• Blog Entries

    • By JimmiJo in ES Coverage
         0
      ES Coverage Cowboys vs Redskins
       
      10/21/18
       
      Cowboys versus Redskins - now that just sounds correct.
       
      Hello friends, JimmiJo here along with THE Spaceman Spiff. Space is already on the sidelines, yucking it up with the important people. Me? I'm thinking how grateful I am for the 3-car accident on the beltway...
       
      If you cannot get up for this game, there isn't enough viagra made on earth for you. After all; the Redskins are hosting their eternal rival, the Cowboys. Winner will be sitting on top of the division, with a truckload of bragging rights.
       
      What's not to like?
       
      Well, for starters, everybody and their mom is inactive. Chris Thompson Jamison Crowder, Paul Richardson, Quinton Dunbar; all inactive. What a time to have have your top two receivers out. The chatter here in the press box is Washington should do what they can to bring in receivers - to include making a trade with the Raiders for Amari Cooper.
       
      Then there's the question of which Redskins show up? They could come out and light Dallas up. Or, post an anemic effort to suffer another embarrassing lost. Neither would surprise me.
       
      One this is for sure, the distribution in fans is something like 55-45 Redskins. Already an embarrassment. Until you consider this team has done much to earn the lack of support.
       
      Still, you have offer the finger in the middle to those fans who sold their tickets to Dallas fans. What were you thinking?
       
      Back shortly...
       
      Inactives
       
      The Redskins declared the following players as inactive:
      o   No. 10 WR Paul Richardson Jr.
      o   No. 23 CB Quinton Dunbar
      o   No. 25 RB Chris Thompson
      o   No. 30 S Troy Apke
      o   No. 55 C Casey Dunn
      o   No. 74 T Geron Christian Sr.
      o   No. 80 WR Jamison Crowder
       
      The team held a touching tribute to my friend Rich Tandler, who passed this week.
       
      Follow along in-game on Twitter @Skinscast
       
      Half
       
      Did you hear the one about the team that got chance after chance but couldn't score more than a touchdown?
      That's right; they are tied at 7 at the half and completely anemic in the second half.
       
      "Against the run of play" is a term you hear in soccer all the time. It is applicable here. It means the better team is either tied or trailing.
       
      Whoever said football was fair?
       
      Washington needs to find a way to get hot in the second half. The Dallas Cowboys are infinitely beatable today.
Riggo'sRangers

Common Kirk....I just don't know....

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Hell naw lol

 

Im working on the assumption we cant keep everyone. I am no cap guy. But it makes sense to me that we cant keep everyone, especially if they play well. Now im open to you showing me the math to help me see otherwise. 

We're currently paying Kirk 24M of our cap right now.

 

There are quite a few folks that want to still pay 20M for Kirk even though that's not the market.  Let's say he inks a deal at 26M per, that's only 2M than what it is today and the cap is rising.  I've legitimately asked this question on numerous occasions: What's the scare here with the money?  Is 6M in cap space really going to make or break the team?  Part of being a successful franchise is that you have to be willing to part with players you want to keep and replace them with guys on the cheap (drafted players).  I'm just as nervous about this FO's ability to do just that as anyone else.  But I'm worried about that with or without Kirk being on a long term contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Redd said:

That wasn't all Kirk at the end.  A lot of that was Doctson pulling  difficult pass in.  Just glad Kirk actually put it up there instead of taking a sack. 

 

I mean, Kirk did his job and executed on that last drive.  Everyone has bad games, including Aaron Rogers, Brady, etc.  But good QB's come thru at the end when you need them and that's exactly what Kirk did.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

 

I'm with SIP here.  Can't recall anyone claiming Cousins was anything other than bad in game 1*.

Right.

 

I think we all admitted that he played poorly, but also that he wasn't getting much help from anyone else either.  It's still amazing to me that given how poorly most everyone including Kirk played in that game, we were still a ref screw job away from having a chance at winning that game.  That same Eagles team is destroying most everyone they play.

Edited by BatteredFanSyndrome
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny out of the top 7 highest paid qb's only 1 looks like they might make the playoffs (Brees).  I like Kirk just wish someone can show me where teams are successful after signing these qb's to these big deals.  Seems as only the elite qb's (Rodgers and Wilson) make there team still relevant, even Brees after he signed his deal has not made the playoffs since 2013.  Rodgers,Luck, Flacco, Brees and now Carr and Stafford have all been paid the biggest deals when they signed and look at there teams since.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

We're currently paying Kirk 24M of our cap right now.

