I Want Cousins To Start 16 Games This Fall

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

Let's just say Cousins lays two more eggs like the Giants game, does the contingent still want to see him for 11 more games?

 

If not - Colt or Griffin?

 

Maybe I'm just used to the drama as the only form of entertainment with this team, but there is absolutely nothing that excites me about the prospect of watching Colt McCoy start at QB.  Most likely, he would run this offense more efficiently than Griffin.  But at the end of the day, I don't see that it would have any value whatsoever.  At best, he wins a few games and gets us a later draft pick.  I'd much prefer to watch Griffin and see if he can muster any signs of improvement but then we are on the hook for 16 mil if he gets hurt.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, Kirk - play better and stay healthy.  The two scenarios above make me sick to my stomach.  Even sicker than watching Kirk play catch with the opposition.

[dc1]

The skins desperately wanted Griff to succeed. Annoited him starter. Gave him his bonus. It was his job to lose, and he lost it. Period. Mostly due to has lack of pocket awareness and lack there of vision. Quite simple.

That fantastic use of the word "Period" as if no other factors should be considered or applied. Let's just plug the ears and look forward in the direction that you point me.

[boobiemiles]

Kirk Cousins is going to cost the Washington DC, and the good state of Maryland, the service(s) of the Redskins franchise.  You can't bounce back from benching a potential franchise qb for a back up, when both can walk.  If I had money I would do everything in my power to dissociate myself with everything Redskins' if that happened?  Kirk has 23 ints in 12 starts games.  In 12 games he is 3 and 9, with a 78.3 QBR.  Can we stop with the experiments people?  Frankenstein killed the good doctor in the end.  

[Jumbo]

 

 

 

 

 

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Maybe for once, we shouldn't give Boobie the ball.

[DJHJR86]

Kirk has started more games for Jay Gruden than any other quarterback on roster. He doesn't deserve a full season. He had a shot last year and was benched. I do think he deserves two more games. If he continues his poor play in the next two games, you have to go with another quarterback.  The other two quarterbacks may not be the long term answers but Kirk isn't looking like he's one. I hope Kirk turns it around because I just want the Redskins to win.

 

How many offseasons/OTA's did Kirk get as the starter under Gruden?  

[RandyHolt]

....

 

The problem I see is in his pre-snap reads.  Especially in the Vagiants game he was pre-determined to throw the ball at a certain receiver, or a certain route, rather than read the defense.

 

That is a problem.

 

Not that I can clearly dispute your post, but I would like to think Gruden has simplified certain plays for him, and have him not have to read the defense (pre or post snap) on every play, like presume is done for most all (non luck) young QBs.

 

When the play is a quick slant, it's a quick slant - no much reading is needed.

 

If you are right, I think struggles are to be expected with just 12 starts, as no one expects him to be a pro at reading NFL defenses. You know DCs are confusing him as much as they can; they likely smell blood in the water with the pick history.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Kirk Cousins is going to cost the Washington DC, and the good state of Maryland, the service(s) of the Redskins franchise.  You can't bounce back from benching a potential franchise qb for a back up, when both can walk.  If I had money I would do everything in my power to dissociate myself with everything Redskins' if that happened?  Kirk has 23 ints in 12 starts games.  In 12 games he is 3 and 9, with a 78.3 QBR.  Can we stop with the experiments people?  Frankenstein killed the good doctor in the end.  

Oh.

[Skinsinparadise]

I liked all of your post, but this edited part reminded me of something lol...

 

After Cousins was named starter for the season and gave his first presser, a common refrain went something like this:

 

"Isn't it refreshing to have a QB who knows just what to say in a press conference?"

 

 

 

I am with you, its about how they play not what they say.  The only thing I'd say about it though is personally I do like it when players explain their mistakes and suggest what they learned from it versus the alternative.  For example, Matt Jones after the game was somewhat defiant about his fumbles suggesting stuff happens and its not a big deal.   What runs though my mind (whether I am right or wrong who knows) is it doesn't bother Matt a lot when he fumbles because as he said its part of the game.  Jay seemed to think it was indeed a big deal this week and I noticed Jones changed his tune.

