NFL insider drops bombshell report on Vikings’ Kirk Cousins
The Minnesota Vikings have a few major questions to answer this offseason when it comes to their roster. Several hard decisions are going to have to be made as they will decide whether to continue down the path of retooling and becoming a younger roster or run it back with veterans and make another go of it.
The biggest decision that will be made will come at quarterback. Kirk Cousins was playing at a high level this season before he suffered a season-ending Achilles injury in Week 8 against the Green Bay Packers.
He was leading the league with 291.4 yards per game when he went down, throwing 18 touchdowns and only five interceptions. Cousins was completing 69.5 percent of his passes as he was doing everything he could to help keep the team afloat after a rough start.
It would certainly be a risk moving on from Cousins, but the Vikings would be able to upgrade other parts of their roster by not re-signing him. However, finding a quarterback capable of producing at the level that Cousins has would be tough.
Certainly, no one is envious of the Vikings’ front office having to make such a tough decision. NFL analyst Peter King also revealed something that makes this an even tougher negotiation for the team, as Cousins isn’t going to give any sort of discount, whether it is the length of the contract or how much money he signs for.
“There’s two great quarterback mysteries in this offseason in the NFL,” NBC Sports’ Peter King said on “The Cook & Joe Show” on January 23. “One is Kirk Cousins. Because he will not go back to Minnesota on a one-year contract."
“A lot of people are going to say, ‘Wow, he’s going to be 36 next year, coming off a torn Achilles. Do we want to commit to him for two years,’” King said. “I would if I were a team. But we’re also talking two years, $90 million, which is excessive. But it’s also the market. So I’m not saying it’s a bad deal or a bad idea.”
There likely isn’t a team in the NFL that has as much information and knowledge about the rehab Cousins has been doing on his Achilles. That should give the Vikings a leg up when it comes to retaining him, should they want to, as they will know how things have gone every step of the way.
Committing long-ish term to a quarterback who is going to be 36 coming off a devastating injury is a hard sell. But, that could be the least costly route for the Vikings to take. Moving up in the draft would cost a fortune and the options are limited when it comes to established, veteran quarterbacks in free agency.
https://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/nfl_insider_drops_bombshell_report_on_vikings_kirk_cousins/s1_17150_39861792
@"MaroonBells" said:How many of those 12 are going to be 36yrs old?@"mgobluevikes" said:Without the injury, I think it would've been a helluva lot higher than that. There are 4 QBs over 50 and 8 over 45.@"MaroonBells" said:I think his market value had he not been hurt would have easily been in the 45 mil for 3 yr. fully guaranteed. With the situation now, I think 2 yrs. at 38-40ish mil is his market value knowing that his mobility/running was never a key component to his game. Could go a little higher if SF gets involved.@"comet52" said: When a mediocrity like Daniel Jones gets 40 mil/yr it's hardly a stretch to think Kirk wants more than that. I hear the argument here that he's so amazingly great but that he'll somehow play for a below market deal, which makes zero sense given his amazing greatness not to mention contract history, and what qb plays for a below market deal anyway? Maybe one who's coming off an achilles injury? I don't think his age plays a big part in this, but I do think the injury keeps him just under market.
@"mgobluevikes" said:Honestly, I think in terms of just money (not term), Kirk's age is irrelevant. The injury not so much.@"MaroonBells" said:How many of those 12 are going to be 36yrs old?@"mgobluevikes" said:Without the injury, I think it would've been a helluva lot higher than that. There are 4 QBs over 50 and 8 over 45.@"MaroonBells" said:I think his market value had he not been hurt would have easily been in the 45 mil for 3 yr. fully guaranteed. With the situation now, I think 2 yrs. at 38-40ish mil is his market value knowing that his mobility/running was never a key component to his game. Could go a little higher if SF gets involved.@"comet52" said: When a mediocrity like Daniel Jones gets 40 mil/yr it's hardly a stretch to think Kirk wants more than that. I hear the argument here that he's so amazingly great but that he'll somehow play for a below market deal, which makes zero sense given his amazing greatness not to mention contract history, and what qb plays for a below market deal anyway? Maybe one who's coming off an achilles injury? I don't think his age plays a big part in this, but I do think the injury keeps him just under market.
@"MaroonBells" said:...but in terms of what I think the market was/is, my guess is that NFL GMs aren't likely to give a 36 yr. old the same deal as a guy going on his second contract that looks to be the next big thing or at least top 10 material. Certainly not in terms of guarantees or length.@"mgobluevikes" said:Honestly, I think in terms of just money (not term), Kirk's age is irrelevant. The injury not so much.@"MaroonBells" said:How many of those 12 are going to be 36yrs old?@"mgobluevikes" said:Without the injury, I think it would've been a helluva lot higher than that. There are 4 QBs over 50 and 8 over 45.@"MaroonBells" said:I think his market value had he not been hurt would have easily been in the 45 mil for 3 yr. fully guaranteed. With the situation now, I think 2 yrs. at 38-40ish mil is his market value knowing that his mobility/running was never a key component to his game. Could go a little higher if SF gets involved.@"comet52" said: When a mediocrity like Daniel Jones gets 40 mil/yr it's hardly a stretch to think Kirk wants more than that. I hear the argument here that he's so amazingly great but that he'll somehow play for a below market deal, which makes zero sense given his amazing greatness not to mention contract history, and what qb plays for a below market deal anyway? Maybe one who's coming off an achilles injury? I don't think his age plays a big part in this, but I do think the injury keeps him just under market.
