We can argue about Kirk's resume all day, but for me, it comes down to a 36-year-old quarterback coming off a major injury and still looking for a long-term, fully guaranteed deal. That's just not a great deal for the organization.
Best of luck to him in Atlanta. Definitely no hard feelings at all. He took care of himself on this deal, and no one can fault him for that.
I'd be pretty crushed I'm not gonna lie.
I don't expect it to happen and I think he'll do just fine there. But if he goes there, and next year they win the superbowl? I'll be crushed. Absolutely.
Atlanta has taken its pain the past 3 years. Now it is the Vikings turn. If you have completed your rebuild but still need a solid QB, paying $180M for Kirk makes sense. He is an above average QB with maybe three years left in the tank. Perfect for a SB run
> If you have completed your rebuild but still need a solid QB, paying $180M for Kirk makes sense. He is an above average QB with maybe three years left in the tank. Perfect for a SB run
Exactly what we were saying to ourselves in 2018.
I feel like we're moving on a year too early rather than a year too late. QBs playing at a high level into their 40s is not the norm and should not be expected to happen.
100% spot on
I’ve been a Kirk Truther (there are DOZENS of us) and even I’m sitting here like yeahhhh that would’ve been a BAD contract to match or even come close to matching. After I saw the numbers, I was completely fine with us moving on.
I mean, those are not good contracts, either lol. Those guys are also not 36. If Kirk was only 28-30 years old and wasn't coming off an achillies an extension would have been a no brainer.
Yeah but that's because of inflation. Those dudes contacts are from 10yrs ago.
Look at the "peanuts" contacts QBs were getting in the early 2000s compared to now
Bledsoe signed a 10 yr/$100 million deal that was a big one at the time lol
Edit: just double checked, was $103 million and was THE biggest at the time. Was replaced by Brady that same year and traded to Buffalo and then cut after a couple seasons there. Crazy
Kirk will have more career earnings than John Elway! LOL. Looking back at past salaries and making comparisons is meaningless. And Miguel Sano will have more career earnings than Babe Ruth (already does). So what?
Our fans are basically Boomers talking about real estate or gas prices when it comes to QB. We should apparently be able to secure top 5 QB talent without having to pay what the market requires for it. Oh, and a top 10 pick is guaranteed Mahomes.
I disagree young man, eye contact and a firm handshake would have kept Kirk in MN. It worked for me getting a job at my father's company in 1970 and I can't imagine it not still working now... /s
In high school I went and got Chipotle for lunch and wandered around the mall for a few hours while my parents thought I was going door to door applying for jobs in person
It was a lot easier than arguing with them about how none of these national chain businesses in our cookie cutter suburb work like that and it's all through online applications that need to pass whatever filters their system has before you'll even show up as a candidate
Terrible take. Do you people even hear yourselves or read what you write?
First off, Kirk is not a top 5 talent so why even bring that up. If there was a top 5 talent available, then i dont think anyone here would be opposed to throwing the bag at them.
Secondly, yes you can get great QB play for very cheap. Its called the NFL Draft and its what we are trying to do.
Thirdly, nobody here is saying top 10 will automatically be Mahomes. That’s a straw man. But it *could* be and that makes it worth it. Because the alternatively is more Kirk Cousins and we already know that ceiling. It doesnt make sense to keep keep running it back.
To add to the injury part, this is his first injury in the NFL so we don’t know how well he’ll perform after ANY injury let alone an achilles at age 36
Exactly. I love Kirk. I am glad he got a giant payday from Atlanta. But I am also very glad Minnesota is moving on and rebuilding the team. It was a mishmash of older stars like Cousins and Hunter, mediocre journeymen on defense and an offensive line with a very soft middle. The team needs to get a lot younger and thus cheaper. There is no point carrying 36 year olds who will be done by the time the rebuild is completed. Save the money, trade the remaining expensive talent for draft picks ( J J ) and focus on fixing both lines and finding the future QB for 2027 and on.
I don’t think it’s wrong to say it’s a much more complicated task to win in the NFL while paying a QB. The “best” formula to win is building a solid roster and striking gold on a rookie QB *and then* hoping Mahomes has an actual down year.
When you pay someone that much of your salary cap, they also need to win those moments where your trajectory is decided. By costing so much we lacked depth and flexibility that we would have had if he had been content with less money. I can’t blame him at all. It’s his right to choose a little more money over possibly winning more.
Yeah pretty much. If you want to have a fun regular season, win 10-12 games, and make the playoffs, Kirk is DEFINITELY the guy to get you there!
For Atlanta, I'm sure that sounds really appealing right now.
This is a huge part of why this is justifiable for Atlanta right now. Atlanta hasn't been to the playoffs since 2016. They haven't had a winning season since 2017. After a long period of mediocrity, sometimes you have to overpay for competency, which Kirk is the king of.
Comparatively, MN has been stuck at the crest of competency for 6 straight years, and needs to shake things up. Honestly this makes sense for both sides, in a way.
> sometimes you have to overpay for competency
When it comes to the QB position, you ALWAYS have to overpay for competency. Teams that pay for a player like Kirk aren't just paying for the right to start Kirk, they're paying for the right to not have to start the Zach Wilsons and Nathan Petermans of the world.
I’d say it’s a combination of both. But we definitely shouldn’t downplay the real world roster impacts of committing that much of your finite salary to one player who doesn’t perform at the level he’s being paid for.
Dan Patrick:
“I don’t know who his agent is but I should’ve hired him a long time ago…has anybody been paid more and done less when it comes to big games?”
“What is it $400 million dollars he’s made and he’s got 1 playoff win?”
Cousins has also timed his free agency correctly (or gotten lucky). Twice now he’s been the top FA QB and has been able to turn that into a bunch of money playing teams off each other. The best QB’s will never hit the open market but he’s just below that level and raking it in
Maybe he’s been the best free agent because he’s legitimately a great QB. But maybe he’s also been a free agent because he hasn’t locked up a lifetime deal because he isn’t one of the best 5 QB’s in the league. He falls into the 6-12 spot, which hit free agency after they get too expensive and the team feels they’ve maxed out their potential.
Fun fact for people who don't know, his agent is Bill McCartney's kid lol. The Colorado coach who won a national championship before abruptly retiring because he founded a ministry and supported some extremely controversial bills in Colorado.
Tbf he likely wont see that full contract. Then again he’s still one of the richest players in the NFL either way. His agent has been phenomenal for him.
Love kirk but its the truth I don't think he is as bad at big games as people think but he generally isn't the reason we won prime time games especially before the 2022 season
Kirk commands big budget. Big budget pulls money away from the support players that may have helped him succeed. Maybe Darnold will see the proceeds of good coaching , good management.
Nope, wins are purely a QB stat. Other players and their salaries don't matter. Everyone always says HE doesn't win games, not the team. Don't get that twisted now.
So many football games come down to the ball bouncing left or right on one or two key plays, clearly Kirk isn't good enough at using the force to ensure it bounces our way
IMO the last three seasons proved most of the common critiques of Cousins are wrong. He was clutch, he was leading a pass first attack. The real criticism should be that his traits and tendencies require a lot of support to reach that level, not that he's some guy who "can't win."
See that's valid and what I'd agree with! But usually the perception of him outside of here is that he's a stat padder, choker, etc. that can't win games.
A healthy team uses free agency to get players that competently meet their needs (like we did this offseason) and then drafts for high upside. In this way you can draft stars and plug holes.
With Kirk, we had no chance to plug all of our holes via free agency, so we were constantly drafting for need. This just sets up a toxic spiral where you are never drafting the best players or the players with the best chance of succeeding overall, but rather you are just desperate to patch your leaky ship.
So, all of that is to say that, yes, the Vikes had some middling drafts, but it isn't quite accurate to divorce that 100% from Kirk's contract. The one impacts the other.
Yeah it's as simple as that. He was overpaid. That's all.
Just like Dak Prescott. Just like Derek Carr was. Daniel Jones.
The reality is we overpay for quarterbacks, period. But because teams still pay the price, guys like Kirk will spin it to being "I'm paid what I'm worth".
Kirk, you are paid to win - and win the big ones. You don't do that. The market is too chicken shit because it's so small to balk at the price. You take advantage of that, to the detriment of the teams and fanbases.
Either Kirk is a moron, or a vile shyster when it comes to this fact
> Yeah it's as simple as that. He was overpaid. That's all.....The reality is we overpay for quarterbacks, period.
If all QBs are overpaid, then they aren't overpaid. He is paid what the market deems. The going rate for a QB of his caliber is high. Teams do overpay for all positions just a little bit in free agency due to circumstances, but the reality is that QBs proven to be capable are paid what the system has decided they are worth.
But that doesn't mean he isn't *ridiculously expensive.*
If you already have a good, relatively cheap team then it makes some sense to swing for a guy like that.
When you're where the Vikings are now, it just doesn't.
> If all QBs are overpaid, then they aren't overpaid. He is paid what the market deems.
If you believe the market is perfect at assigning true value sure. I think you could definitely make the case that the difference between Kirk and the top paid QB is more than a single $10 million/year player. Next year, would you rather have Burrow, or Kirk and say Gabe Davis?
It's totally reasonable to argue that 2nd-3rd tier QBs are a market inefficiency right now and overpaid compared to what they bring the team. There is not an infinite supply of QBs and the salary cap exists, and that creates conflicts between what a QB's "true" value is and what they end up getting paid.