 

There are quite a few folks that want to still pay 20M for Kirk even though that's not the market.  Let's say he inks a deal at 26M per, that's only 2M than what it is today and the cap is rising.  

 

The Skins have a better idea on the future of the cap - I'm not sure it's going to continue to rise at a fast clip when viewership is declining.  24M is the franchise tag - Kirk's agent may want that as a base but the Skins are not obligated to accept anything. I'd like for the Skins to be able to sign Zach Brown, Bashaad Breeland, and many others with contracts expiring in the next year or so.  I don't see the Skins (with Kirk) improving from a perennial 9-7 team unless the rest of the team becomes more consistent OR the Skins add to their talent base.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

We're currently paying Kirk 24M of our cap right now.

 

There are quite a few folks that want to still pay 20M for Kirk even though that's not the market.  Let's say he inks a deal at 26M per, that's only 2M than what it is today and the cap is rising.  I've legitimately asked this question on numerous occasions: What's the scare here with the money?  Is 6M in cap space really going to make or break the team?  Part of being a successful franchise is that you have to be willing to part with players you want to keep and replace them with guys on the cheap (drafted players).  I'm just as nervous about this FO's ability to do just that as anyone else.  But I'm worried about that with or without Kirk being on a long term contract.

 

Understand that part of my.....background?......maybe ideology is a better word......is that I believe you have a better chance to win with tough running, timely play action, and crazy good defense. That said, Krik isnt my cup of tea when it comes to "where you spend the money" but as I have demonstrated, I dont exactly know wtf im talking about when it comes to the money. Only that it is capped, and he would presumably like to take up alot of it. Thats my extent lol. Then I look at teams like GB, Lions, and Ravens as validation to that bias. 

 

If yall can help me see how much a good defense would cost to keep together, a good oline, and THEN add Kirk and a weapon or two (and this is where I get caught up) on top. You have a convert. But I dont understand the math and I havent put any effort into doing so yet. My opinion should be viewed through that lens. 

 

I say all that, but I still like what the dude brings when he plays like he did in the clutch. If we can get that kind of play out of him more often im all about losing strength in the defense. Nothing is more effective than a great defense than a QB who is ****ing unstoppable and thats what he was in the last minute last night.

 

Im willing to ignore the joker of a FO that we have for arguments sake cause in reality thats the real problem and the only thing we have no chance of fixing until Dan kicks it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dckey said:

Funny out of the top 7 highest paid qb's only 1 looks like they might make the playoffs (Brees).  I like Kirk just wish someone can show me where teams are successful after signing these qb's to these big deals.  Seems as only the elite qb's (Rodgers and Wilson) make there team still relevant, even Brees after he signed his deal has not made the playoffs since 2013.  Rodgers,Luck, Flacco, Brees and now Carr and Stafford have all been paid the biggest deals when they signed and look at there teams since.  

 

Exactly the concern.  Those mega contracts can hamstring a team.  Stafford is a great QB IMO but for many years he was always getting injured because he was taking a pounding behind a poor OL.  What difference does it make if you have a sub-par QB and the team hovers around 8-8/9-7 OR you have a decent QB and the team has the same record?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@PlayAction@Llevron

 

I can understand the opinion that giving a large piece of the cap to Kirk can hamstring the rest of the team.  But that kind of leaves you with one other option and that option is to cross our fingers and pray we can land a competent QB in the draft that will be good enough, soon enough to take this otherwise loaded team to the promise land.  Ultimately, that rookie QB is only cheap for a few years.  If the team wins, he'll then be next up for a large chunk of the cap and right back to square one again. 

 

I think it's harder to find a good QB in the draft than it is to re-load players at other positions, when you have to let some of your better players walk to FA because their price is too high. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is such division because this is a pretty unique situation. If the Redskins had done whatever it took to sign him long-term a year or two ago, they wouldn't be in this position at all. As many saw, they should have realized that his price would only go up each year. So, they could have had him for $16M per year in 2015 or $20M per year in 2016...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

There is such division because this is a pretty unique situation. If the Redskins had done whatever it took to sign him long-term a year or two ago, they wouldn't be in this position at all. As many saw, they should have realized that his price would only go up each year. So, they could have had him for $16M per year in 2015 or $20M per year in 2016...

I thought we couldn't for 16. Didn't we offer 16 but he wanted 20?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PartyPosse said:

I thought we couldn't for 16. Didn't we offer 16 but he wanted 20?

I think if I have the reports correct...