 

We never know what truly are going through the players heads but for me I like it when it seems like the player is attuned to fixing their flaws.  And the only way we know if that's the case is when they express it.     But I agree with the overall point, I don't care about how players handle their press conferences.  And on Cousins that wasn't my point -- my point was I liked that he can pinpoint his weaknesses and talk about addressing them.    I am sure there is always a plan for every player to correct their flaws whether expressed or not but for me I still liked hearing that Kirk is well aware and on it.

[Fat Stupid Loser]

Let's just say Cousins lays two more eggs like the Giants game, does the contingent still want to see him for 11 more games?

 

If not - Colt or Griffin?

 

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, Kirk - play better and stay healthy.  The two scenarios above make me sick to my stomach.  Even sicker than watching Kirk play catch with the opposition.

11 more games. There is nothing to gain in playing the other two. Endzone Dave above is right.

[ZRagone]

Let's just say Cousins lays two more eggs like the Giants game, does the contingent still want to see him for 11 more games?

 

If not - Colt or Griffin?

 

Question 1:  If two of his next four games are like the Giants games, then I'd be okay if the brain trust decided to bench him. I would not see that as a situation of a "QB Carousel" at that point, but an indication that they've made up their mind that they've "seen enough". Similarly, I'm absolutely fine if he ends up with two stinkers out of the next 4 and we still stick with him till the end of the season. To me, that'd be an indication that they either think they want to see more OR they figure it's not really any better going to the other guys.

 

I'm basically down for whatever the team does at this point save for an option that was never going to happen...a knee jerk benching of Cousins less than halfway into the season because of a single bad game. Otherwise, I'm pretty open to trusting the brain trust of Gruden and McCloughan.

 

Question 2:  So let's say that scenario I outlined above (two giant like games out of the next four) occur and they do decide to bench. Then basically my hope would be the following. If they're still convinced that there's a better than 50/50 chance Griffin has improved and could be viable in the future, you then play him to see if you're right. If it's ANYTHING less than that, I hope they play Colt McCoy and protect themselves from the potential of a $16 million mishap.

 

However, my primary hope and thought at this point is that Cousins doesn't have two Giants style games out of the next four and all of this is moot.

[ThomasRoane]

 

I'm not really saying this about you since I can't recall any previous post by you on the subject, but I'm gonna use this part of your post as a jumping off point...

One thing I tire of is seeing everything extrapolated to its extreme in order to make a point. "To expect him to be an elite QB after all he has had to endure (constantly looking over his shoulder, very few reps with the starters, buried under the dog house last season, etc) is just not a reasonable expectation"

 

Expecting him to be elite? Really? People have been saying they expect Cousins to be elite by now? Because I haven't seen it.

 

Good point.  Elite is not the correct word.  What I should have said is that it appears many people want Kirk to be much farther ahead because he has been on the roster for 4 years.  If Scot had been the GM for all four of those years then I believe that would be a reasonable expectation.  The Redskins environment has not been good for any QB for a very, very long time.  Just an example is Dan ignoring Kirk after the 2012 Browns victory to prove to RGIII that he wasn't "cheating" on him.  To be fair, the environment hasn't done Robert or Colt any favors either. 

 

Honestly, I would rather not have Kirk be perceived as "elite."  As a long time fan I don't want an elite QB because that means elite money.  Which also means less money to spread around to the rest of the team.  Gibbs 1.0 Redskins won Super Bowls with good talent spread throughout the roster.  Seattle did the same thing and they were very reluctant to give Wilson a big contract because they know that you just can't possibly pay everybody what they "think" they deserve. 

 

So here's to hoping for an Above Average QB in Kirk surrounded by a very talented O-Line, Receiving Corps, ball hawking defense, and truly "special" teams.

[ThomasRoane]

These quotes could apply to at least 50 percent of the starters in the NFL. 

 

There are very few QBs who can put a team on their back if the running game and defense is failing them. 

