I am a firm believer that Minnesota didn't go into "tanking" mode during 2020 because they clearly realized... they've already made the investment and lost the receipt.
Constantly going backwards while in the moment doesn't help you progress in the future. The Vikings paid Cousins, and nobody was gonna bail them out, so they (players & coaches) balled to the best of their ability. Results are mixed and everyone has opinions about what should've been done and what steps they missed, but at that point, you just gotta trudge through it. Picking Mond in the 3rd round feels like seeing the light at the end of the Cousins tunnel.
And that's not said in jest, I've been all for Cousins since day one. It's been a lonely ride.
If Minnesota had a realistic way to pivot from Cousins in 2020, mayyyybe they would've been more inclined to submission. Get a high draft pick, prepare for a future rookie QB, restructure the roster, possibly alter coaching staff, roll from there... since that pivot was never feasible for (insert reasons here), they needed to milk the investment for whatever it was worth. During that losing stint last season, they likely knew there and then it was gonna be a rookie QB drafted between rounds 3-5.
Sneak a little win streak into the mix, the grand future plan defined itself. If they stumbled into the playoffs, swing for the fences. If they came up short, prepare for the last hoorah of Cousins & coaches. Either way, the investment needed to follow through, no going backwards.
I'm okay with this reality.
There is so much connective tissue in having Cousins in purple, the only way Vikings would've drafted a 1st round QB (and make it work) in 2021 is if they blew up the entire operation. Which is something many advocate for, but I have zero interest in seeing this franchise build from rubble. Not because I enjoy cheering for a "subpar" organization consistently coming up short... but mostly because I have zero faith some football messiah is waiting to flip some magical switch 2 to 3 years.
Cousins is no fool. Maybe a little dopey, but the dude can ball. Even with a coaching staff focused on defense and running 40 times a game, this team can succeed. How far they get up the mountain top? Well... Coller said it best, "There’s no parachute. If everything doesn’t click, you just fall."
There are two problems, though, with the Mond pick: the round and the timing. He could be a lottery ticket that pays out, but the opposite is overwhelmingly more likely. Taking a QB in the 3rd isn't even a half-measure to address the position. Also, next offseason is the clear decision point. Rookie QBs come with incredible risk, but they are cheap and so one can build a better roster around them. Taking a rookie in this draft instead of the next one doesn't make sense.
As for mobile QBs, I remember guys called Elway, McNair, Cunningham, Young and Vick. It's fair to say offences have evolved to maximize skill positions (if football is chess, recognizing that not every queen or rook is actually the same and game-planning accordingly), but mobile QBs get sacked at high rates. Rusty was sacked 52 times last year, Cousins 39, and Dozier wasn't playing LG in teal.
Cousins's limitation isn't that he's immobile, it's that he's immobile *and* holds onto the damn ball. Marino, Manning and Warner could all be timed with a sundial, but flourished because they got the ball out. It's frustrating and perhaps compounded by his lesser flaw that he locks into his pre-snap read too much. He has everything else. The pass he dropped into the bucket to Thielen in OT in NOLA was sublime, and the ensuing TD To Rudy was pretty damn good, too.
Completely agree on that second last para. The Saints went 7-9 four years out of five, retooled and were competitive again. Blowing it up feels nice at the time, but rarely results in actual improvement.
This is a great comment. Well written, and a lot of fascinating viewpoints. I agree with virtually all of it.
Here is my one quibble - I agree that it was not particularly prudent or wise to legitimately "tank" in 2020... but in retrospect, I think the Vikings would have had a helluva lot of fascinating options if they had not put full effort into, say, just some of the last half of the game in week 17.
Heading into week 17, the Vikings had objectively no chance of doing anything worthwhile at 6-9, and had potential outcomes to pick as high as 9 (if a crazy litany of things happened) or as low as 15. Obviously, they took care of things and won and had a great draft and set themselves up well for the future. I have few complaints for how things have gone the last few months.