 

We weren't ready to offer anything when he'd have taken $16M (2015)

We offered $16M when he'd have taken $20M (2016)

And now...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PartyPosse said:

Some Kirk supporters don't think he's had a bad game yet. I remember the first game how he was being supported because he barely had time to throw because the OL was struggling and if it weren't for dropped balls etc.

 

my point is there has been overdramatic and blind ignorance on both sides of the argument. He gets off easy by supporters and us on the other side definitely criticize more harshly than we should.

 

I recall though the discussion well after game 1.  The argument was yeah he had a bad game but it wasn't a career defining "the verdict is in" type of game.  Most of the critics acted otherwise as if his performances was the be all and end all. 

 

I haven't really seen much of a change from the critics -- Kirk seems to be on weekly trial.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I'm not going to kill you for this, for fear of 'trying to act like the smartest guy in the room'.

 

With that said, what good is a game changing WR and defense going to do without a QB?

 

I've got the answer, it's: Get embarrassed by the Eagles yesterday.

 How much talent out there in FA will we have to pass up to satisfy Kirk Cousins' salary demands? That is what I want to know?  Can we sign proven talent and actually compete at a higher level?  We all know we have quite a few guys that signed one year deals.  Can we be competitive if we sign Cousin's to what I think he wants? 

 

We have to have the ability to sign Zach Brown, Breeland and CT who signed a one year tender in April;  all three are going to want mega deals - and all three are keys IMO to future success.  They deserve good deals.  I am more willing to let Breeland walk but I would not want to.   We must pay Zach Brown and CT.   .

 

We have a lot of cap space going into next year but it will be eaten up quickly if we sign Cousin's to the type of deal I think he wants.   Is he going to sign a deal that will allow us to add the additional pieces we need to really compete? Like a real RB,  a decent WR to compliment Doctson, because Pryor will be cut, and I think we need an edge rusher and an ILB.   I just know we need more talent to get to where hopefully we all want to go.

 

It has to make sense or you are hamstringing your organization for one guy.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

mean, **** me if this wasn't the case, but I'd be willing to say they actually design plays to never be passes, just Wilson runs. Just line up in Shotgun, spread everyone out, upon snap just look to one side for a primary ... but with no intention of ever throwing it, and then after a tick, Wilson picks the natural gap in the defensive rush and simply use his athleticism to squirt out and run for yardage.

 

I must say, that's still about a thousand times better than the Jay Gruden designed run game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, skinsmania123 said:

We have to have the ability to sign Zach Brown, Breeland and CT who signed a one year tender in April;  all three are going to want mega deals - and all three are keys IMO to future success.  They deserve good deals.  I am more willing to let Breeland walk but I would not want to.   We must pay Zach Brown and CT.   .

 

 

Thompson already signed an extension http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20590056/chris-thompson-washington-redskins-signs-two-year-contract-extension

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, skinsmania123 said:

 How much talent out there in FA will we have to pass up to satisfy Kirk Cousins' salary demands? That is what I want to know?  Can we sign proven talent and actually compete at a higher level?  We all know we have quite a few guys that signed one year deals.  Can we be competitive if we sign Cousin's to what I think he wants? 

 

We have to have the ability to sign Zach Brown, Breeland and CT who signed a one year tender in April;  all three are going to want mega deals - and all three are keys IMO to future success.  They deserve good deals.  I am more willing to let Breeland walk but I would not want to.   We must pay Zach Brown and CT.   .

 

We have a lot of cap space going into next year but it will be eaten up quickly if we sign Cousin's to the type of deal I think he wants.   Is he going to sign a deal that will allow us to add the additional pieces we need to really compete? Like a real RB,  a decent WR to compliment Doctson, because Pryor will be cut, and I think we need an edge rusher and an ILB.   I just know we need more talent to get to where hopefully we all want to go.

 

It has to make sense or you are hamstringing your organization for one guy.   

I'd personally prefer we don't try to fill holes on the team with expensive free agents.  Obviously when guys like Zach Brown fall into your lap, that's the exception to the rule.  If Breeland is up for a mega deal, which he most likely will be, you've got to let him walk - no matter who your QB is.  We can't afford to have near 30M locked up in two starting corners.  Chris Thompson just inked a deal prior to the start of the season that locks him up through the 2019 season. 

 

I'd prefer not to spend FA money on a RB.  I'm in agreement with you that we need one desperately but that's a position I'd much prefer to draft.  I don't think we need to spend a ton on a decent WR to complement Doctson.  I'd be happy with just above a JAG, that can run routes and catch balls in the middle of the field on 3rd down and not worry about getting hit.