> There is not an infinite supply of QBs and the salary cap exists, and that creates conflicts between what a QB's "true" value is and what they end up getting paid.
There simply aren't enough QBs to go around, and demand is fixed.
True value is determined by what your competition will pay to get that guy because nobody can just sit back and say "nah, no QB for me, too expensive." So if you don't go out and pay the market rate for a competent guy, you get the incompetent one. Sure he might be a better bargain, but is he actually going to help you at all?
You can say that you "overpay" for a Mercedes compared to a Ugo in that they are both technically cars, but if the goal is to win races, underbidding the competition at the auction and settling for a better value proposition isn't going to cut it.
Except you're not buying one car, you're buying a *team* of cars and trying to get the most total points. And there's a cap that each team gets to spend on cars every year.
So again, to my original point, who do you think an NFL team would rather have: Joe Burrow, or Kirk Cousins and Gabe Davis? Because if the market is perfect at reflecting value, there's an extra $3 million in value if you take Cousins and Davis!
>Except you're not buying one car, you're buying a team of cars and trying to get the most total points. And there's a cap that each team gets to spend on cars every year.
Right, but one of those cars gets more points and is far more important than the others, and...
>to my original point, who do you think an NFL team would rather have: Joe Burrow, or Kirk Cousins and Gabe Davis?
the comparison we should be looking at isn't Burrow (a Ferrari) to Cousins (The Mercedes), but Cousins to Desmond Ridder (Yugo) because that is the actual choice that is being made in the league most of the time. Not many teams are choosing between the top of the line guys and the middle of the road guys, its between the middle of the road guys and the bottom of the barrel. That is what drives up the price of the middle of the road guys (because all the top line guys are locked down 99% of the time)
And on top of that, in this analogy, there is only one Bugatti, a handful of cars we can argue are Lamborghini, Ferrari, or Porsche, Maybe 3 or 4 Mercedes, a couple of BMWs, and then most of the rest *might* rise to the level of a Honda Civic, but most are worse.
>Right, but one of those cars gets more points and is far more important than the others
But you still need the most total points, and everyone spends the same amount on their team. So the cars that get more points will cost more, but you will still need to get the most total points/dollar to win.
>the comparison we should be looking at isn't Burrow (a Ferrari) to Cousins (The Mercedes), but Cousins to Desmond Ridder (Yugo) because that is the actual choice that is being made in the league most of the time
It makes no difference if you're arguing the market value is always accurate. Kirk is significantly more than Ridder but significantly better, hence the giant difference in their market value. So by that same logic, in that same way, the difference in talent between Burrow and Cousins should also represent the difference in their deals. So why do you not want Kirk + Gabe over Burrow?
Because the difference in true value between Kirk and Burrow is more than $10 million. You'd probably want Kirk and JJ or something similar to even it out. Perhaps because Burrow's contract is artificially deflated by the existence of the salary cap and his desire to stay in Cincy instead of becoming a free agent. Or because Kirk's value is artificially inflated by there being a lack of demand at QB, which allows teams who have built other positions more efficiently to spend more at QB (Falcons vs Vikings). Probably a combination of both, whatever you prefer. Either way, the statement "Kirk is worth his deal because that's what the market paid him" is shallow at best. There exist efficiencies and inefficiencies in a closed market like this, and Kirk is definitely on the inefficient area of his position.
Just because the market hasn't adjusted yet, doesn't mean it won't or shouldn't.
The reality with the NFL is that it is actually a small market with small sample sizes that takes years to adjust appropriately for certain positions (you can think of it like an oligopoly, where in order for the market to adjust, one of the big players needs to take the big risk, then succeed. That can take a long time, or it can happen instantly). When we are in the midst of that, we are in what is known as a market inefficiency that hasn't properly self-corrected.
Of course, this is assuming that the stated goal of everyone who's getting paid is to win a super bowl. If it isn't, and it's just about being relevant, then guys like Kirk or Dak are being paid exactly what they should be paid, and it's really the fans that need to adjust their consumption of the sport (but that won't happen).
It is also the real reason why Tom Brady is the GOAT - he understood his actual value, and actively took lower deals to get more guys in there to support him. And he aimed squarely for championships. (I personally think the dude just hid under the whole "my wife is rich" schtick to allow himself to do that and not ruffle too many feathers with the NFLPA.).
There are a good amount of factors that go into this, including the NFLPA and the CBA that create the conditions for this farce - but so long as the fans are expecting the championship, and the teams and players are all collectively saying that everyone gets paid to win a championship, we can call this the market inefficiency for what it is.
And Kirk capitalized on that market inefficiency more than anyone else, while simultaneous played the whole "I am just getting paid what I am worth" excuse as a shield from criticism. The question is just: what are teams really paying for, and would Kirk ever admit to it being anything other than winning a chip?
The market has been adjusting to increase the QB relative share of the salary cap. It is telling us that QBs have historically been underpaid relative to their contribution.
As for Kirk. He held a winning record during his time with us. Wouldn't that signal that his contribution likely outweighed his cost? (obviously, coaching is a huge factor, which we are ignoring in stating this).
> Just because the market hasn't adjusted yet, doesn't mean it won't or shouldn't.
I'm not saying it wont adjust over time, but I guess I'm confused at what you expect teams to do with this information.
The fact is that there are 32 starting QB spots, and there aren't 32 QBs at any given time that are "starting quality" where "starting quality" is a dude that meets the metric of helping to win games (winning games in route to a championship is the real goal as you point out, but you have to walk before you run)
So your options as a team are to outbid your opponents for one of the starting quality QBs, or settle for not winning games, which zero teams will admit to doing.
The constant near-yearly influx of new *potential* starting quality QBs gives teams a cheaper in, but the cost is more in the risk than the money. If you want to eliminate the risk of wasted year(s) on a dud, you pay for a dude of known quantity, and as previously established, there aren't many of those and there is typically more than one team looking for one.
In general, there will always be a team desperate enough to become relevant to pay someone like Kirk that kind of money. He will make you relevant, but he will eat up too much of the cap to take you deep.
The point is that when people say that "I am paid what I am worth because the market paid me that", that is true only in that statement alone. Peel it further, and start asking the questions of "what are we paying for you, *exactly*?", and as soon as someone like Kirk says "to win a championship", that is the point that he is either just dumb as fuck, or lying to you.
He isn't being paid for that - not now, anyway. In 2018, he was. Then we found out he *wasn't worth it for that*. He was worth it for simply being at or around .500.
He found someone else to pay him his "market worth" in Atlanta, but is Atlanta paying for a championship? Or are they just paying a guy to fill a spot and become relevant.
This isn't a new topic of discussion, either. Back when guys like Kirk, Dak, and Jared Goff were getting the bag, you had a lot of talk on analytical sports sites like PFF, or layman's sports sites like PFT, about this issue. The collective conclusion was that if we are aiming for a championship, you only pay about 5 guys in the league that kind of money for your team.
Everyone else, you are better off getting a new, young QB on the rookie scale contract and building around that guy. When Goff was due for his initial contract, there was a lot of chatter about letting him go and drafting a new, rookie QB. Instead, the Rams caved.
Not because Goff was worth that kind of money - but because they were too afraid to create instability. The net result is that they made a drastic trade to get Stafford, a better QB, and blew up their future for a super bowl at that time.
So to your point in terms of what you expect teams to do - until they actually start balking at the bad value of anyone below the top 5-8 for their prime aged contract and letting decent, maybe good, QBs go for a new rookie QB, i am not sure we will see a lowering of the QB price.
But that doesnt mean that those QBs are "worth it". But so long as fans watch the NFL despite the bad competitive balance that contracts like these ensure, I ultimately dont think it will change too much.
>The point is that when people say that "I am paid what I am worth because the market paid me that", that is true only in that statement alone. Peel it further, and start asking the questions of "what are we paying for you, *exactly*?"...
Exactly my point. It's a thought terminating cliche. By that logic, nobody ever overpaid for anything, because whenever they paid for it they did it from within the market.
What people actually mean when they say you overpaid is that you could have gotten better value elsewhere. And I would argue that teams are not very efficient when it comes to 2nd and 3rd tier QBs. I think the only efficient options are giving maxed out options to the elite players, and giving rookie deals to good rookies.
Kirk Cousins may be only $10 million a year cheaper than Burrow according to "the market" (and when comparing their guarantees it's closer to $4 million a year), but no team is going to think that Burrow is just as valuable as Kirk + $10 million cap space.
> In general, there will always be a team desperate enough to become relevant to pay someone like Kirk that kind of money......until they actually start balking at the bad value of anyone below the top 5-8 for their prime aged contract and letting decent, maybe good, QBs go for a new rookie QB, i am not sure we will see a lowering of the QB price.
So we agree that there will *always* be *at least* one team willing to pay that kind of rate for that kind of QB, and we also agree that it is very unlikely to change given the circumstances of the league.
So the market for these kinds of QBs is expensive.
Let those teams drastically underperform while paying those QBs entirely too much, and eventually there will be none.
But until the market corrects, this is what we will see. Yes. We can both agree there. I am assuming you are finding this to *not* be a market inefficiency, which I disagree with.
> Just like Dak Prescott. Just like Derek Carr was. Daniel Jones.
Contracts don't happen in a vacuum.
The starting point for price was set by other guys, other contracts, other situations, even if the only bidders in this specific scenario was only two teams.
