• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Art

  • Rank
    Ring of Fame
  • Birthday 03/06/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Redskins Fan Since
  • Favorite Redskin
    Wilbur Marshall
  • Location
    Frozen Tundra
  1. The Hankins thing is interesting in that four years ago if he entered the building he would never leave. Now the team is willing to let people leave. Why? What has clearly changed in how we deal with free agents is that we do not identify and target people in a specific priority order as before where we'd lay out our top 5 targets and generally get all and consider it a win. Now we have 5 targets for every position. And we are looking for value and contracts. Now, I'd get Hankins, PERIOD. It's not even a question. Given his age and size and fit for the defense we run he's a no brainer to me. But the Skins are clearly in the mode of, "I can give this guy $10 million a year or this guy $5 million." It's likely Williams, while not as good a player, may be close enough to merit that sort of cap difference. Scandrick, a PLAYER I HATE, is a player we signed while letting DRC wander about. Both are pretty much the same player. We are clearly not doing a ton of reaching when we engage free agents the last few years. I can't say I particularly like, or hate it, but there is clearly a method to how they approach things now that differs from before. Even looking at Alex Smith, who we have at a cap hit that ranks like No. 19 and No. 18 the next two years at the QB position, you can see the team is trying to target hit to value in their equations to at least some degree. So you have Cousins at the No. 1 hit, or Smith at No. 19. You have Hankins at the No. 18 hit or Williams at No. 82. Whatever. That's clearly something they are doing now they never did before.
  2. .500 In 2018 Would Be A Good Year For The Skins

    The initial post is so idiotic as to be ridiculous. Cousins just QB'd the team to 7-9. It's not like losing him is the factor in the record as Cousins never did much to win games (and frankly he didn't lose many either, first Philly game last year aside). If the team is healthy and Smith is our QB there's 0 reason to believe Smith, who has QB'd teams to winning records in the last seven straight seasons, couldn't do the same with us. If the team is injured, like last year, it's highly unlikely we'd do better than we did last year as Cousins DID have the advantage of system knowledge. Losing Cousins is simply not any concern given we signed a guy who's pretty much the same level player. He could have cost us if we went from him, say, to Josh McCown or something. But we swapped one good player for another good player. QB is the least of our concerns heading in to the season.
  3. Let's All Get Behind Alex Smith!

    There is no reason to be upset with Smith as your QB. Yes, we all are, and should be, upset we were dumb enough to give up Fuller in the equation, but Smith is a good player. He's a QB who is somewhere between 12 and 20 in the league as a starter, with a greater skill set than Cousins and a history of being on a winning team, if not an elite one. He will NOT win games. He's not elite. But he's a good QB with some life left in his game. The downgrade with him is he won't have familiarity with the offense as Cousins did, but the upgrade with him is he has more talent generally given where he was selected and how he's performed over a longer period of time. Cousins is a good player too. But they are the same guy, essentially. Now, the fear I have with Smith is that he's just Brunell again. I'm not worried about him being McNabb. McNabb was never that accurate. Once the atheticism declined for him he was done. For Smith that's not a worry as he's better with the ball and makes better decisions than McNabb ever was, he just lacked the huge athletic upside, though he is a good athlete too. But it is possible Smith is like Brunell when we played him in that he'll throw short, short, short, short, short, short, short. And make us want him dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead. Last year he threw more deep balls than Kirk by a good bit (balls over 31 yards in the air) so maybe this won't be a problem, though last year Kirk did seem to regress against the mean on his deep throwing due to some offensive line stumbles and receiver limits and in 2016 Smith was so dink and dunk as to probably make us all vomit so we'll see. For the most part though Smith is not going to be our problem next year.
  4. Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

    In his six years they've been 28, 24, 24 and 20 in four of the six. They were top 10 twice. Try again?
  5. Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

    The structure is spread equally over four years. The signing bonus of $18 million is NOT ours to pay I don't think. So, in theory we're only on the hook for $50 million over four years. But not sure on that.
  6. Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

    Apparently one site already has this official Nick Foles cost $12 million. A good backup at $17, assuming a young kid comes to start in two or three years won't be a bad deal for stability. I still suspect this is NOT official and WON'T happen. But, again, for $17 million I'd take Smith over Cousins at ANYTHING more than $22 million. Tell me you wouldn't.
  7. Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

    I'd take Alex Smith at $17 million over Kirk Cousins at $34 million every day of the week and anyone suggesting differently is simply fibbing. I would take Kirk at $22 million over Alex at $17 million though given he knows the offense. But, frankly, smith has had a better career, has better mobility, was considered a far better NFL prospect and performed exceptionally well as a game manager with the lowest QB ranking 7 years being 89.1, his first year in KC. we'd be fine with him at the perceived cost of Kirk. And as a stopgap to the next great wonder. Hell, maybe bring RGIII back to back him up :).
  8. Will Cousins Play For The Skins In 2018