 

Not to mention if you read those opinions closely a common thread is that those pundits don't believe the roster is good enough to expect the team to win week to week.  Scot McCloughan said the team wouldn't win many games but would be very competitive and hit you.  So far, that's been the case.  The track record for Redskins draft picks before this year have been pretty bad.  I doubt any team has cut as many 2nd and 3rd rounders as the Redskins have. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Question 1:  If two of his next four games are like the Giants games, then I'd be okay if the brain trust decided to bench him. I would not see that as a situation of a "QB Carousel" at that point, but an indication that they've made up their mind that they've "seen enough". Similarly, I'm absolutely fine if he ends up with two stinkers out of the next 4 and we still stick with him till the end of the season. To me, that'd be an indication that they either think they want to see more OR they figure it's not really any better going to the other guys.

 

I'm basically down for whatever the team does at this point save for an option that was never going to happen...a knee jerk benching of Cousins less than halfway into the season because of a single bad game. Otherwise, I'm pretty open to trusting the brain trust of Gruden and McCloughan.

 

Question 2:  So let's say that scenario I outlined above (two giant like games out of the next four) occur and they do decide to bench. Then basically my hope would be the following. If they're still convinced that there's a better than 50/50 chance Griffin has improved and could be viable in the future, you then play him to see if you're right. If it's ANYTHING less than that, I hope they play Colt McCoy and protect themselves from the potential of a $16 million mishap.

 

However, my primary hope and thought at this point is that Cousins doesn't have two Giants style games out of the next four and all of this is moot.

 

Nice post. 

 

I too don't have a strong feeling for how long the Cousins evaluation should be. How would I be in a better position than McCloughan and Gruden to judge that. If they knew today that Cousins wasn't the long-term answer and decided to play someone else, I would be skeptical but ultimately understand. 

 

But, once they move on (as you state) it would need to be for good. At that point, especially if we are into week 7 or 8, it would be Colt time to close out the year. The hope would be that you know enough about the rest of the guys and know what you're looking for at QB this off-season. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Good point.  Elite is not the correct word.  What I should have said is that it appears many people want Kirk to be much farther ahead because he has been on the roster for 4 years.  If Scot had been the GM for all four of those years then I believe that would be a reasonable expectation.  The Redskins environment has not been good for any QB for a very, very long time.  Just an example is Dan ignoring Kirk after the 2012 Browns victory to prove to RGIII that he wasn't "cheating" on him.  To be fair, the environment hasn't done Robert or Colt any favors either. 

 

Honestly, I would rather not have Kirk be perceived as "elite."  As a long time fan I don't want an elite QB because that means elite money.  Which also means less money to spread around to the rest of the team.  Gibbs 1.0 Redskins won Super Bowls with good talent spread throughout the roster.  Seattle did the same thing and they were very reluctant to give Wilson a big contract because they know that you just can't possibly pay everybody what they "think" they deserve. 

 

So here's to hoping for an Above Average QB in Kirk surrounded by a very talented O-Line, Receiving Corps, ball hawking defense, and truly "special" teams.

 

For me, I can say that while I may not have "wanted" Cousins to be further ahead than he is (I definitely didn't expect him to be), I did want to eventually see improvement in the biggest areas that I felt he needed to improve in--which for me was cutting down on the INTs and making the offense more dynamic. Those are the two things that got everyone hyped up last year about Kirk in his games against the Jags and Eagles: 37 points per game, 5 TDs and 1 INT.

 

So far I can't say I have seen either one of those areas improved...so my mindset is to say "He needs to start showing he has indeed improved".  He doesn't need to perform at that same level as in those two games but being a 14-17 points "game manager" that tosses INTs at a high rate won't do.

[ZRagone]

So there seems to be this sentiment that it's not fair that Cousin's isn't being given the same "patience" as Griffin, that it's unfair that people are judging him on such short amount of starts, etc.

 

Let me offer a count point here for those that wish to deal with the reality of how things typically work in the NFL as opposed to how any of us perhaps feel they "Should" be....

 

High round draft picks are going to get more rope on average than late round draft picks. High round draft picks are going to get more chances typically than late round draft picks. More time is going to be given to high round draft picks normally than late round draft picks.