@"MaroonBells" said:I don't agree. I think age plays a role. I think injury plays a role. Lastly, I think age recovering from an injury plays a role in determining salary. All three play a role IMO.@"mgobluevikes" said:Honestly, I think in terms of just money (not term), Kirk's age is irrelevant. The injury not so much.@"MaroonBells" said:How many of those 12 are going to be 36yrs old?@"mgobluevikes" said:Without the injury, I think it would've been a helluva lot higher than that. There are 4 QBs over 50 and 8 over 45.@"MaroonBells" said:I think his market value had he not been hurt would have easily been in the 45 mil for 3 yr. fully guaranteed. With the situation now, I think 2 yrs. at 38-40ish mil is his market value knowing that his mobility/running was never a key component to his game. Could go a little higher if SF gets involved.@"comet52" said: When a mediocrity like Daniel Jones gets 40 mil/yr it's hardly a stretch to think Kirk wants more than that. I hear the argument here that he's so amazingly great but that he'll somehow play for a below market deal, which makes zero sense given his amazing greatness not to mention contract history, and what qb plays for a below market deal anyway? Maybe one who's coming off an achilles injury? I don't think his age plays a big part in this, but I do think the injury keeps him just under market.I think the injury at his age should be a clear sign to move on unless he gives us a sweet deal, which he won't. Time for Kwesi and the brass to make some big boy decisions.
@"mgobluevikes" said:I think history disagrees with that. If you look at contracts given to long-term starters in their middle 30s (Rodgers, Ben, Brees, Rivers) the length of term goes down drastically, but not so much the money.@"MaroonBells" said:...but in terms of what I think the market was/is, my guess is that NFL GMs aren't likely to give a 36 yr. old the same deal as a guy going on his second contract that looks to be the next big thing or at least top 10 material. Certainly not in terms of guarantees or length.@"mgobluevikes" said:Honestly, I think in terms of just money (not term), Kirk's age is irrelevant. The injury not so much.@"MaroonBells" said:How many of those 12 are going to be 36yrs old?@"mgobluevikes" said:Without the injury, I think it would've been a helluva lot higher than that. There are 4 QBs over 50 and 8 over 45.@"MaroonBells" said:I think his market value had he not been hurt would have easily been in the 45 mil for 3 yr. fully guaranteed. With the situation now, I think 2 yrs. at 38-40ish mil is his market value knowing that his mobility/running was never a key component to his game. Could go a little higher if SF gets involved.@"comet52" said: When a mediocrity like Daniel Jones gets 40 mil/yr it's hardly a stretch to think Kirk wants more than that. I hear the argument here that he's so amazingly great but that he'll somehow play for a below market deal, which makes zero sense given his amazing greatness not to mention contract history, and what qb plays for a below market deal anyway? Maybe one who's coming off an achilles injury? I don't think his age plays a big part in this, but I do think the injury keeps him just under market.
@"CFIAvike" said:@"FLVike" said:@"CFIAvike" said:@"FLVike" said:@"mgobluevikes" said:@"FLVike" said:@"mgobluevikes" said:@"FLVike" said:@"comet52" said: When a mediocrity like Daniel Jones gets 40 mil/yr it's hardly a stretch to think Kirk wants more than that. I hear the argument here that he's so amazingly great but that he'll somehow play for a below market deal, which makes zero sense given his amazing greatness not to mention contract history, and what qb plays for a below market deal anyway?Maybe he realized that no other QB in history has been paid so much for accomplishing so little
Kind of like Dan Marino, and Jim Kelly...Would you be saying this about Cousins if he had been playing for the 49ers for the last 6 yrs.?Why are you comparing Cousins to Hall-Of-Fame QBs that have played in Superbowls?
Because it takes a lot more pieces than a QB to get to the HOF or super bowls. Why didn't either of them win? Marino threw 50 times in his super bowl loss with 2 picks, 1 TD and they only scored 16 pts. Kelly's offenses scored 13, 17, 19 and 24 pts. Did they just pad their stats their whole careers? You didn't answer my question about the 49ers. What if Cousins played on the Rams team instead of Stafford when they won a SB with Aaron Donald?Here's my answer to your question, you may want to sit down before you read it;
Even if Cousins had the '85 Bears defense and the '98 Vikings offense he still would not get to the Superbowl.
All-time TERRIBLE take right here. Absolutely legendary.Well it can't be, because comparing Cousins to Hall of Fame QBs has to be number one.
Equally as ludicrous. But if you don’t think Cousins is talented enough to be quarterbacking a Super Bowl winning team, you’re breathtakingly wrong.Cousins is easily as talented as Stafford, Flacco, Jimmy G, Jared Goff, Nick Foles, Matt Ryan, and Russell Wilson. All of whom appeared in Super Bowls in the last ten years. Half of whom who WON one. And every one of these QBs outside of Foles and Goff took up a major portion of their teams’ salary cap space.
Then people like you will point to how those QB’s were surrounded by great teams and that’s why they could get to a Super Bowl. But in the same breath turn around and say Kirk Cousins is the SOLE reason the Vikings can’t win a chip.
Me? You won't find a post from me mentioning anything of the sort.My take is that great QBs are what determines the outcome 90% of the time. QBs like Montana, Manning, Marino, Favre, Rodgers, Mahomes, Warner, are there almost every season fighting for the Superbowl no matter who the receivers are, their RBs, or their linemen. Year after year supporting players get changed and it doesn't matter. Even if these QBs change teams they are right there one step away from the Superbowl.
This is why I am all for getting a QB in the draft, because if we don't then we won't have a chance to get there for a while.
Edit Post (mod action — author will see a notice)
Warn Poster
Suspend User (3 days)
The user will be suspended for 3 days and will receive an email with the reason and information about how to appeal.