The (only!) official ES all things Kirk Cousins should we shouldn't we off-season thread.

[dckey]

6 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

Please explain why this is too much. Please be specific. I am genuinely interested in hearing the rational.

Well first I don't believe in making someone the highest paid qb that's never won a playoff game.  Luck received $87 million in injury guarantees of which $47 million is fully guaranteed at signing.  I'm not ready to give him more than 15% of our salary cap.  I think Kirk is an 11-12% QB which is around 20-21 a year 60 guaranteed which will put him in the top 5 of qb's just not the #1 paid qb.  The value of the extra 4 million (20mil guaranteed) is the equivalent of another starting FA on Defense.  We are in need of possibly 5-6 starting FA's for both defense and offense.  

[mistertim]

11 hours ago, LaxBuddy21 said:

It's not about what you think he is worth or what he thinks he is worth. It's what the market is willing to pay for him. I don't understand why that's such a hard concept to understand. If you want him, that's what he costs. It's like buying a car that is priced $20k over msrp. If you want that car, you pay for it. It's a hot commodity so it is over priced. Don't like the price? Settle for a lesser car but don't expect the dealer to drop the price just because you think It's too much and he likes you. 

 

True enough. But what the rest of the market might "think" he's worth we don't actually know...people are just assuming that he's worth the contract that he's apparently going to be asking for. We also can't know if SM thinks he's worth that, even if a couple of other teams might think he is. So I suppose I could see them doing a non-exclusive tag so he can talk to other teams and he and the Skins can both get a feel for what the market actually believes he's worth. If it truly ends up being more than SM believes and is willing to pay then we'll probably ask for 2 1st round picks or something close. Then whatever team wants him will have to decide if Kirk is not only worth the mammoth contract but also giving up multiple high draft picks. If they aren't willing to then Kirk either comes back to the negotiating table with the Skins or takes a chance and plays another year under the franchise tag, knowing that things could happen that could seriously hurt his potential for getting the huge money contract in 2018...injury, having a down year, etc.

[Bang]

Nice math.

Problem is it doesn't work out when you get to the bottom of it and realize you don't have a quarterback.

then everything you bought is wasted money.

 

The NFL is a quarterback driven league. the most important piece on any team sport anywhere.

So figure, factor, add, multiply, divide, doesn't matter.

If you subtract the quarterback, you will fail.

 

~Bang

[AJ*]

56 minutes ago, TheGreek1973 said:

Josh Norman said exactly what most of as know to be true.  This team was let down big time by a horrid 3rd defense, last in the league and it wasn't even close.  Now some in here want to say oh man this is the reason you don't want to sign Cousins because you will not have money left over to fix the D.  BS, most of our problems were coaching IMO and you will see the difference this year with a different DC and a couple of additions. We may not crack top 20 and I bet you anything we will not be last in the league in 3rd down conversion stops.

 

We can throw the defense under the bus all we want but the truth of the matter is the defense came through against the Panthers and the Giants when it mattered. Kirk and the offense didn't. 

[dckey]

5 minutes ago, Bang said:

Nice math.

Problem is it doesn't work out when you get to the bottom of it and realize you don't have a quarterback.

then everything you bought is wasted money.

 

The NFL is a quarterback driven league. the most important piece on any team sport anywhere.

So figure, factor, add, multiply, divide, doesn't matter.

If you subtract the quarterback, you will fail.

 

~Bang

So do you overpay for a qb just because in your mind that is the most important piece.  Show me where a team has spent the money to make there qb the highest paid in the league and look at what there record was the following year.  I am not saying not to pay him top 5-10 money just not more than luck and if you are giving him 25 mil a year with 80 guaranteed as some has suggested than IMO he is not worth it.

[Bang]

2 minutes ago, AJ* said:

 

We can throw the defense under the bus all we want but the truth of the matter is the defense came through against the Panthers and the Giants when it mattered. Kirk and the offense didn't. 

 

I can play this fool's game, too.

 

when they let the Lions march right down and score? That mattered. Mattered a lot, in fact. Without that debacle, the giants game and Panthers game don't have as much do or die attached. Maybe none at all, in fact. we win that Lions game, and the giants game probably has nothing but seeding attached to it.
 Why isn't that part of this analysis?
Remember, Cousins scored with a minute left, and the defense gave up a 75 yard drive in 49 ****ing seconds. 
Remember? Damn that Kirk Cousins! If only he'd have scored 50 points, we would not have lost, eh?

 

I always love these types of posts that cherry pick out a game or two and blame X because this ONE time the defense did it's job.

How about the other 5 losses and tie?

 

Al;l the games matter.

All of them.
And all you prove by cherry picking out two and claiming the offensive failure in those two games is just how BAD the defense is, in that the offense must be practically perfect each week to overcome the total failure of the defense.

 

the defense would not be to blame if the offense would have been perfect every week.

that makes sense, right?

 

3rd ranked offense, 28th ranked defense.

So of course, it is the offense to blame.

 

uhhh..

 

~Dang

[wit33]

I thought the defens played well in the Lions game. Did they not? Great throws and plays were made by stafford. It happens.

 

This game was actually during the 6-1-1 stretch where the defense had a lot to do with the wins. Somehow gets overlooked by looking at total stats. NFL games should be looked at individually. 

[Bang]

22 minutes ago, dckey said:

So do you overpay for a qb just because in your mind that is the most important piece.  Show me where a team has spent the money to make there qb the highest paid in the league and look at what there record was the following year.  I am not saying not to pay him top 5-10 money just not more than luck and if you are giving him 25 mil a year with 80 guaranteed as some has suggested than IMO he is not worth it.

 

well, for one, the QB is the most important piece, and it's not just in my mind, if you don't think the QB is the most important piece of any professional sports team, there's really no point listening to what you've got to say. Who wins without a quality quarterback in today's modern NFL?

That is a fundamental truth, and even if you don't want to extrapolate it out to "all sports" it is clearly the most important position in professional football, and it's not even debatable.

 

secondly, overpaying is a word i have heard for years and i laugh every single time.

the cap and how contracts work are so fluid and malleable that it renders such words utterly meaningless.

with the Qb you pay for production. And as you did say, you must have other pieces. so there's a lot of grey area as to why any given team may or may not perform in any given year beyond the QB contract.

 

But does Aaron Rodgers count? Prior to Luck, Rodgers was the highest paid QB.

Since he signed his deal, he's 33-15.

(and he's playing in the NFC championship game for the second time in three years on Sunday.)

the Packers need defense. Their's was awful this year.

Should Rodgers be sacrificed to make room for all the free agents they need?

 

~Bang

 

 

[mistertim]

Bang, I think the point of those two games isn't that other games are unimportant, its that they were absolute must win games where its under the bright lights and the pressure is on in a huge way and that sort of situation is one where Kirk has had some problems in the past. And in both of those games he and the offense laid an egg while the defense generally did its job. The Lions game SUCKED but it was closer to the beginning of the season so it wasn't a "win and in" game, whereas the Carolina and NY games were. That is one of my worries about Kirk, is that he sometimes tends to reserve his worst play for the times when the Skins need him to play his best football. Doesn't mean he can't overcome it but in those situations he seems to get rattled early and just can't get past it. To me that's more of a mental thing. Now, I'm sure it could get better, but those sort of issues are the hardest for a QB to fix IMO. Guys who have a history of that sort of stuff (Romo, Dalton for example) tend to have a tough time shaking it in a consistent way.

[skins island connection]

32 minutes ago, AJ* said:

 

We can throw the defense under the bus all we want but the truth of the matter is the defense came through against the Panthers and the Giants when it mattered. Kirk and the offense didn't. 

 

 that's not entirely true.

Granted, the score was kept down on them, but the Panthers struggled most of last year, and the Giants, well, are the Giants. They still moved the ball a lot, got tons of 1st downs, on our defense, and they still couldn't be stopped between the 20s. The Giants game was more psychological, being the talk of Giant players resting or playing little, and that just didn't happen. that was 100% on coaching, not getting the team prepared for a battle and letting them believe it would be a cakewalk game.

[mistertim]

Eh, Rodgers was also a SB winning QB at the time he signed his deal that made him the highest paid player in the NFL. 

[dckey]

Just now, Bang said:

 

well, for one, the QB is the most important piece, and it's not just in my mind, if you don't think the QB is the most important piece of any professional sports team, there's really no point listening to what you've got to say. Who wins without a quality quarterback in today's modern NFL?

That is a fundamental truth, and even if you don't want to extrapolate it out to "all sports" it is clearly the most important position in professional football, and it's not even debatable.

 

secondly, overpaying is a word i have heard for years and i laugh every single time.

the cap and how contracts work are so fluid and malleable that it renders such words utterly meaningless.

with the Qb you pay for production. And as you did say, you must have other pieces. so there's a lot of grey area as to why any given team may or may not perform in any given year beyond the QB contract.

 

But does Aaron Rodgers count? Prior to Luck, Rodgers was the highest paid QB.

Since he signed his deal, he's 33-15.

(and he's playing in the NFC championship game for the second time in three years on Sunday.)