 

We may dislike that notion, but you can look across the league and find examples of this fact being more often true than not. There's many reasons for this, but typically the largest is the fact that there was SOME kind of aspect of the players game that seemed "special" enough to make a team gamble on them in the early rounds. Something that, typically, just wasn't seen in the game of a late round prospect. And that something "special" tends to make coaches and evaluators think "well maybe if I can just get ahold of them.".

 

So while I understand the basic nature of wanting to compare Cousin to Griffin's chances and declare "UNFAIR" based on that, I was curious what the numbers would bear out by comparing him to peers.

 

Between the 2000 draft and 2011 draft, 53 quarterbacks were taken in the "middle rounds" 3 through 5.

 

*  22 (41%) of those never started a game in their first four years in the league.

*  41 (77%) of those had less starts by the end of their fourth year than Kirk Cousins has at this moment.

*  37 (70%) of them had less starts by the time their career ended than Kirk Cousins has at this moment.

*  Of the 12 quarterbacks who had more starts by the end of their fourth year than Cousins:

***  6 were drafted in the 3rd (Colt McCoy, Trent Edwards, Charlie Frye, Matt Schaub, Chris Simms, Josh McCown)

***  3 were drafted in the 4th (Chris Weinke, Seneca Wallace, Kyle Orton)

***  3 were drafted in the 5th (AJ Feeley, Dan Orlovsky, John Skelton)

 

Some names that had less starts in their first four years, but had as many or more by the time they finished? Sage Rosenfels, Mike McMahon, David Garrard, and Chris Redman.

 

Some names that still have just never had as many starts? Luke McCown, Troy Smith, Charlie Whitehurst, Brodie Croyle, TJ Yates.

 

Kirk Cousins, at this very moment, has have had more starts than 77% of the quarterbacks drafted in the mid rounds from 2000-2011 had in their first four years.

 

If he starts until at least week 8, he will have started more games than 89% of those QBs in their first four years. If he lasts all season, only two quarterbacks of the 53 (Orton, Edwards) will have had more starts in their first four years than he would've had. 

 

While it's understandable that people may have issues with how things have been handled or the way Griffin has been treated as opposed to Cousins in terms of his leash or his opportunities, the reality is that Cousins is not being given a raw or unfair deal as it relates to the normal standard for how the NFL functions. Since some on this forum have enjoyed throwing it around a lot lately...it is quantifiably provable that Kirk Cousins will has had more opportunities as the starter of a team than the vast majority of QB's taken around his draft position.

 

My hope is he gets the entire year, but even if he doesn't, it's just not reasonable to attempt and suggest that the Redskins acted rashly or outside of the NFL norm if they give up on him after having invested more starts in him than 3/4ths of the QB's taken around his draft position.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

ZRag - that's a fantastic post. 

 

Cousins is rather fortunate to have gotten a couple different opportunities to grab the job and run with it. Any opportunity to start a game in the NFL is a privilege. Like Califan said above (also a great post), if he doesn't show relatively quickly that he can begin to score points in this league, he isn't guaranteed a thing. 

 

The only thing that makes me think he'll get several more games is the unique situation on our roster right now. I suppose you could roll the dice and give Griffin another shot (though as we get later into the season that becomes a much larger risk). Other than that, it's McCoy. Again, once you know Cousins isn't the guy (and personally that's always been my only goal this year - to finally determine what you have in Cousins), it can't hurt to play McCoy, but there's really no rush to get him back in there. 

 

Cousins is the last of the 3 guys on the team to have to show what they have. We pretty much know what Colt and Griffin are at this point. If it weren't for the $16M you would easily give the first-rounder one last shot. Because you can't (and because Colt is so very average) I think Cousins gets at least until the bye. 

 

** Now that I've written that, I fully expect Griffin to be named the starter and McCoy's lacerated toe to be named the backup this week vs. Philly. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

These quotes could apply to at least 50 percent of the starters in the NFL. 

 

There are very few QBs who can put a team on their back if the running game and defense is failing them. 

 

The difference, though, is that while every QB can have at least a few games where they take a team that's not performing well and guide them to a win primarily with their arm when it's most needed, Cousins doesn't have those games.

 

For example, according to pro football reference, Griffin has had 5 game winning drives and McCoy has had 5 game winning drives.