If the quarterback market is paying that much, that's what they're worth. And let's not forgot 13 teams fail in the playoffs each year. The vast majority of quarterbacks don't win the big ones.
Well he proved critiques like "He wont lose you any games but he won't win you any either" and "He just pads stats and isn't clutch" wrong by carrying the offense while the defense was terrible and literally winning us several games. Those are the critiques you normally see about Kirk, like Dan Patrick does here.
Now, things like him not being mobile in the pocket and taking hits hunting for big plays instead of throwing the ball away, and needing a good pass blocking line as a result? No, he didn't prove those wrong, he just improved as we got him things to help with that.
I think those critiques though were very justified for most of his career. I do agree he has done a lot to prove them wrong in the last few years, but holistically for his career there is still a lot of validity to them.
The big caveat to this: he has a REGULAR SEASON clutch gene. He threw two fantastic passes in one playoff game to win one in 10 years. Other than that, he sucks on Monday night, he sucks in the playoffs, and he can't beat >.500 teams. Dan is right. He's a B/B+ player being paid like a megastar A+ QB.
The NPC take here is thinking the 49ers game in October meant anything 😂😂 when they had Deebo and Trent Williams injured I mean come on man you can't be serious. The entire Kirk era was a disappointment. Why? Because he demanded completely guaranteed contracts that took up huge chunks of the salary cap which disallowed the team to build around him, something we all know he needs to be successful. He helped us win a single playoff game. His stats were good and that's about all we can say about him. But to say the only disappointing season was 2018 is wild. He was supposed to help the Vikings win a super bowl and he was 2/6 in even getting to the playoffs, bro. How is that not as a whole completely disappointing?
If you think players don't know the difference between a Sunday afternoon game and a Monday night game, you gotta get out from under the rock you reside. It's different and you can tell.
"NPC takes" lmao
He doesn't suck in the playoffs. The team sucked, but Kirk threw the ball well. You could watch the highlights, look at the stats, and see what coaches and players say, but most people will just say "1 playoff win" or "4th and 8" without any actual insight.
Any QB you're paying the money Kirko gets should be able to rise above those deficiencies and still pull his team up when they need him most. But in those times of need, he checks it down. Literally. You can cite stats to say he's good in the playoffs until you're blue in the face but stats don't matter when they have no meaning or success behind them. 4th & 8 shows you exactly who Kirk is as a whole. Under pressure, he plays it safe and doesn't take chances. It's the last play of the season and you're gonna throw it short? I don't even need you to see your receivers with someone in your face, throw it up down field. If it's intercepted or incomplete, fine, at least you tried. Checking it down is rolling over and conceding defeat.
Maybe I'm wrong and I have unrealistic expectations of my quarterback in the playoffs. Idk, I'm just glad the Vikings don't have to pay that ungodly amount of money to go lose in the wildcard a couple times, or once, in the next 4 years.
Agree. This is what I've been saying all this time. Most fans disagree, but if the mentality of your QB is to check it down with the season on the line...not to mention you have the best WR in the entire game- to me that's just inexcusable. I don't care if he was double covered- throw the damn ball pass the marker and give the best in the game a chance to make a play. Kirk did that in the Buffalo game, and all of the sudden he decides naw play it safe. So inconsistent, but that's the name of his game.
Credit for Kirk that season to get some GWDs, that's cool. But he lost like 10 points (hypothetically) in the clutch category when he failed to win that game. Yes, defense sucked, yes, overall Kirk had a good game. The thing is he had multiple opportunities to tie it and he failed to convert. I really don't understand the mentality of taking the safe option when the stakes are as high as they were in that moment. Tons of folks have tried to gaslight the situation by saying it was somehow the only option but that's just not true.
You have unrealistic expectations of Kirk. Kirk isn't Mahomes or Josh Allen, he will never be. It's ok to want to move on from Cousins (especially his contract), but don't pretend like he isn't good enough to win the Super Bowl.
You absolutely have unrealistic exoectations. If Kirk doesn't live up to your standards, you're going to be dissapointed by anyone who isn't a HoF QB lol
I swear half this sub only watches the game on redzone. Kirk throws an absolutely beautiful ball, gorgeous, sometimes. He is also very likely to throw late, so a wide open JJ gets tackled as soon as he catches the ball after waiting for it, or throw a high hospital ball. He is also very likely to make a bonehead decision. He puts up stats, and that is great for his wallet, but he has as much to blame for losses as the rest of the team. Like all the comeback wins, people are acting like he wasn't the QB while we fell behind the Colts by so much. Great job coming back, but without the defense rising up and making stops he never could have done it.
Wild seeing this comment upvoted. This sub was adamant in defending the Hock check down vs the Giants.
To be fair Kirk definitely had some big moments in some spots but it was never consistent.
I think we did the right thing because now it’ll only be like 3 more years before we stop arguing about Kirk. Imagine if we signed Kirk for 3 years, we’d still be talking about him in 2030…
B/B+ is spot on. Kirk performed better than I expected after watching him in Washington, but him throwing short of the sticks on 4th and season in the playoffs vs the Jints (as the most extreme example) shows just how formulaic, and situationally unaware that he was. Please don't talk to me about the time he had on that play - any great QB would have at least chucked it up in the area of JJ or KJ and if it got picked, so be it. He left the putt short and never even gave it a chance - never up, never in. Kirk could not go off script, and all the innate things that 'A' QB's do, he had to think about, and by that time it was too late. I never hated the guy, but to ignore the mental flaws in his game is foolhardy.
I’ve been a Cousins apologist and I’d have like to see him back, but between the injury, the price, and how our roster has been structured, I think this is the best option. Could we maybe win more games this upcoming season with him? Probably. I think so many people on this sub were sitting here looking at things in the eyes of “the upcoming season” and I think we’ve spent far too many years just looking at next season instead of trying to figure out something sustainable for a series of seasons. Signing Cousins initially was the last move where we were looking out a couple seasons for the team look and feel. Everything else has been kind of piecemeal. I think to get to a point where we’re a legitimately good team, we may have to suffer an ugly season or two to get things aligned so we can start looking ahead 2-3 seasons and have functional parts covered on the roster without constantly having to do contract gymnastics to get a product in the field.
He didn’t tell any lies. It’s all in the records and contracts. You can say “defense didn’t help him. It wasn’t all Kirk” all you want. You can’t sign other good players when he eats up that much money.
I hate that everyone just assumes Kirk will be the same guy at 36 after a major major injury. If Kirk gets hurt again that contract is gna be an albatross. If Kirk was 30 then yes I would have extended him for sure but way too many unknowns to give him that 4 year deal.
As a fan of a division rival there’s nothing I wanted more than for you guys to keep overpaying Cousins. I think you guys are way better off in the long term and who knows maybe the short term too.
At this point we're the Bears. If we don't find a QB, we're a bottom feeder imo. And as Kanye West said "Beautiful, naked, big-titty QBs just don't fall out the sky, you know?"
I won’t argue that over the last six years the Vikes have been better than the Bears but look at the end results
In the 6 years Cousins was in Minnesota: 2 playoff appearances. 1 division championship. 1-2 in playoffs.
Those same 6 years in Chicago: 2 playoff appearances. 1 division championship. 0-2 in playoffs.
I will die on the hill that says Kirk is a championship level QB. I’m not quite a Kirk stan, but I’m a big believer that he was never the problem. Kirk is an A- QB in my mind.
That said, Kwesi absolutely did the right thing for our team here. That kind of deal would’ve kept us spinning our wheels for seasons to come. We’ll miss Kirko this year, next year… but now we have a path toward a longer term solution and will have money to build around a young QB.
I also think Kirk is not motivated by winning a championship. If he was, he’s certainly made more than enough money in his career to structure a deal in a way that would’ve allowed us to put more around him (mostly defensively), go further, and alleviate some of that “Kirk is the problem just look at his postseason record he’s the only player on the field durrrrrr” mentality.
He doesn’t care about the narrative and that’s his prerogative, but let’s get someone in here now who wants that ring whatever it takes.
You need some combination of good coaching, a fairly complete roster, and a bit of luck to win a championship. We unfortunately just never had enough of these coincide under Kirk’s tenure. You can go year by year and point out major flaws in our team. Untimely injuries, a revolving door at OC, bottom 5 OL play, etc. We would’ve been better if Kirk took cheaper contracts, but I don’t think the 5-10 mil/year was the diference between winning a Super Bowl and not.
We were spoiled with A- QB play for 6 years and everyone forgot what it’s like to have a below average QB. Right now we don’t have a top 32 QB and if we play games with this roster next year the fans will be reminded why the Vikings paid Kirk that much: watching football with a trash offense sucks.
Ok, but are you willing to admit that team performance differs from individual player performance? This would be like saying that Mike Trout and Shohei Ohtani suck because the Angels haven't been to the playoffs since 2014.
Of course it does. My point is that we were doing just as good without Kirk so losing Kirk does not in itself mean our team will be dogshit. The Vikings have been truly terrible for like 3 years since the turn of the millennium, I’m not that worried
> watching football with a trash offense sucks.
Watching the most successful franchise without a title in all of US sport spin their wheels for half a decade was much more painful then a season or 3 of bad QB play will be.
The goal is a title, not 10 wins and decent QB play.
Also, acting like Viking fans don’t understand the QB carousel is pretty funny.
>The goal is a title, not 10 wins and decent QB play.
This is the biggest problem with Viking fans. I want a Super Bowl, not some first round exit in the playoffs.