    Cousins continues to be a confounding player. Individually his stats are really fine and have been really fine. And every once in a while he does something that appears to be so great an impact as you can point to him being why we won a game. And every once in a while he does something that appears to be so great an impact as to why we lost the game. And most of the time he's just on the field playing QB. Generally fine. But generally never better than the opposition's QB. Just look at this year. Eagles visit. Wentz outplayed Cousins and this was the one game this year Cousins lost on his own. Missed passes. Ugly play. Mistakes. One game I'd rather have the other team's QB. We go to the Rams. Goff threw for more yards on fewer attempts and completions. But also had an interception. Generally you'd say neither QB played better than the other in this game relative to the defenses they played against, but give a SLIGHT edge to Goff in game and generally if you could have either, right now, who would you prefer? Two games I'd rather have the other team's QB. Raiders visit. Our high water mark as a team for sure. Cousins clearly outplayed Carr. One can fairly debate if they'd rather have Carr to Cousins in a straight up pick. The general consensus is probably on Carr's side. But it's probably close. One game I'd rather have had our QB based on performance on the field in that game. We go to the Chiefs. Smith outplayed Cousins in a direct comparison. We were gritty and could have won. But on the whole Smith was better that day. People would prefer Cousins in a straight pick, but would probably prefer Smith for $15 million than Cousins for $30. Three games I'd rather have the other team's QB. Niners. Cousins gets the nod though we did make Beathard look way too good. This is one of Kirk's better games of the year. Two games I'd rather have had our QB. We visit the Eagles. Cousins played really well. Over 300 yards. Three TDs. 30 of 40 passing. Wentz had 4 TDs and only 268 yards, but, 13 fewer completions for just 35 fewer yards. Though on the field this is a close one, because they won, their QB had more TDs and their offense was FAR more explosive, you nod with Wentz. Four games I'd rather have the other team's QB. Cowboys visit. Kirk outplays Dak insanely, made more clear by the superior Cowboys running game. Some would argue they'd take Dak over Kirk generally, but in this game it was Kirk's a bad loss. Three games I'd rather have had our QB. Seattle time. Kirk's KEY plays win this game. His throws in pressure against odds in a tough environment are a high water mark for him as far as individual influence on a game. Yet he was the second best QB on the day. Wilson was far more dangerous in every way. And generally you'd rather have him to Kirk. Five games I'd rather have had their QB. Vikings. This is really the start of the downfall for the season. They out manned us and pushed us around. Kirk played really well against a good defense generally putting up solid numbers. But as is the case with Kirk, numbers rarely translate into a difference and while NO ONE would pick Keenum over Kirk Keenum had a superior game and greater impact on the outcome in this one. And, again, for $15 million, I'd be fine with Keenum over a $35 million Cousins. Six games I'd rather have had their QB. Demoralizing Saints loss. Cousins again plays GREAT. Over 300 yards. 3 TDs. Solid against a solid pass defense. Brees just played a hair better on the whole because when it mattered he didn't miss. Had OT not happened this would have gone a different way though. And, of course, you'd STILL take Brees over Cousins to lead your team generally. Seven games I'd rather have had their QB. Boring Giants game. Cousins gets the nod in game and probably future worth. But that is not normal in games against the Giants :). Four games I'd rather have had our QB. Visiting Dallas now. Dak gets the edge in on field performance. Still a debate as to whether he's better for a team long term or not. Eight games I'd rather have had their QB. Chargers. Wow. Rivers looked every bit the genius. Cousins did not play well. We're tanking. It's not all on Cousins. But Rivers killed him and probably would be considered as good a leader for a few years as Cousins long term. Nine games I'd rather have had their QB. Generally what I am struck by is on the field Kirk is rarely the best player at his position compared to other top QBs. Do the same thing for the Pats. Smith outplayed Brady in game one, two more like that? Ben had a dog of a game with five interceptions, but has three 500 yard games. Remember how he torched us a year ago? Kirk just never seems the reason, that often, his team wins. He's a fine player. Productive. Solid. And worth every penny of less than $20 million on a yearly basis. He doesn't provide enough benefit to those around him to pay him more and lose players around him. That Green Bay game a year ago was him being awesome. But there are just not enough of those where he's that guy for THAT price. Now, if we assume we go 5-11 or 6-10 we can achieve that with anyone at QB. We don't need a Top 5 paid player to hit that mark, UNLESS that player IS the sole reason you even hit that many wins. If we hit 7-9, like the Saints for several years, you still don't look at our team and say we are 7-9 BECAUSE we have Cousins while all else is horrific. The Saints hit 7-9 BECAUSE Brees was still so good in spite of everything else being atrocious. I really actually like and respect Cousins. I think he's a hell of a productive, fine player. He's just NOT a guy you can sink that much into as he won't lift your team when other things suck. We are beaten up like crazy. Worn out and down. Cousins isn't making anyone better and it appears his play is bolstered remarkably by the play around him. Which is fine, but means sink money in to that. We can achieve 6-10 with Keenum at QB. Or Colt. We don't need a $35 million guy. I know, as well, that Kirk doesn't play the opposing team's other QB. He plays their defense and they play ours. So our continued inconsistency on defense seems to make everyone we play have great games, save one or two we jump up and "surprise" by killing someone (see Derek Carr). The point remains if you go through his career you generally always would take the other team's guy over ours. That one game I'd have taken Kirk over Rodgers is so outside the norm as to be something you almost have to ignore, as there are at least as many games Keenum is better than Cousins to be worrisome. I'm now on board with you have to let him go, build more depth and find another QB. And when we keep him, as we will, I'll root for him to be great still :).
  9. Redskins Raiders Post Game Assessments

