At least we are not living through this Hell!

[Jetsfan80]

4 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

So how would having Cousins be better?  

Pretty simple question with a simple answer.  If he's struggling as much as he has with Minnesota and their endless weapons, he'd have been a $90M+ disaster here.  

[sec101row23]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

Pretty simple question with a simple answer.  If he's struggling as much as he has with Minnesota and their endless weapons, he'd have been a $90M+ disaster here.  

That, plus he would only be under contract for one more year.  Then the process starts all over again.  If you want to argue going 8-8 with a second year QB learning how to win games in he NFL is better than going 3-13, fine I totally agree.  But going 8-8 with a $30 million dollar QB only under contract for another year is a different scenario.  

[bealeb319]

Would our record be worse?

Sent from my LGUS991 using JetNation.com mobile app

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, sec101row23 said:

That, plus he would only be under contract for one more year.  Then the process starts all over again.  If you want to argue going 8-8 with a second year QB learning how to win games in he NFL is better than going 3-13, fine I totally agree.  But going 8-8 with a $30 million dollar QB only under contract for another year is a different scenario.  

Especially since the year after Cousins hits free agency, we're likely sitting somewhere between pick 12-20.  Not a great spot from which to draft your next franchise QB.  

[slats]

17 hours ago, Warfish said:

Had I not got Watson, I would have signed Cousins, and drafted a QB to back him up for a year or two.

So, even with the full benefit of hindsight, you would've offered Cousins even more than he turned down from Maccagnan? 

I don't think you'd be a good GM. 

[Jetsfan80]

25 minutes ago, slats said:

So, even with the full benefit of hindsight, you would've offered Cousins even more than he turned down from Maccagnan? 

I don't think you'd be a good GM. 

Fully guaranteed contract to Cousins PLUS drafting a QB to ride the bench for 2 years.  Because we all know that's what teams do with 1st round QB's these days:  Let them sit and watch not only 1 full season but 2.  

Meanwhile when the franchise QB is "ready" to take over, we're still paying Cousins $34M+ per to ride the bench.  Smart fiscal decision there.  

[#27TheDominator]

15 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Not true.  If you're not getting a QB you think will at least be above average and can elevate his game for a postseason run, why bother?  Treading water at 8-8 with a "just OK" QB who can only beat up on bad teams is the worst possible situation to be in.  Think Chad Pennington.  

There was enough evidence on the table to suggest Cousins was another Pennington.  Hence we dodged a bullet by not signing him.  At least Darnold MIGHT be a franchise guy.  I'd rather have Andy friggin Dalton than Kirk Cousins.  

This "We're better cause we're worse!" nonsense is insane.  The Cousins Vikings will eat our lunch. 

We didn't dodge sh*t.  We sucked then.  We suck now.  It appears that we very well may suck for the foreseeable future. 

Look at how the Chiefs went about it.  They traded for Smith, they gave him a big extension.  They were good.  Then they drafted Mahomes.  The idea that having a QB precludes a team from getting a QB is nonsense.  Good front offices are looking 3 years ahead at positions of strength.  They are not waiting for the offseason to get adequate starters on the offensive line, CB and a bunch of other positions.   

[Jetsfan80]

4 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Look at how the Chiefs went about it.  They traded for Smith, they gave him a big extension.  They were good.  Then they drafted Mahomes.  The idea that having a QB precludes a team from getting a QB is nonsense.  Good front offices are looking 3 years ahead at positions of strength.  They are not waiting for the offseason to get adequate starters on the offensive line, CB and a bunch of other positions.   

Do you really think its a sustainable model to expect that you can trade up to 11, take the 3rd QB in the draft, and expect him to be a generational talent?  

It's a nice thought to think you can get a QB like Cousins, go 7-9, then still be able to plug in talent all over the field in the draft.  But it just doesn't happen that often without having a top 2-3 GM.  Might as well tank in the bad seasons, earn some great draft capital, and be in position to trade down to a QB needy team.  Worked pretty well for the Rams, thought they did it in reverse; the trade down with the Redskins followed by the trade up to get Goff.  

[Warfish]

33 minutes ago, slats said:

So, even with the full benefit of hindsight, you would've offered Cousins even more than he turned down from Maccagnan? 

I don't think you'd be a good GM. 

No.

