War Paint Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I thought Rex was an UFA. He's won't be back unless we make an effort to give him a new contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 He is an UFA. I'd rather roll with 2 QBs on the active roster and one on the PS. We did that when Rex/Beck were here and Jonathan "straight out of" Compton was on the PS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Out of the first 13 games, four of those were definitely winnable if we had better line play or better receivers. Or even better special teams. If the Skins had gone into the final three games at 7-6 or 6-7, it would have been an entirely different season. KC may be a good backup, but he has no way to contribute unless Griffin gets hurt. I see your point, but we were also about four plays away from having a winless season this year. Think about that for just a minute. We were losing to Oakland 14-0 before we got a field goal and a pick-6 to get back into the game. If we don't make two plays in that game, don't make one of any number of plays vs. Chicago (a game we won in a shootout with a late drive), or don't stop Woodhead an inch short of the goal line vs. SD, we would have gone 0-16! I'm not really jumping on you as much as I'm floored by how close this defending division champion was to having a historically bad season. Your logic and 'what if' scenarios just got me down the path of thinking about the same things in the opposite direction. Now, I agree with your larger point that we need to assess the return and value before deciding what to do with Cousins. Hopefully that goes without saying. Edit: Sorry to veer further off topic on this one, but I just looked up the win percentages at Pro Football Reference and it's astounding to me. In each of our three wins in 2013 our opponent had a greater than 80% chance of winning at some point during the game (Raiders: 81.4%, Bears: 80.8%, Chargers: 99.9%). Wow. Those were our WINS! Granted, we had as high as a 97.5% win percentage in a game we lost (vs. Dallas) so it cuts both ways, but that's fascinating to me that we really were a couple plays away from 0-16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dckey Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Just a question is the back up QB more valuable than any starter, ST player or situational player on any other team? Why are we putting so much value on the QB who might not play the entire season? I don't dislike Cousins I just don't get the value in the back up QB like some of us do. Look at who we have drafted in the last 3-4 years in the 2nd to 4th rounds and they are all playing or were scheduled to play(injured) significant minutes. Wouldn't we want a potential starter more than the back up QB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I think the interesting thing is the Browns have set the floor. By saying we won't consider more than a third they've established that as the minimum because any bid below their supposed max will be turned down. Hey, these guys said they might go as high as a third but we felt sorry for them so, we settled for less won't happen. The Browns know this. The third is their opening lowest bid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Just a question is the back up QB more valuable than any starter, ST player or situational player on any other team? Why are we putting so much value on the QB who might not play the entire season? I don't dislike Cousins I just don't get the value in the back up QB like some of us do. Look at who we have drafted in the last 3-4 years in the 2nd to 4th rounds and they are all playing or were scheduled to play(injured) significant minutes. Wouldn't we want a potential starter more than the back up QB? Back up QBs are pretty damn important, especially when you consider that our starting QB plays risky. A good back up can help a team stay above water while you wait for the starter to return. A bad back up will kill the season if the starter goes down for several weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dckey Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Back up QBs are pretty damn important, especially when you consider that our starting QB plays risky. A good back up can help a team stay above water while you wait for the starter to return. A bad back up will kill the season if the starter goes down for several weeks. Not debating whether they are important or not but where do you rank them on level of importance??? Are they more important than the starters excluding the P or K.... Are they more valuable than a nickel DB, ST player???? I just don't value someone that may not play more than someone I know needs to play every week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesMadisonSkins Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Last year ... I would have traded taking Cousins in the 4th if it meant we took a punter instead and he was an All-Pro caliber punter. Punter and Kicker are more important than 2nd string QBs. Kickers and punters can win games and lose games much more than a backup QB can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJD2 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Last year ... I would have traded taking Cousins in the 4th if it meant we took a punter instead and he was an All-Pro caliber punter. Punter and Kicker are more important than 2nd string QBs. Kickers and punters can win games and lose games much more than a backup QB can. By that logic you could say the most important person on the team is the long snapper since every kicking play depends on him delivering the ball in a precise location every single time. Just playing devil's advocate here but I think you might be minimizing the importance of a 2nd string QB. If I recall correctly Gibbs always said the backup QB was the 2nd most most important player on the team after the starting QB. That's good enough for me I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesMadisonSkins Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 By that logic you could say the most important person on the team is the long snapper since every kicking play depends on him delivering the ball in a precise location every single time. Just playing devil's advocate here but I think you might be minimizing the importance of a 2nd string QB. If I recall correctly Gibbs always said the backup QB was the 2nd most most important player on the team after the starting QB. That's good enough for me I guess. It was made a little tongue-in-cheek ... but our punting was so bad last year that, if we had a decent punter with decent accuracy, we very well could have been in more winnable situations. Point being, Cousins only saw the field at the end when it was meaningless for god knows what reason (we'll probably never really know). So I think an All-Pro punter is more valuable to an overall function of a football team than the #2 QB ... If you are on your #2 QB ... 