Kirk Cousins (Traded to Vikings)

[Reno Hightower]

I have rarely seen a QB do more with less. Kubiak has made it clear that he is the guy this year but his play has really defied conventional wisdom. The run blocking is as putrid as it was last season. The pass blocking has been getting compliments but how much as that has to do with Cousins's pocket presence and pre snap reads?

I am not sure the subject deserves its own thread but I think what he has accomplished this season cannot be overstated and he has essentially put the offense on his back. I don't think anyone saw this coming.

Thoughts?...

[KillerRaider30]

Lots of gaurds in the 3rd round just saying.

[BoJacksonRules]

Lots of gaurds in the 3rd round just saying.

Hopefully we get at least 2.

[Willmark]

I hate to be the one to rain on the parade about the compensation for Cousins, but I think some perspective is warranted.

First, I’m absolutely on board with accumulating more draft picks. More picks mean more chances of finding productive players. Simple enough, right?

The issue is that the probability of finding an impact player drops as you move through the draft. The first round offers the best odds, those odds decline in the second, again in the third, and so on through the seventh. It’s a pretty straightforward curve.

This research illustrates the point: https://www.windycitygridiron.com/2025/ ... cond-round

According to the research, only about 34% of third-round picks become regular starters, while roughly 8% become stars. That means about two out of every three third-round selections never develop into regular starters.

And remember, depending on how Minnesota finishes, this could be a late third round pick, putting it closer to fourth-round territory in terms of overall draft position.

Now, does that mean the pick is worthless? Of course not. Far from it. But there’s a difference between acquiring another opportunity to find a good player and actually acquiring one.

By the third round, we’re generally looking at a different tier of prospect. A solid contributor or role player is a reasonable outcome. Finding a dependable, long term starter would be a very good result, and landing a genuine star is certainly possible, but statistically unlikely.

Since it landed yesterday I’ve come around to the trade itself was a good move. Cousins played well for us, helped Mendoza develop, and we managed to turn a veteran bridge QB into another draft pick. Nothing wrong with that at all.

But let’s not confuse a good trade with a guarantee of getting a good player.

I’m happy we got the third. I’m happy we have another crack at finding talent. Just keep the expectations realistic.

It’s another roll of the dice, and by the third round the odds aren’t particularly favorable for that roll. As noted above that’s for any roll. The difference is we’re “buying” ourselves another roll rather than a single one in the third.

[DanKD]

Sure but our odds of finding a 3rd round starter just doubled to 66%

[Willmark]

Sure but our odds of finding a 3rd round starter jisy doubled to 66%

It’s been a while since I took statistics and worked on probabilities, but as I recall it doesn’t work that way.

You’re confusing the expected number of starters with the probability of finding at least one.

Assuming each pick has a 34% chance of becoming a starter, two picks give you roughly a 56% chance of landing at least one starter, not 66%.

Sure, more picks improve the odds. But probabilities don’t simply add together. Think of it this way: each additional pick bumps the overall probability of finding at least one starter upward toward 100%, but it doesn’t double it. Each additional pick also provides a smaller increase in that overall probability than the previous one.

[BoJacksonRules]

f[raiders_icon]ck that, we’re going to get 2 starters with those picks unless our GM tries to get cute and trade down.

[DanKD]

It’s been a while since I took statistics and worked on probabilities, but as I recall it doesn’t work that way.

You’re confusing the expected number of starters with the probability of finding at least one.

Assuming each pick has a 34% chance of becoming a starter, two picks give you roughly a 56% chance of landing at least one starter, not 66%.

Sure, more picks improve the odds. But probabilities don’t simply add together. Think of it this way: each additional pick bumps the overall probability of finding at least one starter upward toward 100%, but it doesn’t double it. Each additional pick also provides a smaller increase in that overall probability than the previous one.

Youre 100% correct. But in general terms it does about double our odds.

[Attyla]

It’s been a while since I took statistics and worked on probabilities, but as I recall it doesn’t work that way.

You’re confusing the expected number of starters with the probability of finding at least one.

Assuming each pick has a 34% chance of becoming a starter, two picks give you roughly a 56% chance of landing at least one starter, not 66%.

Sure, more picks improve the odds. But probabilities don’t simply add together. Think of it this way: each additional pick bumps the overall probability of finding at least one starter upward toward 100%, but it doesn’t double it. Each additional pick also provides a smaller increase in that overall probability than the previous one.

[Willmark]

Youre 100% correct. But in general terms it does about double our odds.

I get what you’re saying, and we’re really not that far apart.

We’ve doubled our opportunities, but not the probability of finding at least one starter.

One pick gives us a 34% probability. Two picks give us roughly 56%. That’s a substantial improvement, and certainly nothing to sneeze at, but it’s still not double.

That’s really the distinction I’m making. Doubling the number of opportunities doesn’t necessarily double the probability of success.

Take it to the logical extreme. In theory, a team could have 31 out of 32 picks in a round and still not land a single starter. Highly unlikely? Absolutely. But mathematically possible.

I’m not suggesting that would happen. I’m just illustrating why more opportunities improve the probability of finding a starter without ever guaranteeing one.

[Xramfan]

I picked the wrong thread to quit sniffing glue

[Willmark]

I picked the wrong thread to quit sniffing glue

And somewhere a math teacher or professor of mine is likely saying: really? Now you’re getting it? All I had to do was place it in terms of football drafting!

[Attyla]

All I know is the move gives us 110% chance that we have an additional pick.

[SkullCrusher]

Lots of gaurds in the 3rd round just saying.

We'll need some long term but they shouldn't be counted on the answer for next year.

[Raider_Dave]

Gonna drop this here again, cause it's all I can think of when I hear over and over about drafting o-line. In the last 3 drafts the Raiders have drafted 5 offensive linemen in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.

[Willmark]

All I know is the move gives us 110% chance that we have an additional pick.

Unfortunately you made me consider it again.

Let’s say we somehow landed every pick in round 3. 32 of 32. That’s not 32 independent flips of a coin as established.

In theory, we could still have every single pick in a round and still not land on any of them. Is it likely? Highly unlikely but it’s still a non-zero chance.

And if we had 32 picks in a round and struck out on every one? It would be the most Raiders thing since the last most Raiders thing.