But what if they instead took Kirk out of the game as soon as they went up 31-23 midway through the third, saying that we have too much invested in the QB to risk an injury in a meaningless game? By the end of the game, the Vikings had won 37-35, so, theoretically, if they had taken Kirk out they might have lost 31-35. Obviously, many players would have been upset, and that is not a trivial problem. However, that would have taken the Vikings from 14 to 12, moving the niners to 13 and the chargers to 14. First of all, would the Niners have still been able to go from 13 to 3? Maybe? Also, suddenly the Bears can't trade to the 12th pick to get Fields, or if they do the Vikings are the team that has another 1st round pick next year.
Frankly I have never been a big Fields guy (in general I hate picking the guy that was in a perfect scheme on an amazing team that was better than the team he faced in every position by a crazy amount), but that would have made for an extremely eventful draft, and frankly it analytically would have been the correct choice. Of course, the Eagles did that and their head coach was fired a few days later, so maybe it wasn't worth that to Zimmer, but still I think the situation is worth a discussion.
I think that your question of "are mobile QBs the future," is an extremely valuable one. My opinion is that whether or not they are the future, they definitely are the present, and I think that we aren't really even considering what this modern trend could portend toward the future.
My understand is that modern offenses work well with younger athletic QBs because the athleticism of these QBs can strain defenses in a way that the traditional pocket QBs cannot (e.g., by virtue of being able to run and generally move around in the backfield). As a result of these abilities, offensive coordinators are further able to create simple reads, as a mobile QB can dictate that a defense line up in a certain way such that a clever play designer can create relatively open routes than were typically available to QBs coming into the league 10 or 15 years ago.
Here is the interesting part - what happens to these QBs when they are no longer 24 and some of the more physically gifted players on the field but instead 33 and find their physical traits waning? Previously, offenses were laser-focused on teaching QBs intense nuances of the game such that a QB had to have an extremely advanced understanding of the defense to know what their read was and when/how/where to throw it. As such, most QBs failed, but those ones that succeeded (Manning, Brady, Rivers, Brees, Ryan, Big Ben, Stafford etc.) could play until they were in their upper 30s with basically no drop off.
Put differently, 5/10/15/20 years ago, offenses dictated that their QB win with their mind, so only truly elite processing QBs could win. You didn't know if someone was an elite processor until they got to the NFL, so drafting a QB was very much so a crapshoot. However, your processing will stay with you for your full life, so you could be good/great at this skill for a long long time (e.g., until your arm fails or you get hurt).
However, now offenses enable their young QB to win primarily with their physical gifts, such that they require their QBs to do far less reading of the field in order to succeed. This makes it far easier for young athletic QBs to win right away. But what happens when the 24 year old physical phenom that runs a 4.3 40 yard dash in Lamar Jackson is 34 and was never forced to learn these nuances? Can you see him winning the way that Brady does now at 43? Maybe they randomly pick it up by virtue of being around football for so long??
Granted, this does not matter in 2021. Lamar is amazing right now. Kyler Murray is a blast to watch right now. Trey Lance will probably be electric.
But I am very curious to watch what the long-term effects might be of not forcing QBs to win by using their mind. I could see a situation in which QBs basically become the new WRs, where they generally are only stars when they are in their physical prime, and become cast-offs as soon as they get to their third contract. It will be very interesting to watch.
I very much think mobile quarterbacks are still forced to win with their minds. It’s just that unless you’re Brady and get the ball out in 2.3 seconds, there are going to be times when things break down. But as I mentioned, that’s actually a smaller percentage of throws than we think. I think Mahomes was 9%. That means 91% of the time he’s still making pocket throws. I don’t think Lamar’s issue (if you can say he has issues considering he won MVP) is his mind, I think that his offensive passing attack is poorly designed. Kurt Warner did a whole video breaking down his lack of answers. Same thing happened with Greg Roman in SF and Buffalo where his run attacks where great but passing games where pretty poor. Maybe adding Rashod Bateman instead of Willie Snead will actually work too.
But I agree fundamentally that a Vince Young who can run but isn’t still accurate and smart won’t work no matter what the era is.