    So, again, and this shouldn't be hard for you. Do you have EYES. No one said Montae came out of no where. He made a good play on a ball that, if not for his play, is a touchdown. Is that a bad decision by Carr? Maybe. Was the touchdown from Cousins to Doctson a bad decision? Maybe. In both cases it worked out in our favor. That ball is perfectly thrown. That doesn't mean it had the arc you seem to need, or the velocity. It means that receiver catches the ball if no one gets in the way. THAT is where Carr did demonstrably better than Cousins against Philly. Carr didn't throw one erratic pass. Not one. Kirk missed throws almost by the dozen against Philly. Philly's defense was less stiff than ours against the Raiders, which is not a slight on Philly as few defenses perform as well as ours did against the Raiders, including OUR OWN almost all of the time. Is there ANY question that statistically Cousins had a better game against Philly than Carr did against us? Nope. No one has suggested otherwise. The suggestion, one you have yet to actually speak to, is Cousins made terrible throws, repeatedly, against Philly. Not bad decisions. Terrible throws. THAT is where Carr did visually and clearly better than Cousins AND most QBs do. Cousins has weird starts to his seasons. But, if Carr is our QB against Philly, we win. If the sole judgment is actual proximity of ball to receiver hands.
  10. Redskins Raiders Post Game Assessments couldn't. You couldn't say Carr threw high or wild or missed open guys. I've watched the coaches film for it too. There wasn't much (two plays) where he had guys I'd probably have thrown to instead of who he did. Against us at least. His first interception was a touchdown but for the fact Nicholson came over and made a play. His second interception was a perfect ball but our defensive player made a play. Kirk's crushing interception against the Eagles was KIRK making a bad throw. There IS a difference. It's not a strong throw into coverage which MAY be a bad decision. It was a TERRIBLE throw into bad coverage, which is not something professional QBs do much. Carr didn't once against us. The facts do not show you are "correct". The facts are Carr didn't throw one terrible ball against us. One that was so wild as to be impossible to even conceive of being caught. Cousins threw 10 of those against the Eagles. Go watch. That's a HUGE difference.
  11. Redskins Raiders Post Game Assessments

    I would not call it Gibbsian. Pettibone had complex defenses and was innovative. There was rarely anything simple. Pettibone was a lot like Belichick in terms of defensive innovation and flexibility. I would, though, agree the play we saw was not one iota special. We had a game plan, certainly. We were going to sit on quick developing routes as Carr gets the ball out so quickly. But, we didn't blitz, or twist, or really mix coverages. We lined up and beat the guy across from us. That was VERY much like the Marty time when we went from an overly complex, idiotic scheme to simple. The defense last night was a LOT like some of the games we saw then. Lavar playing downhill backer, like Zach Brown, was his best year. He was used dumbly as a pass rusher after that. Dan Wilkinson was dominant that year. Our corners were super strong. But once the team rebelled and had a come to Jesus meeting after game 5 and Marty just called vanilla games that team started pounding on folks pretty well, at least on defense. That, to me, is the most encouraging thing about last night. We weren't smarter than the Raiders staff. We weren't more clever. We didn't out scheme them (though we probably out game planned them). Gibbs and Pettibone often won with lesser talent on some clever plays and adjustments. On Sunday, we won, our men against theirs, and we did so convincingly. That is a hell of a nice thing to have witnessed as it would be great if we ALSO could throw in some sneaky scheme things that add some to that mix :).
  12. Redskins Raiders Post Game Assessments