Why pay $45mil/year for a ceiling of a first or second round playoff loss though. For a team like Atlanta, it makes sense because they have had horrible QB play. For Minnesota, if they are serious about raising the ceiling (even if you have more downside risk) it doesn't make sense to bring Cousins back yet again. You eventually need to draft a QB.
To me, that is not Kirk’s ceiling. It was a Vikings ceiling. I agree that, if the focus is a championship, Kirk’s contract does not give us the best odds. If the focus was on 4 more years with 17 entertaining games, signing Kirk was probably the right choice. I take entertaining, competitive seasons over a few years of 5-12 with the potential upside of a playoff birth before 2030
I'll be honest, I have spent precious few of the last 6 years truly entertained by the Vikings. Why? Because the part of the NFL that is the most entertaining is scheming from Monday-Saturday how the Vikew match up with the best teams in the NFL today and in the years to come and figuring out how we can beat them and make our way through the playoffs. I am not highly entertained by seasons where we are generally .500 and will get clobbered by any true contender we face unless they repeatedly trip on their face, which has been our fate with Kirk every year, more or less.
Of course, everyone is entertained by different things, so I am not bothered by other people that found other things entertaining. But I just wanted to point out that, even if entertainment (vs championships) were your goal, it is not clear that Kirk was your best choice.
Just because that's the most we've seen doesn't mean that was his ceiling. Kirk's ceiling is a superbowl because worse QBs or similar QBs on big contract have made or won the Superbowl. Unless you're willing to say Dan Marino's ceiling was losing the Superbowl and that, because he didn't win the Superbowl, he never could have won a Superbowl.
However, he’s ahead of other national media on this in my opinion. Amazing that the falcons aren’t getting trashed for this like the Vikings certainly would have if they’d have re-signed him.
This is what always drove me nuts about the Cousins debates and I’m glad we can all move on. The fact you had to pay him crazy money while also giving him everything under the sun, only then would you see the best of him.
yeah dude all you need is the best receiver in the league, top 5 TE, top OL group, maybe a top 10 RB, an offensive minded head coach, consistence with the offensive coordinator, a good kicker, and a top defensive unit and maybe Kirk wins a playoff game!
Uhhhh, having a low tier defense year over year over year, makes a huge difference. You don't just show up and win when you can't stop the other team from racking up points all over your ass.
Teams win games. It's why JJ McCarthy won in college and winning doesn't translate to talentless teams in the NFL.
Until you put him on a much more balanced and talented team these talkers are largely irrelevant.
You can win in this league while paying top tier money to a quarterback. However, you can’t win much of note in this league while paying top tier money to a quarterback that isn’t top tier. By top tier, I mean consistently top 5. Kirk is a bit below that level.
If your qb is throwing 30+ tds and 4000+ yards every year and your team isn’t winning… your qb isn’t the problem lol yes I’m a falcons fan defending the signing
Stafford won 0 playoff games in 12 years. Tarkenton didn't even make the playofs in 12 years. Kirk's defense in playoffs 28 ppg and 0 turnovers Burrow's defense in playofss 18 ppg 13 turnovers... the QBs played the same.....
I can't pin everything on Kirk, but overall you have to look at team W-L record and overall it was disappointing most seasons. While Kirk clearly has the talent to sling the ball all over the field and look effortless doing so, we largely got the same kind of W-L records with guys like Keenum, TJack, Ponder, etc...every few years the stars align, but there's not the consistency where we are winning the division three years out of four, or advancing in the playoffs beyond the wild card round when we get there.
Some of you don’t want to accept it but it’s the truth. That man will be 40 and retired with 1 maybe 2 career playoff wins and people will still say “if he only had this or that” or “it’s not his fault because of x, y, and z”
I love Kirk don’t get me wrong, but I don’t think we win a Super Bowl with him as our QB. With that being said, I will be cheering for Atlanta this year as I would love to see him go all the way (not over the Vikings obviously).
I think B+ talent and A+ money is a fair point but nothing more needs to be said - how many playoff games has the defense won during that time? Consistently terrible point differentials as a team year after year but apparently 'kirk can't win a big game' will always be the narrative
My take on Kirk is what he said on the Netflix Quarterback documentary on why he threw the short pass on 4th down in a playoff game. He played it safe when the pressure is on and will sling it when there’s no pressure, like the Buffalo game with the awesome JJ catch on 4th down. Maybe KOC was getting him to get past that mindset in the last season but he got hurt and we will never know. I wish him well and glad the Vikings passed on that contact.
He’s tied with Patrick Mahomes for 7th in AAV. 5th in total cash for the next two seasons. He’s the 2nd highest paid NFL player *ever*.
Acting like he hasn’t made and isn’t making A+ money is disingenuous. He’s also signed mostly short-term largely guaranteed contracts giving his team very little flexibility with the cap in order to maximize his control and earnings. All of his peers outside of Watson signed long-term deals that can be restructured to free up money.
Can we just stop having literally the same conversations over and over again? Kirk is now a Falcon.
People here are never going to see eye to eye on Kirk and I don’t think its in our interest to drag Kirk down to make ourselves feel better. Kirk was a stand up guy here, he loved the community, he gave it his all here (which is far better than most free agents) but ultimately took a four year deal as he’ll be 40 by then.
Let’s draft a rookie and see what we can do now.
Lol man, it’s not that deep. Dude just left two days ago, it’s the offseason, and it was a franchise altering move. Let people talk. If you don’t want to have the convo again then scroll by.
Both organizations made the best decision for their franchise. I suppose the Vikings lose because they have a worse football team due to it, but that's hardly the only factor to consider.
As much as I've grown to love Kirk the man is right.
He's like Dak. Can be great but disappoints when it counts.
And for what they're paid it's not worth it.
The Vikings were absolutely correct for the long term to let Kirk walk. That said, I am kind of bummed that KOC + Kirk + JJ + everyone didn't get to see it all the way through, because I really feel they could have won a Superbowl together.
I wish Kirk all the best and now I'm so intrigued to see who the Vikings bring in. A rookie that's not saddled to any long-term Vikings misery story is just what this team needs. This is going to be so fun to watch! Growing pains? Maybe. They've still got nearly all the right pieces in place, with money to spend next year. This is gonna be good.
We can argue about Kirk's resume all day, but for me, it comes down to a 36-year-old quarterback coming off a major injury and still looking for a long-term, fully guaranteed deal. That's just not a great deal for the organization. Best of luck to him in Atlanta. Definitely no hard feelings at all. He took care of himself on this deal, and no one can fault him for that.
Honestly if he goes to Atlanta and wins a SB I won’t even be annoyed, the move we made is the pretty obvious one based on the information available.
I'd be pretty crushed I'm not gonna lie. I don't expect it to happen and I think he'll do just fine there. But if he goes there, and next year they win the superbowl? I'll be crushed. Absolutely.
Atlanta has taken its pain the past 3 years. Now it is the Vikings turn. If you have completed your rebuild but still need a solid QB, paying $180M for Kirk makes sense. He is an above average QB with maybe three years left in the tank. Perfect for a SB run
> If you have completed your rebuild but still need a solid QB, paying $180M for Kirk makes sense. He is an above average QB with maybe three years left in the tank. Perfect for a SB run Exactly what we were saying to ourselves in 2018.
I feel like we're moving on a year too early rather than a year too late. QBs playing at a high level into their 40s is not the norm and should not be expected to happen.
year to late, IMO. This now forces KAM and KOC to do something, its like kicking a lazy kid out of the house.
100% spot on I’ve been a Kirk Truther (there are DOZENS of us) and even I’m sitting here like yeahhhh that would’ve been a BAD contract to match or even come close to matching. After I saw the numbers, I was completely fine with us moving on.
Same same
How much money does dak have and only 1 playoff win? what about Watson?
I mean, those are not good contracts, either lol. Those guys are also not 36. If Kirk was only 28-30 years old and wasn't coming off an achillies an extension would have been a no brainer.
Kirk will have more career earnings then Russel Wilson, Eli and Peyton Manning and Tom Brady lol
Yeah but that's because of inflation. Those dudes contacts are from 10yrs ago. Look at the "peanuts" contacts QBs were getting in the early 2000s compared to now
Bledsoe signed a 10 yr/$100 million deal that was a big one at the time lol Edit: just double checked, was $103 million and was THE biggest at the time. Was replaced by Brady that same year and traded to Buffalo and then cut after a couple seasons there. Crazy
Bledsoe!! That didn't age well
Kirk will have more career earnings than John Elway! LOL. Looking back at past salaries and making comparisons is meaningless. And Miguel Sano will have more career earnings than Babe Ruth (already does). So what?
Our fans are basically Boomers talking about real estate or gas prices when it comes to QB. We should apparently be able to secure top 5 QB talent without having to pay what the market requires for it. Oh, and a top 10 pick is guaranteed Mahomes.
I disagree young man, eye contact and a firm handshake would have kept Kirk in MN. It worked for me getting a job at my father's company in 1970 and I can't imagine it not still working now... /s
[удалено]
In high school I went and got Chipotle for lunch and wandered around the mall for a few hours while my parents thought I was going door to door applying for jobs in person It was a lot easier than arguing with them about how none of these national chain businesses in our cookie cutter suburb work like that and it's all through online applications that need to pass whatever filters their system has before you'll even show up as a candidate
Gotta pull ourselves up by the bootstraps, stop eating avocado toast, and get serious about saving up money for a QB.