Let me clarify - I don't think that Lamar has an "issue" with his mind. Clearly Lamar is extremely capable of winning, and uses his mind to do so in an extremely skilled manner, in a way that previous athletic QBs (such as Vince Young) did not. Objectively, Lamar is using his mind to win in the NFL today.
My point is that it is easier to win with your mind when the defense has to fear your legs. It isn't like because, e.g., Mahomes only throws when things break down 9% of the time that the defense doesn't worry about the play breaking down 91% of the time. The defense is worried about the play breaking down on 100% of the snaps, *because* Mahomes can work out of structure on 9% of the throws. Defenses can't ignore Lamar's legs on those plays where Lamar doesn't end up running. Defenses need to account for Lamar's legs on every single play, and that gives Lamar an advantage on plays where Lamar throws in a way that is not true for Brees or Brady or Matt Ryan or Kirk or [insert other historical pocket QB].
For example, let's look at 2019. when the Ravens went 14-2. Let's say that that season was exactly the same in every way, but Lamar Jackson was 40 years old rather than 23. Would the Ravens have gone 14-2 with that exact same team and been just as feared and as dominant with Lamar Jackson in a 40 year old version of his body? Theoretically, if Lamar was primarily winning with his mind they would have been just as feared given how stacked that team was. I mean, the Saints went 13-3 with a 40 year old QB, so it isn't like QBs can't win games at that pace at that age. Maybe some disagree, but I am not confident that the 2019 Ravens would have been as dominant if Lamar were 40, because Lamar's wins came as a result of how the mental side of the game for him is at least slightly easier for him than it is for someone like Brees or Brady or Matt Ryan or Kirk because of how much he can tax the defense with his legs, even though he objectively passes the mental tests that he has been given so far. I am not saying that Lamar is dumb. I am saying that, because of Lamar's gifts, he is only being given bachelor's level mental tests in the NFL (which he is passing with flying colors). As his physical gifts wane, he will suddenly be given masters-level and doctors-level mental tests that he never had to take before. We do not know how he will respond to these.
It is the same argument that many were using against Trey Lance when they were promoting Justin Fields, saying that Trey Lance had weaker competition so you can't trust him quite as much. Lamar et al. functionally have always had weaker competition than Brees/Brady/Manning because the defenses Lamar faced either had to respect his legs 100% of the time or he could just rip them apart with his legs. Just as we don't know how Trey Lance will respond to the sudden jump in competition, we also don't know how Lamar et al. will respond to the gradual jump in competition as defenses fear his legs less and less over time.
To be clear, I am not saying that Lamar *can't* learn what Brees learned by age 40. Drew Brees played for 15 years, whereas Lamar has played for 3, so it is entirely possible (and perhaps even likely!) that he will learn these extra nuances. But we don't know that. It is projection and speculation. We have heard time and time again how modern coaches are making things easier for rookie QBs by striping down the playbook and doing what the players are good at, rather than the old-school approach of massive playbooks that account for everything (e.g., the Adam Gase approach, which, not coincidentally, was infamously loved by an old-school QB that loved the mental side of the game in Peyton Manning). However, we ALSO know that the NFL is good at taking away what players are good at, if they don't learn. So how does this play out over the next decade?
By all accounts, young QBs are succeeding at a higher rate because coaches are asking relatively less of them. What are the chances that this will result in these players learning less over each respective year than the (extremely few) QBs who succeeded in the old format where QBs were asked to do more, such that few/none of the current young QBs become the Zen mental masters that the old system created? Maybe there is a chance of this? Or perhaps probably there is not a good chance of this? I guess I just don't think we can conclusively say "definitely not a chance."
Yeah I gotcha. I agree that it will be interesting to see the adaptations some QBs have to make as they go along. We have seen this with Cunningham, John Elway, Steve Young and even Vick when he came back with Philly.. they were able to still be a threat without quite relying on running as much as they did early in their careers.
Agreed, and even Favre has said that when he came into the league that he didn't know what a nickel defense was, and he clearly was able to learn and play until 41.
