Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I thought we all already knew that....
Especially with the bye week the following week. Gives him 2 weeks to heal up.
I think this is true. We are still an improving team. If our defense can continue to tighten up, I actually like our offense against even good defenses. "Any given Sunday" but the key will be continued defensive improvement...
For me it is all about the W's right now. If we get enough of those to make the playoffs, anything can happen. Lots of time to come together until then. So just compile as many Ws as possible.
I'm not sure what you do with Cousins at this point. I don't think he deserves to be paid anywhere near the top QBs in the league, but he's definitely average to above-average. I'd prefer to keep him rather than start over, since we have other needs besides a QB, but I don't want to be hamstrung by a deal either. I'm 100% against franchising him again next year and giving him $25M.
It's a real problem. I think we all agree he's not "worth" 25 M. But if someone else offers him a fat offer, we'll have a decision to make.
If someone offers him a fat deal they should let him walk. Although if Oswieler continues to struggle I doubt the QB market will be what it was last year.
Yeah, this past offseason, so many people pointed to Oswieler's and Bradford's deals as evidence that Cousins should get a huge deal. "That's just the going rate" was the typical argument. Oswieler has been a mistake so far. And, while Bradford is doing well, he was cut by the team that gave him the contract and is only in MIN because of an injury. Who knows what his situation would be had Bridgewater not been injured.
I'd rather see them invest heavily in the defense and draft a rookie QB to develop than pay Cousins a ton.
Well run teams don't waste that much cap space on an average player because they are afraid. If Cousins wants to be paid he needs to step it up for the rest of the year. He's not worth that much money.
This. The term "overpaid" is a bit confusing and in my opinion it should mean what it means. It should be used when a player is taking up more cap space than they contribute in value. When you keep that in mind, you don't buy into adages like "You have to overpay QB's." A servicable QB provides a lot of value to a team, especially when you consider that they're hard to find and your next best option might be a huge drop. You have to figure out what that number is and stick with it though. It doesn't make sense to pay more to keep a player around if you've determined that doing so is not the best value for your team. That's true for every position from QB to K.
I see what you are saying but the problem is, if you let Cousins go, because you don't think "he provides that kind of value" and as a result, you don't even have a shot at making the playoffs, you've basically "outsmarted yourself." The goal of football is to win a championship, not to make sure you don't "overpay" someone. So, say you don't sign your QB for $21 million per year because you think he's worth $19 million per year and let him walk. And yet, let's say that even with an extra $2 million per year for other players, you are not good enough with a below average Quarterback to make the playoffs. Because make no mistake about it, QB still is the most important position on the field...you look at the teams that win, and they generally have that in common IMO.
I agree with this (except broaden the goal to multiple championships; building teams that can compete every year).
Yeah, I do agree with this. I think it really is about establishing the correct "value" for your various players, based on how much they can help you get to a championship vs. the next best alternative you have at that position. When you think about doing this for a full 53 man roster, it shows what a difficult job an NFL GM has...5 Digits said:
Yes, and no.5 Digits said:
Yeah I agree. This team certainly seems good enough to be in contention, but for some reason, they just can't put teams away. The only game where we were just outplayed was Week 1 against Pittsburgh. Every other game, we've been in until the end. Which is good, but even when we win, it seems like it takes some luck. Like you said, the Giants and Browns games took some late turnovers to cement those wins. I don't know what it is, but every game comes down to the wire.MikeApf said:
Giants (4-3) and Eagles (4-3) play next week, so we'll likely move up to third in the division during the bye. If Giants and Eagles tie, then it's a three way tie for 2nd! Cowboys have Cleveland next week, so they'll likely get to 7-1 and have a 2.5 game lead on us. The division is definitely a long shot, but it is was a long shot in latter parts of the season in 2005, 2007, 2012, and 2015.
Mathematically, we are not far out of the wild card race. However, as MF points out, we have a tough schedule coming home and probably need 5 or 6 wins in that stretch. I agree with his assessment that that's an uphill climb . On the other hand, we do have a legit playoff offense (IMO), so if we can get a few turnovers, or a defensive performance like we had vs. Philly, who knows? It's possible. I'd say 20% chance.
I feel much better about those games than I did when the schedule came out. AZ and Carolina aren't very good right now. Very beatable. Chicago sucks. We've already beaten Philly and NY, so let's just do that again. Green Bay is too one dimensional to be worrisome at the moment. And I don't see that changing. We owe Dallass one. We're getting it. 7-1 after the bye!
Welcome to the modern NFL and parity in all its glory.MikeApf said:
Was thinking the same thing. We need to score early on them and make them play from behind.
I know, but in the NFL's eyes they are the same offense.dgreen said:
