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

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just too inconsistent. I think that's the summary of Kirk for me. You can't build on inconsistency. Kirk is betting his future on this season and so far I think he's losing that bet. Yes, I know it's only two weeks in but his inconsistency is still the theme for him.

[OVCChairman]

14 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

It's not really the deal that sinks people but the QBs. Pay a dude that much he HAS to be the best player on your team no matter the position. He needs to game in and game out lead the team to victory. You think Kirk can do that. Others don't. In the end that is where the misunderstanding is. The money is well spent if we can get the most out of the guy. Lots of us think he just isn't that dude.....yet at the least. 

 

He clearly has the potential. Just wish he could do it the majority of the time!

 

 

I will give him a tip of the cap for the drive to take the lead, and he's done that in the past... i hope it continues. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

 He needs to game in and game out lead the team to victory. You think Kirk can do that. Others don't.

I don't think that at all.  I'm not as high on Kirk as some folks but I definitely believe he's good enough to win with.  I'd rather see some continuity with Jay and Kirk and see where that takes us rather than start all over again with a rookie.  I don't believe that paying a QB big $ means they have to will the team to victory every week.  I believe that's the case if you have issues with drafting, acquiring the wrong FA's, not acquiring the right FA's, and just overall poor roster construction.  With that said, I'm not a big fan of our current FO structure at all.  I'd rather roll the dice with what they have, than trust our FO to select the 'elite' qb we all covet AND put a team around him that's capable of winning.

[Bigmuss1]

9 minutes ago, The Slamming Butcher said:

 

Hard to argue against this assessment...we've all seen that too many times.

Exactly!  The Defense has let this team down sooooo many times under Barry.  But somehow this fan base blames Kirk Cousins for their major flaws.  Yesterday's interception by Foster was a defensive play we haven't seen in a while!!  The D didn't jump into some soft ass prevent and allow the Rams to march down the field.  

 

I know this is a place where everyone likes to give their opinion about everything, but here is a fact no one can refute, KIRK COUSINS is the best QB this organization has had in easy the past 20 years.  Period.  It's not mv money, pay him whatever, the cap will always continue to rise and we all will have to get used to the new gaughty contract numbers.  (Especially for Qbs). If you listen to the players (Trent Williams) he talks about Kirk as the undoubted leader and how comfortable he and the team are with Kirk.  That is the only thing that matters!!  Get over it, the season is just starting and we are tied for 1st!!!  Let's all drink some kool aid!!!

[Veryoldschool]

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Just too inconsistent. I think that's the summary of Kirk for me. You can't build on inconsistency. Kirk is betting his future on this season and so far I think he's losing that bet. Yes, I know it's only two weeks in but his inconsistency is still the theme for him.

 

He refused a long-term deal with the Skins opting instead to play under the tag.  I think at the end of the season Skins will have choices of paying him the tag in 2018 or letting him walk and those might be the two outcomes Kirk wants.  He politely but quietly stated when he refused to negotiate a long-term deal that he wanted to see how the FO worked out this year.

[TouchdownSkin]

11 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

He is getting better. The first game all his passes were way high, this game he looked a lot more accurate.

 

He had a to deal with a lot of drops and lets not forget that he lost his top two targets to free agency and Jordan Reed was missing for part of the third quarter.... 

 

Its gonna be tough for him to look good against the raiders next week....

 

25 million isn't too much for a game manager, imo. Cousins gives us a chance to win where no other qb in the past 15 years has... 

 

Getting better......with the money he wants....he better already be very good.  ?

[armstrong001]

1 hour ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

As noted above, Matt Ryan has elevated his game.  

 

The book on Cousins isn't finished.  Many would like to think that it is, that this is all he'll ever be.  

 

As I said earlier, if this is 1991, Broncos fans are pissing all over John Elway for his ineptitude to win the big one.  If this is 1993, 49ers fans are wondering if Steve Young really is their guy.  

 

 

If it's 1991, Steelers fans are wondering if Bubby Brister (29 years old, 8-6, 9-7 the previous two years) is the answer.  If it's 1993, Rams fans are wondering if Jim Everett (30 years old, a couple of bad years prior but had 10-6 and 11-5 years back to back) can win it all for them. The bears are hoping Jim Harbaugh (30 years old, 10-4 and 11-5 seasons prior) can get them a ring.

 

I want Cousins to succeed, but most 20's/early 30's struggling qbs dont become HOF guys.

[Llevron]

3 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I don't think that at all.  I'm not as high on Kirk as some folks but I definitely believe he's good enough to win with.  I'd rather see some continuity with Jay and Kirk and see where that takes us rather than start all over again with a rookie.  I don't believe that paying a QB big $ means they have to will the team to victory every week.  I believe that's the case if you have issues with drafting, acquiring the wrong FA's, not acquiring the right FA's, and just overall poor roster construction.  With that said, I'm not a big fan of our current FO structure at all.  I'd rather roll the dice with what they have, than trust our FO to select the 'elite' qb we all covet AND put a team around him that's capable of winning.

 

 

Ah! Now we are getting some place. I would love to see some continuity from both as well truth be told. I think that, even if they dont win it all together, that is literally the only way the team can get batter after them. You have to have a "thing" we do and if that thing is the passing game im totally about that life. Even if Kirk cant win it all he can lead us to a dude that can and that is almost as important. 

 

We disagree on the big money thing. Thats cool though wont always agree.

 

I worry that our FO is unable -- literally does not have the ability -- to work around a big contract like that. It wouldn't be that so hampering if they could find us talent but they never really showed the ability too. If we where the Ravens? Sure go for it. But we are not even close to them as a FO. I personally would rather them build a run game (best fat boys) build a defense (best fat boys!) and then draft like 7 QBs in 5 years and see what happens. 

 

[justice98]

13 minutes ago, TouchdownSkin said:

 

Getting better......with the money he wants....he better already be very good.  ?

 

That's a fair point.  We sometimes talk about Kirk like he's a young QB.

[Drastik]

Kirk wants top 3 QB money and he's playing like a guy in the 15 - 20 range through two games. Small sample size this season but he needs to pick it up if he wants to get that mega-deal. 

[ddub52]

I prefer uncommon Kirk

[skinny21]

The contract discussion is a little weird to me.  It seems to mainly center around two things 1) paying Kirk what he's worth (i.e. not overpaying), and 2) the question of how Kirk signing a LTD affects the building of the team around him.  

 

The first point is, obviously, about market value.  QB salaries are absolutely ridiculous ATM.  Cousins, Stafford, Luck, Tannehill and Carr were all essentially the signed as highest paid at their position, despite the fact that none of them are the best producers at their position.  Plenty of other QBs have received pretty crazy contracts despite not at all deserving them (Osweiler is the obvious one).  Kirk certainly isn't the best at his position, yet we'll have to pay him more (if we want to retain him) because that's the nature of the beast.  It sucks, it's BS, and yet it's what the NFL has become.  

 

Yes, age and potential are things to factor in... but we also have to keep in mind that we tagged him after his 1st (and now 2nd) year as a starter.  

 

2) The affect on the team around him... I've already posted about the salary cap ramifications, but here's a summary:  we're at 58mil in projected cap space next year.  If we signed Kirk at 25mil, we'd have ~33mil left.  Enough money to re-sign the FAs we want to retain and have money left to dabble in FA (and pay the rookies etc.).  So no, I don't see an expensive contract as a hindrance to building the team... especially since we've made a much greater effort at building through the draft.  If we're hoping to win the offseason with a bunch of expensive contracts, then yes, we can't afford Kirk.  Don't think that's the case though. 

[Bang]

Looks like what we've always seen. Kirk starts season low, gets better, becomes very reliable and very consistent.

He was better with the ball yesterday, and while the running game helps take off the pressure of having to constantly be throwing, his overthrows weren't terrible,, except on the broken 3rd and short that he floated over Thompson's head.

 

I only wonder how this team could do if they actually TRAINED at training camp, PLAYED in the preseason, and generally GOT READY for football.

But they don't. Practices are a joke.   

Kirk in the preseason was horrible. not just bad, but horrible. And so of course, he should be able to work it out in 5 or 6 plays. Granted, they left him out there in the second game, but in the third, gone before the half. Relaxing during the 4th.  Bad in week 1. Inconsistent in week 2.

 

You play as you practice, and we practice SOFT, and we do not take advantage of the few opportunities in preseason to play hard in game conditions.

 

I think Kirk's slow starts are Gruden's problem.

 

~Bang

[Skinsinparadise]

19 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

 

2) The affect on the team around him... I've already posted about the salary cap ramifications, but here's a summary:  we're at 58mil in projected cap space next year.  If we signed Kirk at 25mil, we'd have ~33mil left.  Enough money to re-sign the FAs we want to retain and have money left to dabble in FA (and pay the rookies etc.).  So no, I don't see an expensive contract as a hindrance to building the team... especially since we've made a much greater effort at building through the draft.  If we're hoping to win the offseason with a bunch of expensive contracts, then yes, we can't afford Kirk.  Don't think that's the case though. 