It's probably a slightly overbaked idea of mine, but I can't help but wonder how defenses will adapt over time to the ways in which offenses are manipulating them right now with young QBs, and wondering whether or not a course-correction of some variety is incoming.
It's not Cousins fault that he is paid more than his value, but that is the problem. The NFL is going to need to find a way to accurately value the Kirk Cousins type QB. The QB's salary can't be such a large percentage of the cap unless they make everyone better around them. It's just bad math. It would make for an interesting article (maybe someone has done it) to compare the highly successful seasons of that past 20 years and the QB's cap percentage.
Outstanding article, Matthew! I agree with your very thorough, honest analysis of Cousins and the team. Football is a business and it is very logical for the Vikings to draft another QB at this point. Cousin's 2021 performance will be pivotal in how the Vikes move forward. They've addressed the pass protection problem with the draft... let's see what happens.
Really? Cousins bet on himself refusing extensions to get to UFA, and then took advantage of the leverage that created. As Matthew notes, Cousins didn't sign himself, the Vikings did. It's hard-if not impossible-to argue that he's done anything less than what was expected of him.
If one plans a vacation to a quiet cabin in the middle of nowhere, it's not fair to complain about boredom once there.
I believe that the question was related to if Cousins deserved to have his possible replacement drafted. His performance, whether entirely his fault or not, has not been to such a level that should prevent the exploration of an eventual replacement.
But, he's young in QB years and has done exactly what one would have expected him to do. So if it was good enough for him to be signed twice, it seems a trifle unfair that the measuring has now changed.
Not necessarily. If the new evidence is consistent with the previous evidence,
and the circumstances haven't changed in any material way, what's the basis for changing expectations? Cousins is who everyone thought he is, and remains on the hook.
Protect Kirk and he' s as good as any qb in the league. Don't protect him and he's a bottom half qb. How about we just protect him, and win a Superbowl?
I wouldn't go as far as "any qb in the league". Mahomes is in a class by himself, Rodgers and probably Rusty and the sexual predator in Houston are also clearly better.
But, your overall point is fair. Cousins is better than Flacco, E. Manning, N. effin' Foles and the probably the tubby rapist in Pittsburgh, and they've won 6 SBs. Well-run organizations are stable and work to be consistently in contention.
Kirk had an elite tackle (Trent Williams) and guard (Brandon Scherff) Washington and didn’t win anything…he is who he is. A career .500 QB no mater the situation you put him in. He’s not good enough to put the team on his back and overcome any adversity
Oh wow $84M in 3 years and one playoff win in wild card rd, hell of a return on that investment! There is always an excuse with Kirk and it’s never his fault. When you are making the money he is making you are going to have to skimp in areas to put a team on the field around him. Kirk is all about getting his $ and if he wants his $ he is going to get dealt the hands he is going to get dealt. If he was a top 5 QB I’ll pay him the $ he is making but he is not that and as a result the team is stuck in middle purgatory
Why are Vikings fans ok with mediocrity, you are not winning a championship with Cousins…you shot your shot and I won’t rip them for that but it didn’t work. I’d rather the team bottom out and get a swing at a potential generational quarterback in the draft than picking in middle of the 1st rd and missing out on franchise QB’s and continuing to have to hamstring the franchise by giving an good QB elite money because you have no succession plan
One gently notes that the track record for bottoming out isn't exactly covered in glory.
The Chefs took Mahomes after going 12-4 and winning the division. Lamar Jackson and A. Rodgers were drafted by teams that had winning records the previous year. Pittsburgh tries to win every year, leads the NFL in franchise stability and is annually in contention.
Donkeys are a different species than a horse, but in the same family. They were originally bred in Egypt or Mesopotamia around 5,000 years ago. Mules, on the other hand, are a cross between a female horse and a male donkey or “jack” (hence the word “jackass”)
I am a firm believer that Minnesota didn't go into "tanking" mode during 2020 because they clearly realized... they've already made the investment and lost the receipt.