 

~Bang

 

 

First, I also believe the qb is the most important position on the field but being the most important doesn't always equate to being the highest paid in the league because your contract is up.  And do you believe that Kirk is on Aaron Rodgers level?  IF so then your right we don't need to listen to each other!!!  What has Kirk done to deserve Highest paid contract?  Rodgers won a SB, Luck multiple playoff wins and made it to the AFC Championship game, Flacco SB, Brees SB, why do we want to be the first team to sign a qb who has never won a playoff game to the highest paid player in history?  I believe in Kirk and I want to resign him but not at the price of the highest paid qb.  Where do you draw the line?  

[Bang]

10 minutes ago, wit33 said:

I thought the defens played well in the Lions game. Did they not? Great throws and plays were made by stafford. It happens.

 

This game was actually during the 6-1-1 stretch where the defense had a lot to do with the wins. Somehow gets overlooked by looking at total stats. NFL games should be looked at individually. 

They gave up a 75 yard drive in 49 seconds and lost the game.

Gave up a big play to Andre Roberts to set up the winning TD.

 

Yeah, if that's playing OK, I don't know what to say.

 

they edged out three games on miracle turnovers. Which, while nice, is not any indicator of anything except "whew!"
Dodging bullets is no way to keep surviving gunfights, y'know what i mean?

 

Mistertim, i totally get that, and i agree. when the light gets bright, Kirk's tended to shrink.
BUT, in regards to that,, it's an intangible that you can't really pinpoint and work on, right? no drills for it. In my mind, a problem like th is that it's a matter of maturing and overcoming whatever mental block is holding down performance. (It may be the coach, we don't know,, we can only speculate from the outside.)
and so in that, for us fans, it really just boils down to whether or not you believe he can get past it.

i  do believe it, because i've seen him get past other intangible obstacles that were big knocks against him. 

It's a gamble, he is not a 'sure thing'... but I think he's a lot more sure than not, and if it were my money, i'd gamble on him, and not against him.

 

~Bang

[TSO]

On 1/21/2017 at 8:17 AM, wit33 said:

Nothing you are saying is incorrect, as it pertains to his direct quotes, but he's made the conscious decision to float the other stuff and bring negotiation tactics out for the media and public to consume. Its as if some feel no discussion is warranted about his teams decision to "play hard ball" with team in the media as well in private negotiations. To the point he's discussing his percent cap number on a talk radio show lol.

 

 

Uhm, he was specifically asked about why he shouldn't just accept a "team-friendly" deal and he answered. First off, who asks that? In my mind, it's gracious of him to have even given an answer there. 

 

You're not making much sense at all to me. Furthermore, your passive aggressive shots like "you've decided to hunker down and support his approach" or "sun and daisies" are, frankly, annoying and utterly bull****. Just stop with that. 

 

His "approach" isn't anything out of the ordinary. There has been MUCH MUCH worse examples recently where it seems like the team and player are so far apart (played out publicly as well) and, yet, it ended amicably. 

 

So, no, you're right... there is no middle ground. The "uproar" is dishonest and disingenuous. If you don't get that, then you must've hunkered down in the biased anti-Kirk camp that's only doom and gloom but fronts as if they're "constructively" criticizing him when they're only nitpicking and tearing him down. 

 

How did that last sentence feel? I suggest we stop with the labels, sound good? 

[skins island connection]

30 minutes ago, dckey said:

So do you overpay for a qb just because in your mind that is the most important piece.  Show me where a team has spent the money to make there qb the highest paid in the league and look at what there record was the following year.  I am not saying not to pay him top 5-10 money just not more than luck and if you are giving him 25 mil a year with 80 guaranteed as some has suggested than IMO he is not worth it.

 

Unfortunately, you kinda do have to overpay the QB, if that's what it takes, and apparently that is what it will take.

We've done it for other players, why is the QB different?

 

Problem is, there is no alternative.

None.  You know how QBs such as Rodgers, Stafford, Brees, Ryan, and other top QBs got to be steadily productive? Their respective teams stuck by them. These guys haven't won every Superbowl in the last 15 years, they've struggled in playoff games, they've struggled and failed to reach the playoffs, but their teams didn't let them walk or trade them away.

 

Its the little-talked about formula with teams who are on the winning side a lot; they stick with their QB through thick and thin, let him gain the experience of pressure games, build around him, fortify his offense. The real issue here is this team has not had a QB worthy of sticking with, until now, and many don't know how or what to do next, so they drop back to the failsafe and say trade him.  I don't like the amount of money he wants, but in a couple years it will look pedestrian regarding NFL QWB salaries.

[mistertim]

@Bang Yeah, agreed. I think it is possible to get over that sort of stuff but it is a crap shoot because, as you said, it's something that is almost impossible to pinpoint where the problem lies (unlike something mechanical like release point, footwork, etc). It's definitely a gamble and, to be honest, I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make the decision...but that's why SM gets the big money. If you pay him the huge contract he wants and he can't consistently get over that hump then you're stuck with a crazy big contract for a guy who folds in the biggest games. In that case you'd need the defense to step up and keep the score low so the mistakes don't kill as easily. Unfortunately our defense sucks and I'm worried about our ability to bolster it with good FA signings if we pay Kirk what he apparently wants. I think he is a good QB and I would like him to be back, as I've said many times, but I'm just worried about what making him possibly the highest paid player in the NFL could do to the rest of the team. 