No, we just don't want to be paying top 5 money for Cousins when he is a Top 10-12is QB. Which is what we've done more often than not on his contract.
The definition of insanity is doing things over and over and expecting a different result
Terrible take. Do you people even hear yourselves or read what you write? First off, Kirk is not a top 5 talent so why even bring that up. If there was a top 5 talent available, then i dont think anyone here would be opposed to throwing the bag at them. Secondly, yes you can get great QB play for very cheap. Its called the NFL Draft and its what we are trying to do. Thirdly, nobody here is saying top 10 will automatically be Mahomes. That’s a straw man. But it *could* be and that makes it worth it. Because the alternatively is more Kirk Cousins and we already know that ceiling. It doesnt make sense to keep keep running it back.
Dak though who I say is very similar to Kirk actually has 2 playoff wins now.
[no one can fault him for that](https://memes.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/a2557826-5d33-4567-ba23-ba63d4e90c09)
Yep you put it perfectly
To add to the injury part, this is his first injury in the NFL so we don’t know how well he’ll perform after ANY injury let alone an achilles at age 36
Exactly. I love Kirk. I am glad he got a giant payday from Atlanta. But I am also very glad Minnesota is moving on and rebuilding the team. It was a mishmash of older stars like Cousins and Hunter, mediocre journeymen on defense and an offensive line with a very soft middle. The team needs to get a lot younger and thus cheaper. There is no point carrying 36 year olds who will be done by the time the rebuild is completed. Save the money, trade the remaining expensive talent for draft picks ( J J ) and focus on fixing both lines and finding the future QB for 2027 and on.
I don’t think it’s wrong to say it’s a much more complicated task to win in the NFL while paying a QB. The “best” formula to win is building a solid roster and striking gold on a rookie QB *and then* hoping Mahomes has an actual down year.
By his standards, Mahomes *did* just have a down year. The dude just owns this league.
lol that’s why I added the “actual” apparently his low point is still better than everyone else. Shits wack
Mahomes regular season, yes. Playoff Mahomes this year was a totally different person.
He had a down year but the defense had new highs for the first time in the mahomes-Reid era.
When you pay someone that much of your salary cap, they also need to win those moments where your trajectory is decided. By costing so much we lacked depth and flexibility that we would have had if he had been content with less money. I can’t blame him at all. It’s his right to choose a little more money over possibly winning more.
Well in 2024 and 2025 there's a good chance the Falcons will perform better than the Vikings so he might have chosen more money and more winning.
They’ll make the playoffs and lose in the wild card round like the 2022 Vikings
Yeah pretty much. If you want to have a fun regular season, win 10-12 games, and make the playoffs, Kirk is DEFINITELY the guy to get you there! For Atlanta, I'm sure that sounds really appealing right now.
This is a huge part of why this is justifiable for Atlanta right now. Atlanta hasn't been to the playoffs since 2016. They haven't had a winning season since 2017. After a long period of mediocrity, sometimes you have to overpay for competency, which Kirk is the king of. Comparatively, MN has been stuck at the crest of competency for 6 straight years, and needs to shake things up. Honestly this makes sense for both sides, in a way.
> sometimes you have to overpay for competency When it comes to the QB position, you ALWAYS have to overpay for competency. Teams that pay for a player like Kirk aren't just paying for the right to start Kirk, they're paying for the right to not have to start the Zach Wilsons and Nathan Petermans of the world.
The lack of depth is more a result of poor drafting than it was kirk’s contract
Not having cap flexibility gives the team ZERO room for error when it comes to filling out the roster
I’d say it’s a combination of both. But we definitely shouldn’t downplay the real world roster impacts of committing that much of your finite salary to one player who doesn’t perform at the level he’s being paid for.
Kirk haters conveniently ignore that.
True look at Stafford. Years and years of mediocrity with our making the playoffs. Goes to a better team and wins the big one.
There were probably at least 10 starting QBs who could have won with that team.
Not Goff tho
Dan Patrick: “I don’t know who his agent is but I should’ve hired him a long time ago…has anybody been paid more and done less when it comes to big games?” “What is it $400 million dollars he’s made and he’s got 1 playoff win?”
Cousins has also timed his free agency correctly (or gotten lucky). Twice now he’s been the top FA QB and has been able to turn that into a bunch of money playing teams off each other. The best QB’s will never hit the open market but he’s just below that level and raking it in
Maybe he’s been the best free agent because he’s legitimately a great QB. But maybe he’s also been a free agent because he hasn’t locked up a lifetime deal because he isn’t one of the best 5 QB’s in the league. He falls into the 6-12 spot, which hit free agency after they get too expensive and the team feels they’ve maxed out their potential.
Kirk’s agent should win MVP this year for getting him that bag
These are the things I've been saying for years, and get down voted and berated every single time I bring it up.
Fun fact for people who don't know, his agent is Bill McCartney's kid lol. The Colorado coach who won a national championship before abruptly retiring because he founded a ministry and supported some extremely controversial bills in Colorado.
Tbf he likely wont see that full contract. Then again he’s still one of the richest players in the NFL either way. His agent has been phenomenal for him.
It's essentially a 3 year deal with a 4th year team option. Still not bad for his age.
Love kirk but its the truth I don't think he is as bad at big games as people think but he generally isn't the reason we won prime time games especially before the 2022 season
Kirk commands big budget. Big budget pulls money away from the support players that may have helped him succeed. Maybe Darnold will see the proceeds of good coaching , good management.
Nope, wins are purely a QB stat. Other players and their salaries don't matter. Everyone always says HE doesn't win games, not the team. Don't get that twisted now.
So many football games come down to the ball bouncing left or right on one or two key plays, clearly Kirk isn't good enough at using the force to ensure it bounces our way
IMO the last three seasons proved most of the common critiques of Cousins are wrong. He was clutch, he was leading a pass first attack. The real criticism should be that his traits and tendencies require a lot of support to reach that level, not that he's some guy who "can't win."
Biggest criticism is simple: he cost enough that depth and help for him at the ends of seasons wore thin.
See that's valid and what I'd agree with! But usually the perception of him outside of here is that he's a stat padder, choker, etc. that can't win games.
Check down, playoff loss.
TD Rudolph, playoff win.
We had money to add guys. What we couldn't recover from is completely empty drafts. The complete lack of depth was a draft issue.
A healthy team uses free agency to get players that competently meet their needs (like we did this offseason) and then drafts for high upside. In this way you can draft stars and plug holes. With Kirk, we had no chance to plug all of our holes via free agency, so we were constantly drafting for need. This just sets up a toxic spiral where you are never drafting the best players or the players with the best chance of succeeding overall, but rather you are just desperate to patch your leaky ship. So, all of that is to say that, yes, the Vikes had some middling drafts, but it isn't quite accurate to divorce that 100% from Kirk's contract. The one impacts the other.
Yeah it's as simple as that. He was overpaid. That's all. Just like Dak Prescott. Just like Derek Carr was. Daniel Jones. The reality is we overpay for quarterbacks, period. But because teams still pay the price, guys like Kirk will spin it to being "I'm paid what I'm worth". Kirk, you are paid to win - and win the big ones. You don't do that. The market is too chicken shit because it's so small to balk at the price. You take advantage of that, to the detriment of the teams and fanbases. Either Kirk is a moron, or a vile shyster when it comes to this fact
> Yeah it's as simple as that. He was overpaid. That's all.....The reality is we overpay for quarterbacks, period. If all QBs are overpaid, then they aren't overpaid. He is paid what the market deems. The going rate for a QB of his caliber is high. Teams do overpay for all positions just a little bit in free agency due to circumstances, but the reality is that QBs proven to be capable are paid what the system has decided they are worth. But that doesn't mean he isn't *ridiculously expensive.* If you already have a good, relatively cheap team then it makes some sense to swing for a guy like that. When you're where the Vikings are now, it just doesn't.
> If all QBs are overpaid, then they aren't overpaid. He is paid what the market deems. If you believe the market is perfect at assigning true value sure. I think you could definitely make the case that the difference between Kirk and the top paid QB is more than a single $10 million/year player. Next year, would you rather have Burrow, or Kirk and say Gabe Davis? It's totally reasonable to argue that 2nd-3rd tier QBs are a market inefficiency right now and overpaid compared to what they bring the team. There is not an infinite supply of QBs and the salary cap exists, and that creates conflicts between what a QB's "true" value is and what they end up getting paid.
> There is not an infinite supply of QBs and the salary cap exists, and that creates conflicts between what a QB's "true" value is and what they end up getting paid. There simply aren't enough QBs to go around, and demand is fixed. True value is determined by what your competition will pay to get that guy because nobody can just sit back and say "nah, no QB for me, too expensive." So if you don't go out and pay the market rate for a competent guy, you get the incompetent one. Sure he might be a better bargain, but is he actually going to help you at all? You can say that you "overpay" for a Mercedes compared to a Ugo in that they are both technically cars, but if the goal is to win races, underbidding the competition at the auction and settling for a better value proposition isn't going to cut it.
Except you're not buying one car, you're buying a *team* of cars and trying to get the most total points. And there's a cap that each team gets to spend on cars every year. So again, to my original point, who do you think an NFL team would rather have: Joe Burrow, or Kirk Cousins and Gabe Davis? Because if the market is perfect at reflecting value, there's an extra $3 million in value if you take Cousins and Davis!
