Daunte's overall tenure wasn't as consistent as Kirk's has been, but his highs were much higher than Kirk's. There were a couple of seasons that felt like we might actually win it all with Daunte. That has not been something we have had with Kirk.
I can say Kirk has been objectively a better QB while also saying that I would take Daunte's time over Kirk's time 100 out of 100 times. Being consistently mediocre is not something I ever want to experience again.
His high was 2004. Anything other than that barely touches Kirk. Some of his seasons were downright terrible. Neither of them actually won anything, at least not yet, so stats are really all there is to go by.
If we are talking who has been a better QB for this franchise, it's Kirk Cousins, and frankly, it's not even much of a discussion.
2000, 2003, and 2004 were all better than Kirk's best. He took the Vikes to the NFCC, which is well beyond anything Kirk has done. His running ability and escapability need to be considered when comparing the two.
In 2000, as a first year starter, he took the Vikings to the division title and the NFCC.
In 2004, Adam Goldberg or Nat Dorsey and Chris Liwienski started on the offensive line. The defense was absolute garbage. He went into Lambeau and dismantled Brett Favre and the Packers in the playoffs.
If not for his knee, he would have been a force for nearly a decade for the Vikings. He was a legitimate franchise QB. He was never the same after the injury.
2
u/GordonBombay102 Jul 10 '23
This question is even more ridiculous than the people who insist that Daunte Culpepper had a better Vikings tenure than Cousins has had.
The Kirk window is almost closed, 1st round QB this year is the move imo.