Constantly going backwards while in the moment doesn't help you progress in the future. The Vikings paid Cousins, and nobody was gonna bail them out, so they (players & coaches) balled to the best of their ability. Results are mixed and everyone has opinions about what should've been done and what steps they missed, but at that point, you just gotta trudge through it. Picking Mond in the 3rd round feels like seeing the light at the end of the Cousins tunnel.
And that's not said in jest, I've been all for Cousins since day one. It's been a lonely ride.
If Minnesota had a realistic way to pivot from Cousins in 2020, mayyyybe they would've been more inclined to submission. Get a high draft pick, prepare for a future rookie QB, restructure the roster, possibly alter coaching staff, roll from there... since that pivot was never feasible for (insert reasons here), they needed to milk the investment for whatever it was worth. During that losing stint last season, they likely knew there and then it was gonna be a rookie QB drafted between rounds 3-5.
Sneak a little win streak into the mix, the grand future plan defined itself. If they stumbled into the playoffs, swing for the fences. If they came up short, prepare for the last hoorah of Cousins & coaches. Either way, the investment needed to follow through, no going backwards.
I'm okay with this reality.
There is so much connective tissue in having Cousins in purple, the only way Vikings would've drafted a 1st round QB (and make it work) in 2021 is if they blew up the entire operation. Which is something many advocate for, but I have zero interest in seeing this franchise build from rubble. Not because I enjoy cheering for a "subpar" organization consistently coming up short... but mostly because I have zero faith some football messiah is waiting to flip some magical switch 2 to 3 years.
Cousins is no fool. Maybe a little dopey, but the dude can ball. Even with a coaching staff focused on defense and running 40 times a game, this team can succeed. How far they get up the mountain top? Well... Coller said it best, "There’s no parachute. If everything doesn’t click, you just fall."
well said Doop -- enjoy reading your thoughts
There are two problems, though, with the Mond pick: the round and the timing. He could be a lottery ticket that pays out, but the opposite is overwhelmingly more likely. Taking a QB in the 3rd isn't even a half-measure to address the position. Also, next offseason is the clear decision point. Rookie QBs come with incredible risk, but they are cheap and so one can build a better roster around them. Taking a rookie in this draft instead of the next one doesn't make sense.
As for mobile QBs, I remember guys called Elway, McNair, Cunningham, Young and Vick. It's fair to say offences have evolved to maximize skill positions (if football is chess, recognizing that not every queen or rook is actually the same and game-planning accordingly), but mobile QBs get sacked at high rates. Rusty was sacked 52 times last year, Cousins 39, and Dozier wasn't playing LG in teal.
Cousins's limitation isn't that he's immobile, it's that he's immobile *and* holds onto the damn ball. Marino, Manning and Warner could all be timed with a sundial, but flourished because they got the ball out. It's frustrating and perhaps compounded by his lesser flaw that he locks into his pre-snap read too much. He has everything else. The pass he dropped into the bucket to Thielen in OT in NOLA was sublime, and the ensuing TD To Rudy was pretty damn good, too.
Completely agree on that second last para. The Saints went 7-9 four years out of five, retooled and were competitive again. Blowing it up feels nice at the time, but rarely results in actual improvement.
This is a great comment. Well written, and a lot of fascinating viewpoints. I agree with virtually all of it.
Here is my one quibble - I agree that it was not particularly prudent or wise to legitimately "tank" in 2020... but in retrospect, I think the Vikings would have had a helluva lot of fascinating options if they had not put full effort into, say, just some of the last half of the game in week 17.
Heading into week 17, the Vikings had objectively no chance of doing anything worthwhile at 6-9, and had potential outcomes to pick as high as 9 (if a crazy litany of things happened) or as low as 15. Obviously, they took care of things and won and had a great draft and set themselves up well for the future. I have few complaints for how things have gone the last few months.
But what if they instead took Kirk out of the game as soon as they went up 31-23 midway through the third, saying that we have too much invested in the QB to risk an injury in a meaningless game? By the end of the game, the Vikings had won 37-35, so, theoretically, if they had taken Kirk out they might have lost 31-35. Obviously, many players would have been upset, and that is not a trivial problem. However, that would have taken the Vikings from 14 to 12, moving the niners to 13 and the chargers to 14. First of all, would the Niners have still been able to go from 13 to 3? Maybe? Also, suddenly the Bears can't trade to the 12th pick to get Fields, or if they do the Vikings are the team that has another 1st round pick next year.