Without needing hindsight, I'd have drafted Watson, as I stated rather clearly at that time.  And I'd have used the multiple high picks traded away to get a chance at a QB that turned out to be Darnold to instead build an Offensive Line and some skill players that doesn't suck, as I've been saying here for years.  While we're at it, I wouldn't have drafted QW either, I've have gone offense there as well.  And Gase would not be my coach today.

And be assured, if I were in fact the GM, and had in fact made those moves, we are not 0-3 today and we are not looking at yet another lost season right now.  

Given none of what I wanted happened, would I then subsequently have given an solid offer to Cousins?  Absolutely I would.  Would it have been more than what Macc offered?  Probably not.  Wanting a guy and vastly overpaying for a guy are two different things..  I wanted him AND I wanted to draft a QB for the future to sit behind him a couple of years.  If he said no, he said no.  But given the market at that time, he was a very solid option with a very solid resume of actual on-field performance.

Again, why do you and others feel the need to rehash this?  The anxiety over how bad we are and where Darnold is production-wise so far is obvious.  Are we so good right now you feel the need to gloat?  Because it sure doesn't look like it to me.  Should I summon YOU to every thread on Darnold and remind you how you didn't like or want Darnold?  That you wanted to draft someone else?  Or should I summon you to every mention of Geno Smith, since you were such a big supporter of his back when over Fitz? 

This is the past, we did what we did, some good, some bad.  Darnold is a good prospect, albeit not yet remotely the "elite" player many here describe him as already.  I'm fine with having Darnold, I am not fine with sucking like we completely suck now, and I guarantee you we suck less if the team had done the things I would have done.

But by all means, make sure you guys @Warfish every time this comes up.  It's such fun hearing 80 tell us how losing is really winning.

 

 

[#27TheDominator]

40 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Especially since the year after Cousins hits free agency, we're likely sitting somewhere between pick 12-20.  Not a great spot from which to draft your next franchise QB.  

The teams that drafted Mahomes and Watson were sitting at 27 and 25 in that draft.   The idea that you have to Suck for Luck is bullsh*t, but people around here cling to it to give us hope while we continually pick in the top 10. 

[Jetsfan80]

4 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

The teams that drafted Mahomes and Watson were sitting at 27 and 25 in that draft.   The idea that you have to Suck for Luck is bullsh*t, but people around here cling to it to give us hope while we continually pick in the top 10. 

Supposedly, we have our QB.  So sucking for Luck isn't what we're trying to do.  It's sucking to try to make a trade with a QB-needy team who wants their own Andrew Luck (minus the early retirement).  Of which there's ALWAYS someone looking to move up for a QB.  

This team has about 800 needs but you'd have been content to stick and pick at 12 with Cousins at QB?  Come on.  

[#27TheDominator]

5 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Do you really think its a sustainable model to expect that you can trade up to 11, take the 3rd QB in the draft, and expect him to be a generational talent?  

It's a nice thought to think you can get a QB like Cousins, go 7-9, then still be able to plug in talent all over the field in the draft.  But it just doesn't happen that often without having a top 2-3 GM.  

The idea that 4-12 is better than 7-9 has been perpetuated around here for years.  It's not.  4-12 if ******* pitiful.  It is league designed for parity.  If you can't luck into 6 wins, you are atrocious.  A 7-9 team does not need to "plug in talent all over the field in the draft."  It need a few key pieces and or a playmaker or two.  A 4-12 team needs to plug in talent all over the field from everywhere.  So does a 5-11 team which is what we have been for longer than it takes a semi-competent staff to completely overhaul a team from the ground up.

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

The idea that 4-12 is better than 7-9 has been perpetuated around here for years.  It's not.  4-12 if ******* pitiful.  

It worked for the Rams.  

[#27TheDominator]

3 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Supposedly, we have our QB.  So sucking for Luck isn't what we're trying to do.  It's sucking to try to make a trade with a QB-needy team who wants their own Andrew Luck (minus the early retirement).  Of which there's ALWAYS someone looking to move up for a QB.  

This team has about 800 needs but you'd have been content to stick and pick at 12 with Cousins at QB?  Come on.  