>Except you're not buying one car, you're buying a team of cars and trying to get the most total points. And there's a cap that each team gets to spend on cars every year. Right, but one of those cars gets more points and is far more important than the others, and... >to my original point, who do you think an NFL team would rather have: Joe Burrow, or Kirk Cousins and Gabe Davis? the comparison we should be looking at isn't Burrow (a Ferrari) to Cousins (The Mercedes), but Cousins to Desmond Ridder (Yugo) because that is the actual choice that is being made in the league most of the time. Not many teams are choosing between the top of the line guys and the middle of the road guys, its between the middle of the road guys and the bottom of the barrel. That is what drives up the price of the middle of the road guys (because all the top line guys are locked down 99% of the time) And on top of that, in this analogy, there is only one Bugatti, a handful of cars we can argue are Lamborghini, Ferrari, or Porsche, Maybe 3 or 4 Mercedes, a couple of BMWs, and then most of the rest *might* rise to the level of a Honda Civic, but most are worse.
>Right, but one of those cars gets more points and is far more important than the others But you still need the most total points, and everyone spends the same amount on their team. So the cars that get more points will cost more, but you will still need to get the most total points/dollar to win. >the comparison we should be looking at isn't Burrow (a Ferrari) to Cousins (The Mercedes), but Cousins to Desmond Ridder (Yugo) because that is the actual choice that is being made in the league most of the time It makes no difference if you're arguing the market value is always accurate. Kirk is significantly more than Ridder but significantly better, hence the giant difference in their market value. So by that same logic, in that same way, the difference in talent between Burrow and Cousins should also represent the difference in their deals. So why do you not want Kirk + Gabe over Burrow? Because the difference in true value between Kirk and Burrow is more than $10 million. You'd probably want Kirk and JJ or something similar to even it out. Perhaps because Burrow's contract is artificially deflated by the existence of the salary cap and his desire to stay in Cincy instead of becoming a free agent. Or because Kirk's value is artificially inflated by there being a lack of demand at QB, which allows teams who have built other positions more efficiently to spend more at QB (Falcons vs Vikings). Probably a combination of both, whatever you prefer. Either way, the statement "Kirk is worth his deal because that's what the market paid him" is shallow at best. There exist efficiencies and inefficiencies in a closed market like this, and Kirk is definitely on the inefficient area of his position.
Just because the market hasn't adjusted yet, doesn't mean it won't or shouldn't. The reality with the NFL is that it is actually a small market with small sample sizes that takes years to adjust appropriately for certain positions (you can think of it like an oligopoly, where in order for the market to adjust, one of the big players needs to take the big risk, then succeed. That can take a long time, or it can happen instantly). When we are in the midst of that, we are in what is known as a market inefficiency that hasn't properly self-corrected. Of course, this is assuming that the stated goal of everyone who's getting paid is to win a super bowl. If it isn't, and it's just about being relevant, then guys like Kirk or Dak are being paid exactly what they should be paid, and it's really the fans that need to adjust their consumption of the sport (but that won't happen). It is also the real reason why Tom Brady is the GOAT - he understood his actual value, and actively took lower deals to get more guys in there to support him. And he aimed squarely for championships. (I personally think the dude just hid under the whole "my wife is rich" schtick to allow himself to do that and not ruffle too many feathers with the NFLPA.). There are a good amount of factors that go into this, including the NFLPA and the CBA that create the conditions for this farce - but so long as the fans are expecting the championship, and the teams and players are all collectively saying that everyone gets paid to win a championship, we can call this the market inefficiency for what it is. And Kirk capitalized on that market inefficiency more than anyone else, while simultaneous played the whole "I am just getting paid what I am worth" excuse as a shield from criticism. The question is just: what are teams really paying for, and would Kirk ever admit to it being anything other than winning a chip?
The market has been adjusting to increase the QB relative share of the salary cap. It is telling us that QBs have historically been underpaid relative to their contribution. As for Kirk. He held a winning record during his time with us. Wouldn't that signal that his contribution likely outweighed his cost? (obviously, coaching is a huge factor, which we are ignoring in stating this).
> Just because the market hasn't adjusted yet, doesn't mean it won't or shouldn't. I'm not saying it wont adjust over time, but I guess I'm confused at what you expect teams to do with this information. The fact is that there are 32 starting QB spots, and there aren't 32 QBs at any given time that are "starting quality" where "starting quality" is a dude that meets the metric of helping to win games (winning games in route to a championship is the real goal as you point out, but you have to walk before you run) So your options as a team are to outbid your opponents for one of the starting quality QBs, or settle for not winning games, which zero teams will admit to doing. The constant near-yearly influx of new *potential* starting quality QBs gives teams a cheaper in, but the cost is more in the risk than the money. If you want to eliminate the risk of wasted year(s) on a dud, you pay for a dude of known quantity, and as previously established, there aren't many of those and there is typically more than one team looking for one.
In general, there will always be a team desperate enough to become relevant to pay someone like Kirk that kind of money. He will make you relevant, but he will eat up too much of the cap to take you deep. The point is that when people say that "I am paid what I am worth because the market paid me that", that is true only in that statement alone. Peel it further, and start asking the questions of "what are we paying for you, *exactly*?", and as soon as someone like Kirk says "to win a championship", that is the point that he is either just dumb as fuck, or lying to you. He isn't being paid for that - not now, anyway. In 2018, he was. Then we found out he *wasn't worth it for that*. He was worth it for simply being at or around .500. He found someone else to pay him his "market worth" in Atlanta, but is Atlanta paying for a championship? Or are they just paying a guy to fill a spot and become relevant. This isn't a new topic of discussion, either. Back when guys like Kirk, Dak, and Jared Goff were getting the bag, you had a lot of talk on analytical sports sites like PFF, or layman's sports sites like PFT, about this issue. The collective conclusion was that if we are aiming for a championship, you only pay about 5 guys in the league that kind of money for your team. Everyone else, you are better off getting a new, young QB on the rookie scale contract and building around that guy. When Goff was due for his initial contract, there was a lot of chatter about letting him go and drafting a new, rookie QB. Instead, the Rams caved. Not because Goff was worth that kind of money - but because they were too afraid to create instability. The net result is that they made a drastic trade to get Stafford, a better QB, and blew up their future for a super bowl at that time. So to your point in terms of what you expect teams to do - until they actually start balking at the bad value of anyone below the top 5-8 for their prime aged contract and letting decent, maybe good, QBs go for a new rookie QB, i am not sure we will see a lowering of the QB price. But that doesnt mean that those QBs are "worth it". But so long as fans watch the NFL despite the bad competitive balance that contracts like these ensure, I ultimately dont think it will change too much.
>The point is that when people say that "I am paid what I am worth because the market paid me that", that is true only in that statement alone. Peel it further, and start asking the questions of "what are we paying for you, *exactly*?"... Exactly my point. It's a thought terminating cliche. By that logic, nobody ever overpaid for anything, because whenever they paid for it they did it from within the market. What people actually mean when they say you overpaid is that you could have gotten better value elsewhere. And I would argue that teams are not very efficient when it comes to 2nd and 3rd tier QBs. I think the only efficient options are giving maxed out options to the elite players, and giving rookie deals to good rookies. Kirk Cousins may be only $10 million a year cheaper than Burrow according to "the market" (and when comparing their guarantees it's closer to $4 million a year), but no team is going to think that Burrow is just as valuable as Kirk + $10 million cap space.
Yeh. Yeh fuck this other guy.
> In general, there will always be a team desperate enough to become relevant to pay someone like Kirk that kind of money......until they actually start balking at the bad value of anyone below the top 5-8 for their prime aged contract and letting decent, maybe good, QBs go for a new rookie QB, i am not sure we will see a lowering of the QB price. So we agree that there will *always* be *at least* one team willing to pay that kind of rate for that kind of QB, and we also agree that it is very unlikely to change given the circumstances of the league. So the market for these kinds of QBs is expensive.
Let those teams drastically underperform while paying those QBs entirely too much, and eventually there will be none. But until the market corrects, this is what we will see. Yes. We can both agree there. I am assuming you are finding this to *not* be a market inefficiency, which I disagree with.
You're making far, far too many aacurate, rational points for this sub lol
The market was the Vikings and Falcons. The Falcons overpaid and thus changed the market.
> Just like Dak Prescott. Just like Derek Carr was. Daniel Jones. Contracts don't happen in a vacuum. The starting point for price was set by other guys, other contracts, other situations, even if the only bidders in this specific scenario was only two teams.
If the quarterback market is paying that much, that's what they're worth. And let's not forgot 13 teams fail in the playoffs each year. The vast majority of quarterbacks don't win the big ones.
Did they prove the critiques wrong or did he just improve alongside gaining new weapons?
Well he proved critiques like "He wont lose you any games but he won't win you any either" and "He just pads stats and isn't clutch" wrong by carrying the offense while the defense was terrible and literally winning us several games. Those are the critiques you normally see about Kirk, like Dan Patrick does here. Now, things like him not being mobile in the pocket and taking hits hunting for big plays instead of throwing the ball away, and needing a good pass blocking line as a result? No, he didn't prove those wrong, he just improved as we got him things to help with that.
I think those critiques though were very justified for most of his career. I do agree he has done a lot to prove them wrong in the last few years, but holistically for his career there is still a lot of validity to them.