Frankly I have never been a big Fields guy (in general I hate picking the guy that was in a perfect scheme on an amazing team that was better than the team he faced in every position by a crazy amount), but that would have made for an extremely eventful draft, and frankly it analytically would have been the correct choice. Of course, the Eagles did that and their head coach was fired a few days later, so maybe it wasn't worth that to Zimmer, but still I think the situation is worth a discussion.
Happy Anniversary!
I think that your question of "are mobile QBs the future," is an extremely valuable one. My opinion is that whether or not they are the future, they definitely are the present, and I think that we aren't really even considering what this modern trend could portend toward the future.
My understand is that modern offenses work well with younger athletic QBs because the athleticism of these QBs can strain defenses in a way that the traditional pocket QBs cannot (e.g., by virtue of being able to run and generally move around in the backfield). As a result of these abilities, offensive coordinators are further able to create simple reads, as a mobile QB can dictate that a defense line up in a certain way such that a clever play designer can create relatively open routes than were typically available to QBs coming into the league 10 or 15 years ago.
Here is the interesting part - what happens to these QBs when they are no longer 24 and some of the more physically gifted players on the field but instead 33 and find their physical traits waning? Previously, offenses were laser-focused on teaching QBs intense nuances of the game such that a QB had to have an extremely advanced understanding of the defense to know what their read was and when/how/where to throw it. As such, most QBs failed, but those ones that succeeded (Manning, Brady, Rivers, Brees, Ryan, Big Ben, Stafford etc.) could play until they were in their upper 30s with basically no drop off.
Put differently, 5/10/15/20 years ago, offenses dictated that their QB win with their mind, so only truly elite processing QBs could win. You didn't know if someone was an elite processor until they got to the NFL, so drafting a QB was very much so a crapshoot. However, your processing will stay with you for your full life, so you could be good/great at this skill for a long long time (e.g., until your arm fails or you get hurt).
However, now offenses enable their young QB to win primarily with their physical gifts, such that they require their QBs to do far less reading of the field in order to succeed. This makes it far easier for young athletic QBs to win right away. But what happens when the 24 year old physical phenom that runs a 4.3 40 yard dash in Lamar Jackson is 34 and was never forced to learn these nuances? Can you see him winning the way that Brady does now at 43? Maybe they randomly pick it up by virtue of being around football for so long??
Granted, this does not matter in 2021. Lamar is amazing right now. Kyler Murray is a blast to watch right now. Trey Lance will probably be electric.
But I am very curious to watch what the long-term effects might be of not forcing QBs to win by using their mind. I could see a situation in which QBs basically become the new WRs, where they generally are only stars when they are in their physical prime, and become cast-offs as soon as they get to their third contract. It will be very interesting to watch.
I very much think mobile quarterbacks are still forced to win with their minds. It’s just that unless you’re Brady and get the ball out in 2.3 seconds, there are going to be times when things break down. But as I mentioned, that’s actually a smaller percentage of throws than we think. I think Mahomes was 9%. That means 91% of the time he’s still making pocket throws. I don’t think Lamar’s issue (if you can say he has issues considering he won MVP) is his mind, I think that his offensive passing attack is poorly designed. Kurt Warner did a whole video breaking down his lack of answers. Same thing happened with Greg Roman in SF and Buffalo where his run attacks where great but passing games where pretty poor. Maybe adding Rashod Bateman instead of Willie Snead will actually work too.
But I agree fundamentally that a Vince Young who can run but isn’t still accurate and smart won’t work no matter what the era is.
Let me clarify - I don't think that Lamar has an "issue" with his mind. Clearly Lamar is extremely capable of winning, and uses his mind to do so in an extremely skilled manner, in a way that previous athletic QBs (such as Vince Young) did not. Objectively, Lamar is using his mind to win in the NFL today.