 

Cousins has had 1, and that was the Ravens game in 2012. He didn't play the entire drive.

 

And to underscore what I said earlier, even JaMarcus Russell had 3 game winning drives in his first 19 starts. Ryan Leaf had 3 game winning drives in his first 14 starts. In terms of just games started, Cousins hasn't had any yet.

 

The closest he's come to a game winning drive in a game that he played the entire game winning drive, was against the Falcons in 2013. Shanahan chose to go for 2, though, but it would have at least tied the game.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

Some names that had less starts in their first four years, but had as many or more by the time they finished? Safe Rosenfels, Mike McMahon, David Garrard, and Chris Redman.

 

Some names that still have just never had as many starts? Sage Rosenfels, Luke McCown, Troy Smith, Charlie Whitehurst, Brodie Croyle, TJ Yates.

 

 

Unless Sage and Safe are brothers (lol), is it possible for Rosenfels to be on both lists? (not sure I quite understand the 2nd list, though)

[ZRagone]

Unless Sage and Safe are brothers (lol), is it possible for Rosenfels to be on both lists? (not sure I quite understand the 2nd list, though)

 

LOL! Stupid "less than or equal to" and "Greater than or equal to"

 

Safe/Sage has 12 for his career Time for a ninja edit

[mistertim]

Safe Rosenfels is Sage's less interception prone brother.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Good point.  Elite is not the correct word.  

 

But is Flacco elite?

[illone]

Let's just say Cousins lays two more eggs like the Giants game, does the contingent still want to see him for 11 more games?

 

If not - Colt or Griffin?

 

 

When is our "bye week"?

 

That will probably be the only way Gruden could back-track from the "It's your team, Kirk" quote that Jay made publicly without getting fired on the spot, or having the fans rain him with beer bottles.

 

I'd probably want to see Griffin as I think the story on him is not complete.  Kid has all the talent in the world and I tend to agree with Shanny that it's going to take him a few years to "get it" and the only way he will is if he plays.  I'm of the mind that if RG3 shows improvement over what we saw in 2014, the team would be inclined to keep him around next year and pay him the $16MM because even at that price tag it's better than the alternative of starting completely over.  I am guessing that this latest benching situation has humbled Rg3 to the point where he will no longer say stupid stuff in the media, and perhaps spend more time actually working on his craft and studying film, etc.  I could be totally wrong on that last part, but gun to my head I still think RG3 has the most potential "upside" of anyone else on the roster.

 

2¢

[VRIEL1]

So I decided to go and look at 2012 and compare to this year some things. 

 

-The Skins were 1-3 at this point that same year. It went win, loss, loss. did people call for RG3 to be changed out? did people say Shanahan should be fired?

 

- In the first Giants game in NY the Skins lost. 

 

- RG3 had 2 turn overs, 1 INT, 2 Fumbles- 1 lost. 

 

- They had 4 games where the score was under 20 points. 

 

- The first half of the year (before bye week 10) the team was 3 wins to 6 losses. 

 

However to the teams credit they won the last 7 games. Which is my point, Cousins is having a similar start. If we are judging the same then the team should have pulled RG3 that year at some point. but.....it was announced it was RG3's team for 2012. Well 2015 has been named Cousins team. Cousins should get, in my opinion, all 16 games. What if things start clicking like they did for RG3 in the last 7 games? We won't know if Cousins is not given the chance. Do we just hate Cousins cause he was not drafted top of the first round. All QB's who are drafted after #4 of the first round suck? 

 

I'm personally of the mind set let Cousins play all 16 games. Lets see what he can do, what he can develope into. Since I don't think Gruden is going anywhere due to his contract cost lets build up this team and get quality players. Draft another QB and play the best one. But for a change....keep the coaching staff, try to keep the QB (Cousins), and bring in quality players around him to see if this team can get better. 

[VRIEL1]

Also of note......

 

In RG3's first game he had 1 fumble that was recovered. The second game he had 1 INT. The third game he had 3 fumbles with 1 lost. Technically he could have potentially have had 5 turn overs by this point. Cousins has 4. No better no worse.