You guys are happy with Blake Cashman and Neville Hewitt, but you are worried that you need to pick at 3 to resolve your issues?  There are quality players all over the draft and free agency.  Get a few and stop using the excuse that you are playing the draft position game.  That is a loser's mindset.  I have one goal as a GM or fan.  STOP ******* LOSING.  As a fan, I can't do much about it.

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

There are quality players all over the draft 

Yes, but there are only 1-3 spots in the draft in a given year where you can trade down for a king's ransom.  

[slats]

4 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Again, why do you and others feel the need to rehash this?

This is my second post in this thread. So far, you have eight. 

 

4 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Given none of what I wanted happened, would I then subsequently have given an solid offer to Cousins?  Absolutely I would.  Would it have been more than what Macc offered?  Probably not.  Wanting a guy and vastly overpaying for a guy are two different things.

You said you would've signed Cousins. That was your quote. How does that get done without offering him more than he turned down from Maccagnan? This is typical goalpost relocation. You would've signed Cousins except you wouldn't've. Carry on. 

[Jetsfan80]

If the Vikings tried to trade Kirk Cousins today, would there be any takers?  If so, what would they get back in the trade?

[#27TheDominator]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

It worked for the Rams.  

Did it?  How many super bowls have the Rams won this century?  If your goal is to lose the super bowl, why not sign Kaepernick?  He has proven that he can do that.  Does that make him better than Cousins? 

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Did it?  How many super bowls have the Rams won this century?  If your goal is to lose the super bowl, why not sign Kaepernick?  He has proven that he can do that.  Does that make him better than Cousins? 

Wow.  Weren't you the one trying to excuse Kirk Cousins, at age 31, for not winning any playoff games earlier in this thread?  At least Goff went to a Super Bowl.  I'm not exactly going to call them failures for losing to the cheating Patriots (for the 2nd time in their history) with a banged up Gurley.  

Yes, it worked for them.  They parlayed a 2-14 season into three first round picks from the Redskins in the RG3 trade.  They used that to build a solid core of talent, then moved up to get their QB.  

[Warfish]

4 minutes ago, slats said:

This is my second post in this thread. So far, you have eight. 

You said you would've signed Cousins. That was your quote. How does that get done without offering him more than he turned down from Maccagnan? This is typical goalpost relocation. You would've signed Cousins except you wouldn't've. Carry on. 

Mods really should troll users, mate.  

[jgb]

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Pretty simple question with a simple answer.  If he's struggling as much as he has with Minnesota and their endless weapons, he'd have been a $90M+ disaster here.  

He's a fool for not coming here. More money and endless built-in excuses.

Weaponz!

OL!

Bowles!

There is no sin Cousins could commit where Jets fans wouldn't contort themselves to avoid admitting he was a bad signing.

[BurnleyJet]

1 minute ago, jgb said:

He's a fool for not coming here. More money and endless built-in excuses.

Weaponz!

OL!

Bowles!

There is no sin Cousins could commit where Jets fans wouldn't contort themselves to avoid admitting he was a bad signing.

Sad but true. Your right they do love the Jags.

[jgb]

2 minutes ago, BurnleyJet said:

Sad but true. Your right they do love the Jags.

Unless the JAG actually performs and becomes a non-JAG (Snacks Harrison), then we don't want to pay him.

[Ohhthepain]

Vikings saved us from ourselves

[peebag]

24 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

If the Vikings tried to trade Kirk Cousins today, would there be any takers?  If so, what would they get back in the trade?

Maybe the Redskins?

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, peebag said:

Maybe the Redskins?

They only have $14M in cap space.  One big reason for that is they still have $20M+ per year tied up in Alex Smith thru 2022.  Not sure if they get any of that back because of injury, but per overthecap.com, they can't feasibly cut him loose until June 1, 2021.  So unless he retires, they wouldn't be able to afford Cousins.  

[freestater]

So glad this guy spurned us. Hated the idea of being the team that was going to pay him. Remember, Macc wanted to pay him top $ and for 5 years. Imagine the nightmare of that contract. Lol, the only thing Macc ever got right were plans ofhus that didn't work out 

[DonCorleone]

On 9/30/2019 at 9:12 AM, dbatesman said:

Cousins is a loser, plain and simple. We dodged a major bullet there.

Was I ever wrong about this guy. The Vickes saved us from people like myself. 