My point is that it is easier to win with your mind when the defense has to fear your legs. It isn't like because, e.g., Mahomes only throws when things break down 9% of the time that the defense doesn't worry about the play breaking down 91% of the time. The defense is worried about the play breaking down on 100% of the snaps, *because* Mahomes can work out of structure on 9% of the throws. Defenses can't ignore Lamar's legs on those plays where Lamar doesn't end up running. Defenses need to account for Lamar's legs on every single play, and that gives Lamar an advantage on plays where Lamar throws in a way that is not true for Brees or Brady or Matt Ryan or Kirk or [insert other historical pocket QB].
For example, let's look at 2019. when the Ravens went 14-2. Let's say that that season was exactly the same in every way, but Lamar Jackson was 40 years old rather than 23. Would the Ravens have gone 14-2 with that exact same team and been just as feared and as dominant with Lamar Jackson in a 40 year old version of his body? Theoretically, if Lamar was primarily winning with his mind they would have been just as feared given how stacked that team was. I mean, the Saints went 13-3 with a 40 year old QB, so it isn't like QBs can't win games at that pace at that age. Maybe some disagree, but I am not confident that the 2019 Ravens would have been as dominant if Lamar were 40, because Lamar's wins came as a result of how the mental side of the game for him is at least slightly easier for him than it is for someone like Brees or Brady or Matt Ryan or Kirk because of how much he can tax the defense with his legs, even though he objectively passes the mental tests that he has been given so far. I am not saying that Lamar is dumb. I am saying that, because of Lamar's gifts, he is only being given bachelor's level mental tests in the NFL (which he is passing with flying colors). As his physical gifts wane, he will suddenly be given masters-level and doctors-level mental tests that he never had to take before. We do not know how he will respond to these.
It is the same argument that many were using against Trey Lance when they were promoting Justin Fields, saying that Trey Lance had weaker competition so you can't trust him quite as much. Lamar et al. functionally have always had weaker competition than Brees/Brady/Manning because the defenses Lamar faced either had to respect his legs 100% of the time or he could just rip them apart with his legs. Just as we don't know how Trey Lance will respond to the sudden jump in competition, we also don't know how Lamar et al. will respond to the gradual jump in competition as defenses fear his legs less and less over time.
To be clear, I am not saying that Lamar *can't* learn what Brees learned by age 40. Drew Brees played for 15 years, whereas Lamar has played for 3, so it is entirely possible (and perhaps even likely!) that he will learn these extra nuances. But we don't know that. It is projection and speculation. We have heard time and time again how modern coaches are making things easier for rookie QBs by striping down the playbook and doing what the players are good at, rather than the old-school approach of massive playbooks that account for everything (e.g., the Adam Gase approach, which, not coincidentally, was infamously loved by an old-school QB that loved the mental side of the game in Peyton Manning). However, we ALSO know that the NFL is good at taking away what players are good at, if they don't learn. So how does this play out over the next decade?
By all accounts, young QBs are succeeding at a higher rate because coaches are asking relatively less of them. What are the chances that this will result in these players learning less over each respective year than the (extremely few) QBs who succeeded in the old format where QBs were asked to do more, such that few/none of the current young QBs become the Zen mental masters that the old system created? Maybe there is a chance of this? Or perhaps probably there is not a good chance of this? I guess I just don't think we can conclusively say "definitely not a chance."
Yeah I gotcha. I agree that it will be interesting to see the adaptations some QBs have to make as they go along. We have seen this with Cunningham, John Elway, Steve Young and even Vick when he came back with Philly.. they were able to still be a threat without quite relying on running as much as they did early in their careers.
Agreed, and even Favre has said that when he came into the league that he didn't know what a nickel defense was, and he clearly was able to learn and play until 41.
It's probably a slightly overbaked idea of mine, but I can't help but wonder how defenses will adapt over time to the ways in which offenses are manipulating them right now with young QBs, and wondering whether or not a course-correction of some variety is incoming.