95% of the time, unless your backup QB is named Tom Brady or Kurt Warner, your season is shot. Cousins has good value as a backup, yes. But from what I've seen, right now, I'd be just as trustworthy with Rex coming in to spell Griff for a few games than I would Cousins. Rex can still sling it. But anyway, I digress ... point is, we need a lot. And the luxury of a stud backup QB is osmething we can worry about when we are going 12-4 and 13-3 and a Super Bowl contender. Not when we are 3-13 and lucky to just get back to 10-6 where we were in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJD2 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I understand what you mean about the importance of a punter, especially after suffering through another season of Rocca. And I think you could argue any starter is more important than a backup since they are, well, starting. One difference though is I don't see a good backup QB as a luxury but rather a must have, especially for a middling team. If your starter loses any significant time (say 2-3 games), having a good backup could very well mean the difference between going 9-7 and 7-9 and whether or not you make the playoffs. I think in a mediocre division like the NFC East this is certainly plausible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theTruthTeller Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I see your point, but we were also about four plays away from having a winless season this year. Think about that for just a minute. We were losing to Oakland 14-0 before we got a field goal and a pick-6 to get back into the game. If we don't make two plays in that game, don't make one of any number of plays vs. Chicago (a game we won in a shootout with a late drive), or don't stop Woodhead an inch short of the goal line vs. SD, we would have gone 0-16! I'm not really jumping on you as much as I'm floored by how close this defending division champion was to having a historically bad season. Your logic and 'what if' scenarios just got me down the path of thinking about the same things in the opposite direction. Now, I agree with your larger point that we need to assess the return and value before deciding what to do with Cousins. Hopefully that goes without saying. Edit: Sorry to veer further off topic on this one, but I just looked up the win percentages at Pro Football Reference and it's astounding to me. In each of our three wins in 2013 our opponent had a greater than 80% chance of winning at some point during the game (Raiders: 81.4%, Bears: 80.8%, Chargers: 99.9%). Wow. Those were our WINS! Granted, we had as high as a 97.5% win percentage in a game we lost (vs. Dallas) so it cuts both ways, but that's fascinating to me that we really were a couple plays away from 0-16. I think you might have misunderstood my post. It certainly wasn't to propose that we are close to greatness. Far from it. My point is that as bad as we are, we still had an opportunity to win several games we lost. And having Kirk Cousins hold a clip board isn't going to win games. We need better starters. If another team can use KC as a starter, and is willing to give us a draft choice or a player we need in return, that's an opportunity to improve the team. By the time we need a backup QB that can win games, KC will be gone through free agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theTruthTeller Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I understand what you mean about the importance of a punter, especially after suffering through another season of Rocca. And I think you could argue any starter is more important than a backup since they are, well, starting. One difference though is I don't see a good backup QB as a luxury but rather a must have, especially for a middling team. If your starter loses any significant time (say 2-3 games), having a good backup could very well mean the difference between going 9-7 and 7-9 and whether or not you make the playoffs. I think in a mediocre division like the NFC East this is certainly plausible. Let's get a good backup when we go 3-3 in the division. At 0-6, I'll take a chance on the best WR we can get in a trade. Preferably, one that returns kicks and punts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I think the most interesting thing about this thread is that we may have learned what the bidding floor for Cousins might be. When the Browns said that the "most" they would give up for Cousins is a third that actually sets the lowest bid. After all, does anyone think Allen would think to himself... Gee, that's the most they would give up, I don't want to screw 'em, let's go lower. The Browns know this too and so by floating this they are trying to see if there could be interest in giving away a third. Even though they say it's their max bid in reality it's their opening bid. Now, the question is at what point are we interested and at what point would they or other teams drop out. For me, the minimum I'd trade Kirk for is a second. Because I consider backup QB a starter and a premium. More, we'd be trading him to be a starter so we ought to get a probable starter in return. The one caveat is how well do you think the Redskins are going to do in 2014. If you think it's a growing/rebuilding year then you could settle for less. Because if you suspect you're going to have a losing record or win 8 games then who cares if the back up comes in and stinks it and you lose another. However, if you think you can make