 

I think the bottom line is that the team needs to draft well, big QB contract or not, in order to take home the Lombardi.  You simply cannot take it to the promise land counting on FA contracts to fill most holes on the roster.  You have to be able to reload and let some of your guys go even though you don't want to. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, skinsmania123 said:

Can we sign proven talent and actually compete at a higher level?  We all know we have quite a few guys that signed one year deals.  Can we be competitive if we sign Cousin's to what I think he wants? 

 

I think we can.  We have to be good at the draft.  The draft is where caponomics come into play.  As a previous poster mention, CT is under contract through 2019.  He signed a 2 year extension on 9/7.  Breeland should have been traded before the trade deadline expired, imo.  Although I'd love to keep him, we have Moreau waiting in the wings.  Drafting with an eye towards the future is what successful franchises do.  This is why we drafted Trent Murphy when we did.  It was done with the thought we wouldn't be able to keep Orakpo.  Good drafts build the core of your team and provides depth as well as allowing a team to keep their homegrown talent.

 

That said, I believe we'll probably apply the transition tag on Kirk.  Although letting him go would probably give us a compensatory 3rd, I just don't see us not covering our FA losses without garnering the same amount of FAs which would then negate us getting any compensation, so yeah..  having the ability to match a market offer is probably the way we'll go.  I just can't fathom us tagging him a 3rd time, be it on the exclusive or even non-exclusive tag cause that price would be way too much of a cap hit..  Market price these days is going to be around 15% of the cap.  Can we do it and still improve the team?  My belief is we can and as others have said, our window is opening now...  we're just a few pieces away from something special here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dckey said:

Funny out of the top 7 highest paid qb's only 1 looks like they might make the playoffs (Brees).  I like Kirk just wish someone can show me where teams are successful after signing these qb's to these big deals.  Seems as only the elite qb's (Rodgers and Wilson) make there team still relevant, even Brees after he signed his deal has not made the playoffs since 2013.  Rodgers,Luck, Flacco, Brees and now Carr and Stafford have all been paid the biggest deals when they signed and look at there teams since.  

To be fair, Brees has consistently put the New Orleans offence in the top of the league:

2014: #1 in yards, #9 in points

2015: #2 in yards, #8 in points

2016: #1 in yards, #2 in points

 

I would argue that if it weren't for Brees, the Saints would be winning 3 or 4 games a year rather than 7 or 8.

In contrast, their defensive rankings were:

2014: #31 in yards, #28 in points

2015: #31 in yards, #32 in points

2016: #27 in yards, #31 in points

 

One might say that this lack of defense stems from not having money for good players.  Let's see who they drafted:

2014: Round 2, Pick 26 (58 overall) Nebraska DB Stanley Jean-Baptiste (6'3",218)

            Round 4, Pick 26 (126 overall) California ILB Khairi Fortt (6'2".248)

            Round 5, Pick 27 (167 overall) Alabama SS Vinnie Sunseri (5'11", 210)

            Round 5, Pick 29 (169 overall) (From Patriots through Eagles) Florida OLB Ronald Powell (6'3”, 237)

2015:   Round 1, Pick No. 31 LB Stephone Anthony, Clemson

            Round 2, Pick No. 44 LB Hau'oli Kikaha Washington

            Round 4, Pick No. 78 (from Miami) DB P.J. Williams, Florida State

            Round 5, Pick No. 148 LB Davis Tull, Tennessee-Chattanooga

            Round 6, Pick No. 154 (from Kansas City) DT Tyeler Davison, Fresno State

                            Pick No. 167 CB Damian Swann, Georgia (From Washington through Seattle)

2016:   Round 1, Pick No. 12 DT Sheldon Rankins, Louisville

            Round 2, Pick No. 30 FS Vonn Bell, Ohio State

            Round 4, Pick No. 22 DT David Onyematta, Manitoba Canada

 

Want to know how many of those players are on the team? None from 2014, two from 2015, and the 3 from 2016. Five out of 13 selections remain.  One starter, and four backups.  These guys should be the backbone of your team.  Young, cheap talent.  But the Saints have done an awful job of evaluating defensive players. 

 

The Saints not making the playoffs is not a product of either Brees not being good enough to justify his contract, or a result of not having any money left over to pay the defense.  The Saints have been bad because they chose defensive talent poorly.  As an example, look at the Saints now.  A good defense (two really good hits this year in the draft certainly helped) and Brees still killing it (contract an all) and all the sudden a mediocre team is a playoff contender.

 

Something tells me that if Prescott and Wentz continue the way they are going, they are going to get huge contracts in three years too.  And those teams aren't going to bat an eye resigning them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MartinC said:

 

Why teams with talented QBs don't invest in their O'Line is beyond me. Just look at Andrew Luck and what the Colts out in front of him. Its criminal.