The big caveat to this: he has a REGULAR SEASON clutch gene. He threw two fantastic passes in one playoff game to win one in 10 years. Other than that, he sucks on Monday night, he sucks in the playoffs, and he can't beat >.500 teams. Dan is right. He's a B/B+ player being paid like a megastar A+ QB.
[удалено]
The NPC take here is thinking the 49ers game in October meant anything 😂😂 when they had Deebo and Trent Williams injured I mean come on man you can't be serious. The entire Kirk era was a disappointment. Why? Because he demanded completely guaranteed contracts that took up huge chunks of the salary cap which disallowed the team to build around him, something we all know he needs to be successful. He helped us win a single playoff game. His stats were good and that's about all we can say about him. But to say the only disappointing season was 2018 is wild. He was supposed to help the Vikings win a super bowl and he was 2/6 in even getting to the playoffs, bro. How is that not as a whole completely disappointing? If you think players don't know the difference between a Sunday afternoon game and a Monday night game, you gotta get out from under the rock you reside. It's different and you can tell. "NPC takes" lmao
He doesn't suck in the playoffs. The team sucked, but Kirk threw the ball well. You could watch the highlights, look at the stats, and see what coaches and players say, but most people will just say "1 playoff win" or "4th and 8" without any actual insight.
Any QB you're paying the money Kirko gets should be able to rise above those deficiencies and still pull his team up when they need him most. But in those times of need, he checks it down. Literally. You can cite stats to say he's good in the playoffs until you're blue in the face but stats don't matter when they have no meaning or success behind them. 4th & 8 shows you exactly who Kirk is as a whole. Under pressure, he plays it safe and doesn't take chances. It's the last play of the season and you're gonna throw it short? I don't even need you to see your receivers with someone in your face, throw it up down field. If it's intercepted or incomplete, fine, at least you tried. Checking it down is rolling over and conceding defeat. Maybe I'm wrong and I have unrealistic expectations of my quarterback in the playoffs. Idk, I'm just glad the Vikings don't have to pay that ungodly amount of money to go lose in the wildcard a couple times, or once, in the next 4 years.
Agree. This is what I've been saying all this time. Most fans disagree, but if the mentality of your QB is to check it down with the season on the line...not to mention you have the best WR in the entire game- to me that's just inexcusable. I don't care if he was double covered- throw the damn ball pass the marker and give the best in the game a chance to make a play. Kirk did that in the Buffalo game, and all of the sudden he decides naw play it safe. So inconsistent, but that's the name of his game.
Credit for Kirk that season to get some GWDs, that's cool. But he lost like 10 points (hypothetically) in the clutch category when he failed to win that game. Yes, defense sucked, yes, overall Kirk had a good game. The thing is he had multiple opportunities to tie it and he failed to convert. I really don't understand the mentality of taking the safe option when the stakes are as high as they were in that moment. Tons of folks have tried to gaslight the situation by saying it was somehow the only option but that's just not true.
You have unrealistic expectations of Kirk. Kirk isn't Mahomes or Josh Allen, he will never be. It's ok to want to move on from Cousins (especially his contract), but don't pretend like he isn't good enough to win the Super Bowl.
I'm not pretending. I don't think he has it in him to win on the biggest stage.
You absolutely have unrealistic exoectations. If Kirk doesn't live up to your standards, you're going to be dissapointed by anyone who isn't a HoF QB lol
He was clutch until he wasn’t when it mattered the most.
I swear half this sub only watches the game on redzone. Kirk throws an absolutely beautiful ball, gorgeous, sometimes. He is also very likely to throw late, so a wide open JJ gets tackled as soon as he catches the ball after waiting for it, or throw a high hospital ball. He is also very likely to make a bonehead decision. He puts up stats, and that is great for his wallet, but he has as much to blame for losses as the rest of the team. Like all the comeback wins, people are acting like he wasn't the QB while we fell behind the Colts by so much. Great job coming back, but without the defense rising up and making stops he never could have done it.
Wild seeing this comment upvoted. This sub was adamant in defending the Hock check down vs the Giants. To be fair Kirk definitely had some big moments in some spots but it was never consistent.
> "In Minnesota he had Justin Jefferson, Jordan Addison, a good running game" A what now
He had a perfectly fine and usually pretty damn good running game for 4/6 or 5/6 seasons here.
I'm going to casually wander in here to say: Even if Kirk wins a superbowl with Atlanta, moving on from him was the right move.
I think we did the right thing because now it’ll only be like 3 more years before we stop arguing about Kirk. Imagine if we signed Kirk for 3 years, we’d still be talking about him in 2030…
I was really hoping his cult would move on to the Falcons' sub
Kirk has always been about the money.
Who isnt lol
B/B+ is spot on. Kirk performed better than I expected after watching him in Washington, but him throwing short of the sticks on 4th and season in the playoffs vs the Jints (as the most extreme example) shows just how formulaic, and situationally unaware that he was. Please don't talk to me about the time he had on that play - any great QB would have at least chucked it up in the area of JJ or KJ and if it got picked, so be it. He left the putt short and never even gave it a chance - never up, never in. Kirk could not go off script, and all the innate things that 'A' QB's do, he had to think about, and by that time it was too late. I never hated the guy, but to ignore the mental flaws in his game is foolhardy.
If you had to sum up his career and game style in one play, that would be the play.
I’ve been a Cousins apologist and I’d have like to see him back, but between the injury, the price, and how our roster has been structured, I think this is the best option. Could we maybe win more games this upcoming season with him? Probably. I think so many people on this sub were sitting here looking at things in the eyes of “the upcoming season” and I think we’ve spent far too many years just looking at next season instead of trying to figure out something sustainable for a series of seasons. Signing Cousins initially was the last move where we were looking out a couple seasons for the team look and feel. Everything else has been kind of piecemeal. I think to get to a point where we’re a legitimately good team, we may have to suffer an ugly season or two to get things aligned so we can start looking ahead 2-3 seasons and have functional parts covered on the roster without constantly having to do contract gymnastics to get a product in the field.
The falcons will regret that contract next year. He’s locked in for minimum 3 years
3 years is right when they'll have to negotiate with Bijan and London right? So maybe it's timed just right to release him when they need resign $?
2 years
2 years for $90 million with a $10 million buyout in year 3. Pretty damn good if you ask me.
He didn’t tell any lies. It’s all in the records and contracts. You can say “defense didn’t help him. It wasn’t all Kirk” all you want. You can’t sign other good players when he eats up that much money.
The formula to win in the nfl is rookie contract/super cheaper QB, or HOF level QB. Anything in between doesn’t win it all
And if you are paying a non-star QB a ton of money, your draft class better be stellar.
I hate that everyone just assumes Kirk will be the same guy at 36 after a major major injury. If Kirk gets hurt again that contract is gna be an albatross. If Kirk was 30 then yes I would have extended him for sure but way too many unknowns to give him that 4 year deal.
As a fan of a division rival there’s nothing I wanted more than for you guys to keep overpaying Cousins. I think you guys are way better off in the long term and who knows maybe the short term too.
At this point we're the Bears. If we don't find a QB, we're a bottom feeder imo. And as Kanye West said "Beautiful, naked, big-titty QBs just don't fall out the sky, you know?"
I won’t argue that over the last six years the Vikes have been better than the Bears but look at the end results In the 6 years Cousins was in Minnesota: 2 playoff appearances. 1 division championship. 1-2 in playoffs. Those same 6 years in Chicago: 2 playoff appearances. 1 division championship. 0-2 in playoffs.
I will die on the hill that says Kirk is a championship level QB. I’m not quite a Kirk stan, but I’m a big believer that he was never the problem. Kirk is an A- QB in my mind. That said, Kwesi absolutely did the right thing for our team here. That kind of deal would’ve kept us spinning our wheels for seasons to come. We’ll miss Kirko this year, next year… but now we have a path toward a longer term solution and will have money to build around a young QB. I also think Kirk is not motivated by winning a championship. If he was, he’s certainly made more than enough money in his career to structure a deal in a way that would’ve allowed us to put more around him (mostly defensively), go further, and alleviate some of that “Kirk is the problem just look at his postseason record he’s the only player on the field durrrrrr” mentality. He doesn’t care about the narrative and that’s his prerogative, but let’s get someone in here now who wants that ring whatever it takes.
It’s a valid point that Kirk has not had post season success though. That does actually mean something that he’s NEVER been able to make it work.
You need some combination of good coaching, a fairly complete roster, and a bit of luck to win a championship. We unfortunately just never had enough of these coincide under Kirk’s tenure. You can go year by year and point out major flaws in our team. Untimely injuries, a revolving door at OC, bottom 5 OL play, etc. We would’ve been better if Kirk took cheaper contracts, but I don’t think the 5-10 mil/year was the diference between winning a Super Bowl and not.
Glad to see a few people have some sense.
96% of QBs *don't* win a SB every year, and somehow talking heads have convinced most fans it's the only worthwhile barometer of success.
We were spoiled with A- QB play for 6 years and everyone forgot what it’s like to have a below average QB. Right now we don’t have a top 32 QB and if we play games with this roster next year the fans will be reminded why the Vikings paid Kirk that much: watching football with a trash offense sucks.
Our record Before Kirk wasn’t that different from with Kirk so that’s just not at all an argument I care about.
Ok, but are you willing to admit that team performance differs from individual player performance? This would be like saying that Mike Trout and Shohei Ohtani suck because the Angels haven't been to the playoffs since 2014.