    Cousins was absolutely under pressure against the Eagles. Professional QBs are often under pressure. If you're suggesting that for Cousins to throw a normal ball he must have perfect conditions then you are making a case against Cousins. Cousins had time, an open guy, and simply nutted the pass. Our offensive line did not play at all well against the Eagles. Fairly, the bulk of the team played like garbage and did things you simply don't anticipate or expect, so it wasn't just that Cousins was off while everyone else was on. In large part our slow starts may end up being a preparation and training thing as it does seem to take us a few games to get our land legs back and play actual football again. But, Cousins being the most important player, who is the guy you are going to sink a tremendous amount of money in, can get away with a terrible throw here and there. Against Philly he was so wild it was almost as if he was new to the offense. Which, by now, should be his immense strength. While much of the team played badly against Philly, Cousins, playing MILDLY like a Top 10 QB, and we win that game. You can't watch it, and his throws, and feel much differently. He made great throws under pressure against the Raiders. Most QBs throw fairly well against pressure. If you believe Cousins needs perfect protection to play well then we don't need to put money into him. His money means HE can make a play when others fail to. Against the Raiders he did make plays -- and others made plays for him which was also nice. Against Philly his lack of making anything and inaccuracy was a core reason we lost. Likewise, our offensive line's poor play was as well. The difference is when we pay Cousins a ton, our offensive line will get worse, not better. So if you need a great line for him to play well, then pay the line not him. Or you need to expect he'll make the line better by making plays. Manning did that with the Colts. For years they were the best line in football. He leaves and they are the worst, with the same players. The QB makes others better. I'm still unsure Cousins does enough to be a Top guy. But he CAN because there are times he absolutely does.
  13. Redskins Raiders Post Game Assessments

    DGF. uh, no. Cousins missed wide open guys against Philly. He threw high, consistently. He was drastically off target on anything deep. That wasn't Philly. That was us. Yes, Philly blitzed, but when you have a 5-8 guy wide open for a TD AND you correctly throw it to him, if you actually throw ANYTHING mildly NORMAL it's a score, and when you don't it is disconcerting. THAT is where Kirk often struggles to become a fan favorite. No one cares about a game where he doesn't shine because the other team is in good coverage or whipping the offensive line or circumstances dictate a game he'd struggle. If his passes are generally in the right area it's fine. He said on his pass to Doctson that could have gone the other way. Amerson could have picked it. That would STILL have been a great ball. Perfectly thrown. To a man in a one on one situation. If we lose it we can live with it. The ball was thrown well. One of the announcers and Gruden commented on the red zone play where Kirk just took a couple yard run for a field goal attempt instead of forcing it. THAT is a decision he doesn't always make either. But did against the Raiders. Kirk's problem isn't that he can have bad games. It's that there are things he does that NO really good QB does as consistently. As I said, if he has his horrendous starts to seasons down to one game, we can live with it. But you can't reasonably question his play against Philly as being in any way good. He missed a ton. Watch the Game Pass on with the coaches tape. It's UNREAL how much he missed. Scary really. But, he threw some great balls against the Raiders that make you believe he's excellent. If he could get rid of the wildly terrible play like he had against Philly he'd be a sure bet Top 5 guy. Because he HAS that potential otherwise.
  14. Redskins Raiders Post Game Assessments

    That's not really the point DGF. Carr performed miserably against us, in large part, because we had their number and overwhelmed them. He didn't leave anything on the table. Even his two interceptions were well thrown balls we just grabbed. He didn't miss wide open guys consistently or throw so wildly off target as to be disconcerting as Kirk did against Philly. Put another way, though Carr clearly played worse against us than Cousins did against Philly, Carr did so BECAUSE of us. Kirk just played badly. If Kirk connects on NORMAL QB throws against Philly we win. Carr didn't miss anything. He had nothing to go to. Kirk played very well last night. He made several BIG throws that were accurate and tremendous. Again, if he's MILDLY that accurate against Philly we're 3-0. The problem with Kirk isn't that he can have an off game because the other guys are whipping us. That happened against the Giants last year and it wasn't so much that Kirk played badly, but they just took it too our offense. The problem is sometimes Kirk appears to have no idea where he's throwing the ball and it's NO WHERE CLOSE. In 2015 it took him basically 9 games to NOT just overtly suck. Last year fewer. This year apparently just one with some average No. 2. I can live with Kirk just sucking on opening day if he plays 13 games like last night for sure. But he did, and has, sucked on opening day in the three years :).