 

16 hours ago, Stefanskins said:

Seatle Drafts -    2010 - 1rst round offensive tackle
                           2011 - 1rst round offensive tackle
                           2014 - 2nd round Tackle
                           2015 - with their 3rd and 4th pick they chose Guards
                           2016 - 1rst round offensive tackle, 3rd round guard (6th Center)
                           2017 - 2nd round Center

Russell Wilson, like Rg3 has a horrible line until you put KFC behind it. Then they're a bunch of pro bowlers.

Edited by SkinsFTW
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, armstrong001 said:

To be fair, Brees has consistently put the New Orleans offence in the top of the league:

2014: #1 in yards, #9 in points

2015: #2 in yards, #8 in points

2016: #1 in yards, #2 in points

 

I would argue that if it weren't for Brees, the Saints would be winning 3 or 4 games a year rather than 7 or 8.

In contrast, their defensive rankings were:

2014: #31 in yards, #28 in points

2015: #31 in yards, #32 in points

2016: #27 in yards, #31 in points

 

One might say that this lack of defense stems from not having money for good players.  Let's see who they drafted:

2014: Round 2, Pick 26 (58 overall) Nebraska DB Stanley Jean-Baptiste (6'3",218)

            Round 4, Pick 26 (126 overall) California ILB Khairi Fortt (6'2".248)

            Round 5, Pick 27 (167 overall) Alabama SS Vinnie Sunseri (5'11", 210)

            Round 5, Pick 29 (169 overall) (From Patriots through Eagles) Florida OLB Ronald Powell (6'3”, 237)

2015:   Round 1, Pick No. 31 LB Stephone Anthony, Clemson

            Round 2, Pick No. 44 LB Hau'oli Kikaha Washington

            Round 4, Pick No. 78 (from Miami) DB P.J. Williams, Florida State

            Round 5, Pick No. 148 LB Davis Tull, Tennessee-Chattanooga

            Round 6, Pick No. 154 (from Kansas City) DT Tyeler Davison, Fresno State

                            Pick No. 167 CB Damian Swann, Georgia (From Washington through Seattle)

2016:   Round 1, Pick No. 12 DT Sheldon Rankins, Louisville

            Round 2, Pick No. 30 FS Vonn Bell, Ohio State

            Round 4, Pick No. 22 DT David Onyematta, Manitoba Canada

 

Want to know how many of those players are on the team? None from 2014, two from 2015, and the 3 from 2016. Five out of 13 selections remain.  One starter, and four backups.  These guys should be the backbone of your team.  Young, cheap talent.  But the Saints have done an awful job of evaluating defensive players. 

 

The Saints not making the playoffs is not a product of either Brees not being good enough to justify his contract, or a result of not having any money left over to pay the defense.  The Saints have been bad because they chose defensive talent poorly.  As an example, look at the Saints now.  A good defense (two really good hits this year in the draft certainly helped) and Brees still killing it (contract an all) and all the sudden a mediocre team is a playoff contender.

 

Something tells me that if Prescott and Wentz continue the way they are going, they are going to get huge contracts in three years too.  And those teams aren't going to bat an eye resigning them.

This is exactly my point, you will have to draft extremely well when signing players to these contracts and do you think Kirk is close to Brees as far as making this offense a top 3?  History has shown that signing 1 player to these big contracts hurts these teams.  Look at New England and Pittsburgh they have a culture of not signing people to big deals and are constantly relevant.  Prescott and Wentz look better than Kirk, that is not a knock on him but they just do, well Wentz mainly Prescott has a great line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

 

 

Your point is well taken - they have attempted to draft O’line they have just done a really bad job selecting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I recall though the discussion well after game 1.  The argument was yeah he had a bad game but it wasn't a career defining "the verdict is in" type of game.  Most of the critics acted otherwise as if his performances was the be all and end all. 

 

I haven't really seen much of a change from the critics -- Kirk seems to be on weekly trial.  

I remember differently but I admit it may have just been a couple of super vocal unapologetic supporters.

 

i don't think we're going to see a change on either side. My opinion has changed but more sideways. 

I haven't really acknowledged it but the loss of Mcvay has really hurt. It shows how the Rams really spread the ball around to basically everyone. That used to be our staple but this year the offense becomes very fixated on one or two guys. I don't know if it's gameplan, Kirk lack of trust, Kirk limited read ability, lack of receiver separation or just lack of time due to OL injury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.