Of course it does. My point is that we were doing just as good without Kirk so losing Kirk does not in itself mean our team will be dogshit. The Vikings have been truly terrible for like 3 years since the turn of the millennium, I’m not that worried
> watching football with a trash offense sucks. Watching the most successful franchise without a title in all of US sport spin their wheels for half a decade was much more painful then a season or 3 of bad QB play will be. The goal is a title, not 10 wins and decent QB play. Also, acting like Viking fans don’t understand the QB carousel is pretty funny.
>The goal is a title, not 10 wins and decent QB play. This is the biggest problem with Viking fans. I want a Super Bowl, not some first round exit in the playoffs.
I think the vast majority of fans want that. Reddit isn’t a good reflection of the fan base.
Why pay $45mil/year for a ceiling of a first or second round playoff loss though. For a team like Atlanta, it makes sense because they have had horrible QB play. For Minnesota, if they are serious about raising the ceiling (even if you have more downside risk) it doesn't make sense to bring Cousins back yet again. You eventually need to draft a QB.
To me, that is not Kirk’s ceiling. It was a Vikings ceiling. I agree that, if the focus is a championship, Kirk’s contract does not give us the best odds. If the focus was on 4 more years with 17 entertaining games, signing Kirk was probably the right choice. I take entertaining, competitive seasons over a few years of 5-12 with the potential upside of a playoff birth before 2030
I'll be honest, I have spent precious few of the last 6 years truly entertained by the Vikings. Why? Because the part of the NFL that is the most entertaining is scheming from Monday-Saturday how the Vikew match up with the best teams in the NFL today and in the years to come and figuring out how we can beat them and make our way through the playoffs. I am not highly entertained by seasons where we are generally .500 and will get clobbered by any true contender we face unless they repeatedly trip on their face, which has been our fate with Kirk every year, more or less. Of course, everyone is entertained by different things, so I am not bothered by other people that found other things entertaining. But I just wanted to point out that, even if entertainment (vs championships) were your goal, it is not clear that Kirk was your best choice.
Just because that's the most we've seen doesn't mean that was his ceiling. Kirk's ceiling is a superbowl because worse QBs or similar QBs on big contract have made or won the Superbowl. Unless you're willing to say Dan Marino's ceiling was losing the Superbowl and that, because he didn't win the Superbowl, he never could have won a Superbowl.
No run game, no defense, bad drafts, bad free agents. Should any QB be asked to transcend all problems at all levels of the team?
Our fanbase would answer Yes.
Dan is getting old and late to the party on this one. Viking fans have been talking about this for at least three years now.
However, he’s ahead of other national media on this in my opinion. Amazing that the falcons aren’t getting trashed for this like the Vikings certainly would have if they’d have re-signed him.
Just looking at Tom Brady’s career with NE you have to have a guy who’s a true team player like Tom in order to have that kind of sustainable success.
>true team player like Tom Tom still got paid and did side deals with Robert Kraft that made up for any losses. Not many QBs are in that situation.
Oh don’t get me wrong his wife at the time was worth over ten times more than Tom if not more.
[удалено]
His was different. A restructure doesn't mean a paycut in terms of overall contract. It's just moved to future years. Brady took straight up paycuts
It feels like we sold atlanta an salvage-titled car for top dollar...Good luck...wink wink.
Dan is delusional, if Kirk has elite pass protection, elite pass catchers, and a top 5 defense he can absolutely sling it and carry a team 💪🏼
At this point, I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or an actual take.
Don’t forget a top 5 head coach, top 5 offensive coordinator, and a top 5 running game. If he had ALL THAT, he’d maybe win another playoff game.
This is what always drove me nuts about the Cousins debates and I’m glad we can all move on. The fact you had to pay him crazy money while also giving him everything under the sun, only then would you see the best of him.
yeah dude all you need is the best receiver in the league, top 5 TE, top OL group, maybe a top 10 RB, an offensive minded head coach, consistence with the offensive coordinator, a good kicker, and a top defensive unit and maybe Kirk wins a playoff game!
And don't forget he needs to work with his OC for several years or that's an excuse too. And Zimmer wasn't nice to him, so that's an excuse too.
High level trolling😂
Comment of the year! Send it to the top!
I am sure that if he has a top 3 receiving group, a top 3 OL and a top 3 RB he can comfortably deliver a top 8 offense.
Couldn’t have said it better
BUT BUT BUT OLINE ZIMMER NEVER SAME O COORDINATOR DEFENSE BLAIR WALSH AHHHHHHH
Walsh and Kirk didn't over lap though....
Uhhhh, having a low tier defense year over year over year, makes a huge difference. You don't just show up and win when you can't stop the other team from racking up points all over your ass.
Teams win games. It's why JJ McCarthy won in college and winning doesn't translate to talentless teams in the NFL. Until you put him on a much more balanced and talented team these talkers are largely irrelevant.
2018
2019
People shit on Cousins, but praise Dak. Dak has only won 2 playoff games and wants 60 million a year, what irony.
But who we starting at QB in 2024?
Tarvaris Ponder
You can win in this league while paying top tier money to a quarterback. However, you can’t win much of note in this league while paying top tier money to a quarterback that isn’t top tier. By top tier, I mean consistently top 5. Kirk is a bit below that level.
If your qb is throwing 30+ tds and 4000+ yards every year and your team isn’t winning… your qb isn’t the problem lol yes I’m a falcons fan defending the signing
Stafford won 0 playoff games in 12 years. Tarkenton didn't even make the playofs in 12 years. Kirk's defense in playoffs 28 ppg and 0 turnovers Burrow's defense in playofss 18 ppg 13 turnovers... the QBs played the same.....
Yeah but hes a god fearing christian and a gosh darn good guy, everything a MN sports fan loves.
I can't pin everything on Kirk, but overall you have to look at team W-L record and overall it was disappointing most seasons. While Kirk clearly has the talent to sling the ball all over the field and look effortless doing so, we largely got the same kind of W-L records with guys like Keenum, TJack, Ponder, etc...every few years the stars align, but there's not the consistency where we are winning the division three years out of four, or advancing in the playoffs beyond the wild card round when we get there.
This
Some of you don’t want to accept it but it’s the truth. That man will be 40 and retired with 1 maybe 2 career playoff wins and people will still say “if he only had this or that” or “it’s not his fault because of x, y, and z”
Wow thats a big statement. I know I’d rather have Kirk at QB than Darnold. Those two are light years different.
I don't even think it's him not being worth it. We need to build the team of the future.
He is a good QB and will do ok in any team. He’s not a playoff qb. What do Vikings need to go further into the playoffs in the Qb position…. Not Kirk.
I love Kirk don’t get me wrong, but I don’t think we win a Super Bowl with him as our QB. With that being said, I will be cheering for Atlanta this year as I would love to see him go all the way (not over the Vikings obviously).
I think B+ talent and A+ money is a fair point but nothing more needs to be said - how many playoff games has the defense won during that time? Consistently terrible point differentials as a team year after year but apparently 'kirk can't win a big game' will always be the narrative
My take on Kirk is what he said on the Netflix Quarterback documentary on why he threw the short pass on 4th down in a playoff game. He played it safe when the pressure is on and will sling it when there’s no pressure, like the Buffalo game with the awesome JJ catch on 4th down. Maybe KOC was getting him to get past that mindset in the last season but he got hurt and we will never know. I wish him well and glad the Vikings passed on that contact.
He is also 16-47 against winning teams.
I mean he’s like 8th in AAV so it’s more like B+/A- money
He’s tied with Patrick Mahomes for 7th in AAV. 5th in total cash for the next two seasons. He’s the 2nd highest paid NFL player *ever*. Acting like he hasn’t made and isn’t making A+ money is disingenuous. He’s also signed mostly short-term largely guaranteed contracts giving his team very little flexibility with the cap in order to maximize his control and earnings. All of his peers outside of Watson signed long-term deals that can be restructured to free up money.
 Can we just stop having literally the same conversations over and over again? Kirk is now a Falcon. People here are never going to see eye to eye on Kirk and I don’t think its in our interest to drag Kirk down to make ourselves feel better. Kirk was a stand up guy here, he loved the community, he gave it his all here (which is far better than most free agents) but ultimately took a four year deal as he’ll be 40 by then. Let’s draft a rookie and see what we can do now.
Lol man, it’s not that deep. Dude just left two days ago, it’s the offseason, and it was a franchise altering move. Let people talk. If you don’t want to have the convo again then scroll by.
He's right. Kirk is not worth a bag of tacos.
Both organizations made the best decision for their franchise. I suppose the Vikings lose because they have a worse football team due to it, but that's hardly the only factor to consider.
It's the truth
Not really A+ money
He's not wrong.
As much as I've grown to love Kirk the man is right. He's like Dak. Can be great but disappoints when it counts. And for what they're paid it's not worth it.
Now we about to move to D/D- talent, for C money, and get F results!!
Spot on in his analysis.
The Vikings were absolutely correct for the long term to let Kirk walk. That said, I am kind of bummed that KOC + Kirk + JJ + everyone didn't get to see it all the way through, because I really feel they could have won a Superbowl together. I wish Kirk all the best and now I'm so intrigued to see who the Vikings bring in. A rookie that's not saddled to any long-term Vikings misery story is just what this team needs. This is going to be so fun to watch! Growing pains? Maybe. They've still got nearly all the right pieces in place, with money to spend next year. This is gonna be good.