Post by Minniman on Feb 22, 2021 8:20:57 GMT -6
But even if there weren't significantly better options each season Cousins has been here, what exactly was the benefit of adding Cousins that we would have missed out on if we had gone a different route?
Hindsight is a luxury that pundits have and GMs don't. Tannehill was suspect for his ball safety in college, and his TD/INT ratio was not good for Miami. I am not sure what Tennessee did to clean that up, but kudos to them for getting that done because Tannehill has a great TD/Int ratio since being traded. Yes, the rushing game has helped, but ball safety had to be a priority as well.
As far as Cousins goes, he has played well for the Vikings for the most part. If the Vikings had a good offensive line, he would have been a solid 6-10 QB performer for the Vikings. Without that line, he often looks like a lost puppy searching for his master on 3rd and long. A GM that pays $28 million or more per season for a pocket passer, and then doesn't provide a pocket for that passer, is asking to get his backside kicked out onto the street.
Case Keenum was not a great quarterback, but he was very good at escaping the quick sack, and that disguised how dreadful the offensive line was in 2017. Kirk Cousins has slow progressions, and having a questionable line makes that an obvious detrimental factor in the Vikings offense. Of course, Cousins' contract makes assembling a good line much harder than if the quarterback was on his rookie contract.
With the emphasis on the running game and on the zone blocking scheme, the Vikings need a quarterback that can think quickly and get the ball out. It is difficult to know how well a quarterback will transition from college to the pros in that area because some players, like Kyle Trask, take a long time to get the ball out in college, but we don't know if that is because they can't speed it up or because they didn't have to speed it up having had good blocking.
... and neither is this Chris guy.