some noise than a good back up becomes critical. So, the price is contingent on what we think Cousins is worth plus how good we project the team to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tjdad21136 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Trade Cousins for 2nd or 3rd round pick and try to get Josh Johnson as RG3 backup. He know Grudens offense se since he was a backup in CIN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWJ Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Trade Cousins for 2nd or 3rd round pick and try to get Josh Johnson as RG3 backup. He know Grudens offense se since he was a backup in CIN! This will something to keep an eye on. I have posted before that I think Johnson might be our b/u to RG3. Jon Gruden drafted Johnson his last year in Tampa and Jay was their. Then Cincy signed him last year to a 2 year deal. It will be interesting to see how things unfold with this situation, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesMadisonSkins Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I was trying to figure out who the Bengals had that we could bring in to ease the transition into the new system ala Kyle Shanahan and Rex Grossman, but they didn't have any free agents. Maybe Johnson, being one year left on his deal, could be acquired for a low-round pick. Trade Cuzzo for a 2nd and trade a 6th or 7th for Johnson ... or maybe the Bengals release him, but I doubt that would happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Cousins was drafted as future trade bait. I liked the pick at the time, but it was a luxury pick. On a good team, that's fine. But we still suck now and need new blood. Trade him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaxJoe Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I think the interesting thing is the Browns have set the floor. By saying we won't consider more than a third they've established that as the minimum because any bid below their supposed max will be turned down. Hey, these guys said they might go as high as a third but we felt sorry for them so, we settled for less won't happen. The Browns know this. The third is their opening lowest bid. Good point as always Burgold. Frankly I think the Browns are foolish to not bring in Cousins akin to how we brought in Rexy from Houston when Kyle came over. But in this situation, the Browns need a starter and Cousins can at least fill that role this season while a rookie warms up to the Kyle playbook. I think that's worthy of at least a 2nd round pick. And for us to have two high 2nd rounders would be HUGE. Thats a starting OG and probably a starting DE (barring the Bowen or Carriker ability to return to form). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theTruthTeller Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I think the most interesting thing about this thread is that we may have learned what the bidding floor for Cousins might be. When the Browns said that the "most" they would give up for Cousins is a third that actually sets the lowest bid. After all, does anyone think Allen would think to himself... Gee, that's the most they would give up, I don't want to screw 'em, let's go lower. The Browns know this too and so by floating this they are trying to see if there could be interest in giving away a third. Even though they say it's their max bid in reality it's their opening bid. Now, the question is at what point are we interested and at what point would they or other teams drop out. I think a third is what they will dangle between now and draft day. Depending upon what Jacksonville and St. Louis do, they have a pretty decent chance of getting one of the big three QBs. That's their leverage. The Skins need to get someone else interested to create competition. As things get closer to draft day, or on draft day, Cleveland may be looking to trade down and pass on drafting a QB. They could fill a lot of holes in the draft by trading down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thekyle1591 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I wouldn't let him go for anything less than a 2nd, and I don't think we get more than a 3rd. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
technomusic Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I wouldn't let him go for anything less than a 2nd, and I don't think we get more than a 3rd. Just saying. he needs to go the media just gonna keep dogging griff whenever he plays bad... adding more pressure to him.... it was a dumb decision to take cousins then, and its look dumb 2 years later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Est.1974 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The Browns must be conscious of the Rams sat at #2 just waiting to trade back. They could go to back to #5 with OAK or #8 with MINN and leave the Browns on the outside again. Or if you were the Browns, Oakland or Minnesota, do you trade up to #2 and get taken to the cleaners by the Rams in a trade. Why not take a chance on our Kirky with a 2nd rounder instead and get an instant playmaker with your existing top ten pick. Could be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliffmark1 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I may be an outlier but I believe the backup QB to be just behind every starter. So like he's the most important backup, even though other depth gets rotated and plays every game. This is football not t-ball people get hurt and go down, you need to have a backup who gives you a decent shot to win some games. I think Kirk gives us a decent shot to win some big games if RG3 went down. Its easy to say the backup QB doesn't matter but who do you have throwing if the starter goes? You need a backup QB at some point, is it you can play any 7th rounder, and journeyman? Do they have to fit the system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Let's get a good backup when we go 3-3 in the division. At 0-6, I'll take a chance on the best WR we can get in a trade. Preferably, one that returns kicks and punts. Don't forget that we have Richard Crawford who missed all of last year due to injury. He was a pretty good returner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.