 

IMO a few points people miss in this soup of the conversation:

 

A. Almost every contending team is paying or about to pay 20 plus million for a QB.  The Flacco drill is become the norm for contenders versus the exception.

 

B. FA is as hit and miss as the draft.  You typically aren't getting young players.  It's not the way to build a team.

 

C. Bruce is unlikely to go wild anyway with an extra 20 million to spend.  I'd put money on a good chunk of that dough will just carry over and won't be used.

 

D. Does Dan (and even for that matter the fan base) have the patience to endure these 4-12 seasons all over again in the hope of finding the next unicorn in the draft.  And through those likely down seasons, wouldn't we expect some turmoil and major changes?  Losing doesn't really go over well with ownership.

 

[zCommander]

I know we are all extreme here and all but I think we need to start comparing Kirk from game to game of this year. He does have new WRs and Gruden is now calling the plays. In reality you can't subjectively compare him the last two years as McVey was the play caller and it was his scheme. I want to compare him under Gruden's play calling and his system. Gruden is giving Kirk more control at the LOS which he didn't have the past two years so let's see how that plays out. 

 

I am just tired of rehashing the Kirk saga which has been done in the previous threads to death. You are going to have the so called Kirk supporters and the Kirk non-supporters. But to me I support the team and all the players on it on any given Sunday. It is that simple for me. If Kirk does bad I will say it. If he does good I will praise him. As a Redskins fan I want us to just win no matter how it is done. I also believe in continuity. I am just tired of the QB and coaches carousel. We will never win anything if this becomes the norm here in Washington. You want stability at the QB and the coaching position to be successful. As for the money we all know the FO bet against Kirk and they lost and now they had to pay him. If any one of us were in the same shoes you take the money too. Family always comes first. An ex Redskins football player on the radio said the other day you have to take the money since no one else is going to buy diapers and stuff once you are no longer able to play.  It is not a selfish thing. It is the practical human thing. 

 

So, let't talk about Kirk from Game 1 vs. Game 2. I think Kirk was better in Game 2. Next week we should be comparing Game 3 vs. Game 1 vs. Game 2. and so on. 

 

HTTR! 

 

 

[skinny21]

Well put @Skinsinparadise

 

If Cousins plays as he has so far, looking to the draft will probably be my preference.  If he plays closer to the previous two years (even if it takes some time to get there), I'd rather pay him.  

 

The one criticism I've seen of Kirk (and the issue with paying him big bucks) that I can agree with is lack of consistency (and starting slow, but that's a more minor issue in the grand scheme of things).  

 

I think the following are either untrue, or are blown out of proportion on the board:

He's not clutch 

He can't carry the team

His contract will harm the team

He's an average QB

He sucks in the RZ

He plays poorly when pressured

He's not a leader

 

 

I would go into more detail, but I feel like I'd be banging my head against the wall... so I'm going to (uncharacteristically, lol) cut myself short.  

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

 

 

I think the following are either untrue, or are blown out of proportion on the board:

He's not clutch 

He can't carry the team

His contract will harm the team

He's an average QB

He sucks in the RZ

He plays poorly when pressured

He's not a leader

 

 

Spot on.  These are most of the arguments I take on around here.  Although, I will say the playing poorly when pressured thing has a lot of truth to it, but so does most every other QB playing on Sundays.  Even the great ones.

[Tay]

I still hope we are able to re-sign Kirk. I just wouldn't pay him based on his leverage. I'd pay him what I think market value is for Kirk. If he doesn't want to sign based on those terms, I'd hope we place the transition tag on him and draft a QB in the upcoming draft.

[Riggo'sRangers]

42 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

C. Bruce is unlikely to go wild anyway with an extra 20 million to spend.  I'd put money on a good chunk of that dough will just carry over and won't be used.

Bingo.  I hate that about Bruce.  I want the best team we can fiscally manage.  Don't be cheap just because you can.  Get better players & win.  Want to make a bunch of money Bruce & Dan?  Want to have more Redskins fans at home games?  Win, and lower prices on concessions (Different topic but what the hell).  Take a page out of the Falcons Fans Playbook.  Get the best team you can and win ****ing games.  It ain't rocket science. Hail

[SWFLSkins]

 

[OVCChairman]

1 hour ago, skinny21 said:

The contract discussion is a little weird to me.  It seems to mainly center around two things 1) paying Kirk what he's worth (i.e. not overpaying), and 2) the question of how Kirk signing a LTD affects the building of the team around him.  

