see if that was indeed part of the "extra $26m spent".

I need to do that in order to judge whether or not my QB had a good game or, a good season, and I need to do that on a rolling basis because the cap changes. And guys sign new contracts. Is that part of the extra $26m? No? Ok, then that 300+, 2 TD performance is no good. Oh, we did spend that extra $26m on the RB that did his job? Sweet, great job managing the game oh great QB.

I mean, normally that's how you would evaluate whether or not the team made the right decision for the team. But, I know how you like to separate the team from the QB. So now we have. We're looking at their cap number and contract, and what that extra money could have been used for, in order to evaluate whether or not they've done well.

We have literally NO idea if the team would have used that extra money as you wish they would because of course, we don't have that extra money. Cousins has it. Well, ain't that a bitch. I mean, we see Barr getting signed, we see Rudolph getting signed, but we can still say what if. Because there is no way to find evidence for that. How convenient.

Of course we can’t know. It’s opportunity cost. I’m not inventing this concept. There’s a lot we don’t and can’t know about what could have happened. We could have signed a guy that helped us win a super bowl. We could have squandered it on a complete bum. We don’t know. But we know the possibilities exist. We do know what we did. And we know it gave us 8-7-1 the first year. That’s what we know. I’m not satisfied so far. Are you?

[Joe Bag 'O Donuts]

Again. Did you miss where I said Cousins is a better quarterback than teddy? Because he is.

The argument is Teddy for less than $2M or Cousins for $28M. You can win with a QB doing less if you have an extra $26M to spend on other guys (like hall of fame running backs, for example).

Teddy was a “game manager” who did a pretty good job of that. Cousins is supposed to win you games. That’s what he’s paid to do. He’s not doing his (admittedly harder) job as well as Teddy did his.

If Teddy signed a $84M contract, he’d be held to that standard too. But he was on a late first round pick rookie deal.

No, no, no. Maybe others didn't notice you slightly change the argument here Beef, but I did. So now, in addition to looking up QB contracts relative to the cap, I need to also look up when every other player's contract was signed, and see if that was indeed part of the "extra $26m spent".

I need to do that in order to judge whether or not my QB had a good game or, a good season, and I need to do that on a rolling basis because the cap changes. And guys sign new contracts. Is that part of the extra $26m? No? Ok, then that 300+, 2 TD performance is no good. Oh, we did spend that extra $26m on the RB that did his job? Sweet, great job managing the game oh great QB.

I mean, normally that's how you would evaluate whether or not the team made the right decision for the team. But, I know how you like to separate the team from the QB. So now we have. We're looking at their cap number and contract, and what that extra money could have been used for, in order to evaluate whether or not they've done well.

We have literally NO idea if the team would have used that extra money as you wish they would because of course, we don't have that extra money. Cousins has it. Well, ain't that a bitch. I mean, we see Barr getting signed, we see Rudolph getting signed, but we can still say what if. Because there is no way to find evidence for that. How convenient.

Of course we can’t know. It’s opportunity cost. I’m not inventing this concept. There’s a lot we don’t and can’t know about what could have happened. We could have signed a guy that helped us win a super bowl. We could have squandered it on a complete bum. We don’t know. But we know the possibilities exist. We do know what we did. And we know it gave us 8-7-1 the first year. That’s what we know. I’m not satisfied so far. Are you?

I think you're confusing cause and effect. There's no evidence that the Vikings just needed an extra guy or two last year, that the Cousins contract prevented them from doing so, and led to the downfall. There's plenty of in-house evidence that support factors unrelated to contracts or financial decisions.

[RubeTube]

The biggest letdowns last year didn't even involve Cousins.

Running game
Coaching staff
Defense

Contributed more than anything to the poor season.

[Beef Supreme]

No, no, no. Maybe others didn't notice you slightly change the argument here Beef, but I did. So now, in addition to looking up QB contracts relative to the cap, I need to also look up when every other player's contract was signed, and see if that was indeed part of the "extra $26m spent".

I need to do that in order to judge whether or not my QB had a good game or, a good season, and I need to do that on a rolling basis because the cap changes. And guys sign new contracts. Is that part of the extra $26m? No? Ok, then that 300+, 2 TD performance is no good. Oh, we did spend that extra $26m on the RB that did his job? Sweet, great job managing the game oh great QB.

I mean, normally that's how you would evaluate whether or not the team made the right decision for the team. But, I know how you like to separate the team from the QB. So now we have. We're looking at their cap number and contract, and what that extra money could have been used for, in order to evaluate whether or not they've done well.

We have literally NO idea if the team would have used that extra money as you wish they would because of course, we don't have that extra money. Cousins has it. Well, ain't that a bitch. I mean, we see Barr getting signed, we see Rudolph getting signed, but we can still say what if. Because there is no way to find evidence for that. How convenient.

Of course we can’t know. It’s opportunity cost. I’m not inventing this concept. There’s a lot we don’t and can’t know about what could have happened. We could have signed a guy that helped us win a super bowl. We could have squandered it on a complete bum. We don’t know. But we know the possibilities exist. We do know what we did. And we know it gave us 8-7-1 the first year. That’s what we know. I’m not satisfied so far. Are you?

I think you're confusing cause and effect. There's no evidence that the Vikings just needed an extra guy or two last year, that the Cousins contract prevented them from doing so, and led to the downfall. There's plenty of in-house evidence that support factors unrelated to contracts or financial decisions.

Sure. Multiple holes. Do you think an extra ~$15-25M in cap space could have addressed some of those holes?


That’s opportunity cost.


8-7-1 is the result. That is failure, in my estimation. We’ve chosen to address those holes this year via the draft and some modest FAs. Hopefully it’s enough. Year two should be 10+ wins and probably a playoff win (barring multiple key injuries), but I’m not certain I want to make a playoff win a minimum expectation. Cousins says 2 playoff wins, so I’m more lenient on him than he is on himself. But we have to at least get there.

What are your expectations for year 2?

[RubeTube]

Of course we can’t know. It’s opportunity cost. I’m not inventing this concept. There’s a lot we don’t and can’t know about what could have happened. We could have signed a guy that helped us win a super bowl. We could have squandered it on a complete bum. We don’t know. But we know the possibilities exist. We do know what we did. And we know it gave us 8-7-1 the first year. That’s what we know. I’m not satisfied so far. Are you?

I think you're confusing cause and effect. There's no evidence that the Vikings just needed an extra guy or two last year, that the Cousins contract prevented them from doing so, and led to the downfall. There's plenty of in-house evidence that support factors unrelated to contracts or financial decisions.

Sure. Multiple holes. Do you think an extra ~$15-25M in cap space could have addressed some of those holes?


That’s opportunity cost.


8-7-1 is the result. That is failure, in my estimation. We’ve chosen to address those holes this year via the draft and some modest FAs. Hopefully it’s enough. Year two should be 10+ wins and probably a playoff win (barring multiple key injuries), but I’m not certain I want to make a playoff win a minimum expectation. Cousins says 2 playoff wins, so I’m more lenient on him than he is on himself. But we have to at least get there.

What are your expectations for year 2?

It's too hard to say "We need to win two playoff games" there are too many variables. Who you are playing, where at etc.

I'm SB or bust but I will call it a good season with a division title and a playoff win. That is a absolute must imo.