It's not Cousins fault that he is paid more than his value, but that is the problem. The NFL is going to need to find a way to accurately value the Kirk Cousins type QB. The QB's salary can't be such a large percentage of the cap unless they make everyone better around them. It's just bad math. It would make for an interesting article (maybe someone has done it) to compare the highly successful seasons of that past 20 years and the QB's cap percentage.
Outstanding article, Matthew! I agree with your very thorough, honest analysis of Cousins and the team. Football is a business and it is very logical for the Vikings to draft another QB at this point. Cousin's 2021 performance will be pivotal in how the Vikes move forward. They've addressed the pass protection problem with the draft... let's see what happens.
Great article Mathew
Since the headline appears to be a question, I can keep it short. Yes.
Really? Cousins bet on himself refusing extensions to get to UFA, and then took advantage of the leverage that created. As Matthew notes, Cousins didn't sign himself, the Vikings did. It's hard-if not impossible-to argue that he's done anything less than what was expected of him.
If one plans a vacation to a quiet cabin in the middle of nowhere, it's not fair to complain about boredom once there.
I believe that the question was related to if Cousins deserved to have his possible replacement drafted. His performance, whether entirely his fault or not, has not been to such a level that should prevent the exploration of an eventual replacement.
"Deserve" is necessarily subjective.
But, he's young in QB years and has done exactly what one would have expected him to do. So if it was good enough for him to be signed twice, it seems a trifle unfair that the measuring has now changed.
Expectations should be adjusted as new evidence becomes available and circumstances change.
Not necessarily. If the new evidence is consistent with the previous evidence,
and the circumstances haven't changed in any material way, what's the basis for changing expectations? Cousins is who everyone thought he is, and remains on the hook.
Thus options for a replacement should be explored.
Protect Kirk and he' s as good as any qb in the league. Don't protect him and he's a bottom half qb. How about we just protect him, and win a Superbowl?
It is almost as if this is a complex situation which cannot be solved by a simple solution. Most interesting.
I wouldn't go as far as "any qb in the league". Mahomes is in a class by himself, Rodgers and probably Rusty and the sexual predator in Houston are also clearly better.
But, your overall point is fair. Cousins is better than Flacco, E. Manning, N. effin' Foles and the probably the tubby rapist in Pittsburgh, and they've won 6 SBs. Well-run organizations are stable and work to be consistently in contention.
Kirk had an elite tackle (Trent Williams) and guard (Brandon Scherff) Washington and didn’t win anything…he is who he is. A career .500 QB no mater the situation you put him in. He’s not good enough to put the team on his back and overcome any adversity
Does feel like a slight difference between a few above-average linemen and a QB capable of carrying a team...
Perhaps you missed this game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRF5pcX741o
Oh wow $84M in 3 years and one playoff win in wild card rd, hell of a return on that investment! There is always an excuse with Kirk and it’s never his fault. When you are making the money he is making you are going to have to skimp in areas to put a team on the field around him. Kirk is all about getting his $ and if he wants his $ he is going to get dealt the hands he is going to get dealt. If he was a top 5 QB I’ll pay him the $ he is making but he is not that and as a result the team is stuck in middle purgatory
Why are Vikings fans ok with mediocrity, you are not winning a championship with Cousins…you shot your shot and I won’t rip them for that but it didn’t work. I’d rather the team bottom out and get a swing at a potential generational quarterback in the draft than picking in middle of the 1st rd and missing out on franchise QB’s and continuing to have to hamstring the franchise by giving an good QB elite money because you have no succession plan
One gently notes that the track record for bottoming out isn't exactly covered in glory.
The Chefs took Mahomes after going 12-4 and winning the division. Lamar Jackson and A. Rodgers were drafted by teams that had winning records the previous year. Pittsburgh tries to win every year, leads the NFL in franchise stability and is annually in contention.
Donkeys are a different species than a horse, but in the same family. They were originally bred in Egypt or Mesopotamia around 5,000 years ago. Mules, on the other hand, are a cross between a female horse and a male donkey or “jack” (hence the word “jackass”)
Hahaha thank you for this historical clarification, now I’ll have something to talk with Zach Davidson about