 

The first point is, obviously, about market value.  QB salaries are absolutely ridiculous ATM.  Cousins, Stafford, Luck, Tannehill and Carr were all essentially the signed as highest paid at their position, despite the fact that none of them are the best producers at their position.  Plenty of other QBs have received pretty crazy contracts despite not at all deserving them (Osweiler is the obvious one).  Kirk certainly isn't the best at his position, yet we'll have to pay him more (if we want to retain him) because that's the nature of the beast.  It sucks, it's BS, and yet it's what the NFL has become.  

 

Yes, age and potential are things to factor in... but we also have to keep in mind that we tagged him after his 1st (and now 2nd) year as a starter.  

 

2) The affect on the team around him... I've already posted about the salary cap ramifications, but here's a summary:  we're at 58mil in projected cap space next year.  If we signed Kirk at 25mil, we'd have ~33mil left.  Enough money to re-sign the FAs we want to retain and have money left to dabble in FA (and pay the rookies etc.).  So no, I don't see an expensive contract as a hindrance to building the team... especially since we've made a much greater effort at building through the draft.  If we're hoping to win the offseason with a bunch of expensive contracts, then yes, we can't afford Kirk.  Don't think that's the case though. 

One thing I would like to point out regarding this part: 

 

The first point is, obviously, about market value.  QB salaries are absolutely ridiculous ATM.  Cousins, Stafford, Luck, Tannehill and Carr were all essentially the signed as highest paid at their position, despite the fact that none of them are the best producers at their position.  Plenty of other QBs have received pretty crazy contracts despite not at all deserving them (Osweiler is the obvious one).  Kirk certainly isn't the best at his position, yet we'll have to pay him more (if we want to retain him) because that's the nature of the beast.  It sucks, it's BS, and yet it's what the NFL has become.  

 

Outside of Carr, none of those guys have made their team contenders.  Luck has been beat up and destroyed because there is no investment in the line, Stafford has shown ability but he also had one of the most gifted WR to ever touch an NFL field, and there were actually people saying Cutler filling in for Tannehill was an UPGRADE.  All of those QBs have shown ability, but none of them have won against the better teams in the NFL.  Carr being the exception since he was hurt prior to the playoffs.  Is it them?  Or is it the inflated contract?  Yes, there are 5 teams that paid a lot because of the market, but that means there are 24 or so teams that DON'T have an elite QB, that also haven't paid market value for a QB like that, and we're all sitting in the same place.   Chicken or egg... Overpay because he's the best option or invest in the team and hope you can find an equivalent output by other means.  None of these situations are ideal, but we can't change the past and how it fell apart to begin with.  

[TD_washingtonredskins]

11 hours ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

We've seen Cousins get into the type of rhythm that allows him to take over a game (when his weapons cooperate). We haven't seen that this year, with these inferior weapons and no McVay. That's worrisome.

 

The effort, efficiency, and production we've gotten from Kirk so far this season, we could be getting from a talented rookie at a fraction of a fraction of the cost. That's impossible to ignore despite the heights we've seen Cousins reach, in a better situation. 

 

He needs to improve at least to his previous levels, in this situation this year, or it will be impossible not to prefer the alternative--even though trying to replace an average veteran QB is a boom/bust prospect and we really haven't shown the ability to better utilize the cap funds we'd save at the QB position anyways. 

 

In fairness, we didn't see it from Cousins this early in 2015 or 2016 either. For some reason, he starts very slowly. To me, that's a bit of an issue in and of itself...but if he improves as the season goes on as he did in the past two seasons, his output will be similar. 

[PartyPosse]

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I'd replace the word "we've" with "you and some others".  I've seen Kirk do exactly what he did yesterday and in person. And he has done it multiple times. The Carolina and Giants are just loud bad games and are over represented in some people's heads.   Kirk to me has been hot and cold in the clutch.  

My reference about the Kirk we saw not being the Kirk were used to seeing was in regards to him taking a backseat to the running game and not having to throw it 40 times. I wasn't referring to the clutch drive at the end.

[PartyPosse]

3 hours ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

It was set by Carr, Stafford and the idiot BA.

That was THEIR market value. We have no idea how other teams/GMs perceive Kirk. His market value this year was 24 million because that's what we had to pay. Next year if we do hit slap him with any kind of tag, we'll have no idea what his market value is, especially if he continues to have a mediocre season.

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

My reference about the Kirk we saw not being the Kirk were used to seeing was in regards to him taking a backseat to the running game and not having to throw it 40 times. I wasn't referring to the clutch drive at the end.

 

OK, thought you were referring to him not being a clutch guy in general.  But if that's not the case and you are fine with Kirk in the clutch -- then sorry for misinterpreting.