[Thai Jet]

On 9/30/2019 at 9:10 AM, docdhc said:

 

With Minnesota's 16-6 loss to the division-rival Chicago Bears on Sunday at Soldier Field, teams quarterbacked by Cousins are now 4-27 against opponents with winning records. 

He's the highest-paid player of all time who hasn't been to a Super Bowl (he hasn't won a playoff game), 

 

"Kirk Cousins, Franchise Quarterback" has never seemed sustainable. And now it's apparent that Minnesota's $84 million experiment is backfiring.

Unfortunately for an organization that has already dropped over $30 million into that sinkhole, the Vikings are likely handcuffed to Cousins for another 15 months and $50-odd million. 

     

[Paradis]

just remember how many of you were as bamboozled as the Vikings were by this average at best QB. 

[CTM]

16 hours ago, Warfish said:

The same Chad Pennington who was good enough to beat Pittsburg in the Divisional round and should (if not for Martin and the kicking debacle) have been in the AFCCG at least?

Yeah, I'd sure rather be 0-3 looking at 0-6 than be there again with that loser!

Huh?

Pennington was most certainly not good enough to beat Pitts which was entirely the issue. In a game in which our defense and special teams scored a TD (14 pts), we lost to a team that put up 17 pts in regulation. Had Pennington's offense managed even a single TD all game we win.

[jeremy2020]

[#27TheDominator]

On 10/1/2019 at 10:23 AM, Jetsfan80 said:

It worked for the Rams.  

Sorry to revisit this, but let's examine how going 4-12 has "worked for the Rams."

2007 Linehan beats your goal, going 3-13, then 2-14 in 2008.  They draft Chris Long and Jason Smith at #2 overall.  They hire Spagnulo who goes 1-15 and they get their QB!  Sam Bradford at #1 overall.  Spagnuolo goes 7-9 (the ultimate failure!), then 2-14.  They fire Spagnuolo, hire Fischer and trade #2 overall (the Griffin pick) for 2012, 2013, 2014 1sts and a 2nd to move down to #6, which they trade down to pick up an extra 2nd.  They draft Goff, trading up, giving up their 1st, 2 2nds, and 3rd, but their 1st and 3rd in 2017, getting back a 4th and 6th.  Despite doing everything the way you want, Fischer is your worst nightmare, going 7-8-1, 7-9, 6-10, 7-9, before getting fired during Goff's rookie year, while the team goes 4-12.  McVay takes over and everything "worked."  I'm sure that was their plan all along, right?  They didn't even use the pick from their 4-12 year - it (Corey Davis) went in the Goff deal

[Jetsfan80]

2 hours ago, #27TheDominator said:

Sorry to revisit this, but let's examine how going 4-12 has "worked for the Rams."

2007 Linehan beats your goal, going 3-13, then 2-14 in 2008.  They draft Chris Long and Jason Smith at #2 overall.  They hire Spagnulo who goes 1-15 and they get their QB!  Sam Bradford at #1 overall.  Spagnuolo goes 7-9 (the ultimate failure!), then 2-14.  They fire Spagnuolo, hire Fischer and trade #2 overall (the Griffin pick) for 2012, 2013, 2014 1sts and a 2nd to move down to #6, which they trade down to pick up an extra 2nd.  They draft Goff, trading up, giving up their 1st, 2 2nds, and 3rd, but their 1st and 3rd in 2017, getting back a 4th and 6th.  Despite doing everything the way you want, Fischer is your worst nightmare, going 7-8-1, 7-9, 6-10, 7-9, before getting fired during Goff's rookie year, while the team goes 4-12.  McVay takes over and everything "worked."  I'm sure that was their plan all along, right?  They didn't even use the pick from their 4-12 year - it (Corey Davis) went in the Goff deal

 

So much information to dispute the simple idea that having a higher draft pick is better than a lower draft pick for teams that have no shot at the playoffs.

The Rams' 2-14 season and RG3 trade set them up to go from the worst franchise in the league to one of the best, in the process attracting an elite coach in McVay.  You're wrong, plain and simple.  It's ok to admit that sometimes.  

[Jet_Engine1]

On 9/30/2019 at 10:59 AM, Scott Dierking said:

I am just hoping that he films a mini-series as he is callously released when it is not prohibitive to the salary cap.

It will be titled, "How I turned mediocrity into almost $100M in generational wealth for my family". It'll be a feel good rom-com