 

But for the first time in a long time I trust our GM. If SM thinks he's worth it, then great. If he doesn't then we'll see what he has for plans B and C depending on how the negotiations go. I certainly HOPE that he gets signed and gets over those issues because if he can then we could be a force to be reckoned with. That's also assuming we can figure out what went wrong in the red zone in 2016 and find a way to fix it.

[wit33]

18 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Uhm, he was specifically asked about why he shouldn't just accept a "team-friendly" deal and he answered. First off, who asks that? In my mind, its gracious of him to even given an answer there. 

 

You're not making much sense at all to me. Furthermore, your passive aggressive shots like "you've decided to hunker down and support his approach" or "sun and daisies" are, frankly, annoying and utterly bull****. Just stop with that. 

 

His "approach" isn't anything out of the ordinary. There has been MUCH MUCH worse examples recently where it seems like the team and player are so far apart (played out publicly as well) and, yet, it ended amicably. 

 

So, no, you're right... there is no middle ground. The "uproar" is dishonest and disingenuous. If you don't get that, then you must've hunkered down in the biased anti-Kirk camp that's only doom and gloom but fronts as if they're "constructively" criticizing him when they're only nitpicking and tearing him down. 

 

How did that last sentence feel? I suggest we stop with the labels, sound good? 

 

 I can respect passion/emotional filled responses. It's what keeps it entertaining during the off-season. I'm not even saying I'm right or wrong, as I'm truly not a part of it. 

 

How about this, for me personally, I don't like when players use the media to posture about money. It's just not a good look and overall distasteful in my mind. Whether hes skilled and articulate about it or not. I say this with the full understanding this is my personal feelings on the matter... not a right or wrong type thing.

 

Have you not decided to side with Kirk? Im lost. 

 

My apologies for saying hunkering down with Kirk. That was a passive aggressive shot. Won't be the last, but it will always be done with class

 

[Bang]

2 minutes ago, dckey said:

First, I also believe the qb is the most important position on the field but being the most important doesn't always equate to being the highest paid in the league because your contract is up.  And do you believe that Kirk is on Aaron Rodgers level?  IF so then your right we don't need to listen to each other!!!  What has Kirk done to deserve Highest paid contract?  Rodgers won a SB, Luck multiple playoff wins and made it to the AFC Championship game, Flacco SB, Brees SB, why do we want to be the first team to sign a qb who has never won a playoff game to the highest paid player in history?  I believe in Kirk and I want to resign him but not at the price of the highest paid qb.  Where do you draw the line?  

 

well, now we're cookin'!

No, i don't think Kirk is the same level of Aaron Rodgers,, i only brought him up because you asked how others did after becoming the highest paid.. and he's done quite well.

Frankly, i think there's too many intangibles to make a broad statement like that. After your post, i did some looking and you do have a point.many of these big names who scored "highest paid ever" deals have not been spectacular,, most notably Drew Brees, who got paid, and the saints have not been very good since (in terms of wins and losses.) But statistically, Brees is still earning it.. he puts up the numbers.
I would say Brees may be a good example for both of our arguments, because as you say he hasn't elevated the team, because the team has gotten worse. (How much of that is due to his money taking up too much space, i don't know. It's possible.. but there's a lot of other factors,, bountygate, suspensions, players leave.)

Luck got paid and got hurt, he was injured all last year, and this year he clearly seems to be in recovery... while running for his life behind the worst OL in football. He's got a goofball owner who can't manage his front office, and a coach who seems lost. The team isn't doing well, but I am not ready to say it's because of him or because of his deal. 

 

In the case of highest paid, i fall back on what i have seen to be a truism, in that today's blockbuster deal is tomorrow's renegotiation, and this won't be any different. It'll make all sorts of headlines, people will debate the total dollars, but how it affects the cap and how it is structured makes most of the deal good or bad.. and I have faith they won't be stupid in that regard.

 

"Worth it" is a sliding scale. Entertainers are worth their money because they generate the money. NFL players aren't any different. n my opinion, you grease those slides up good when it comes to the QB, because to be honest, just bare competence at the position is rare. QBs bust faster than anything, because therec are two type of QBs,, those who can play in the NFL, and the vast vast majority of those who can't.

The "can play' group can then start to divide off into groups of Greats or Elites,, but overall, the group of guys who simply can play QB in the NFL at a somewhat high level are hard to come by.  Teams that do not have one spend YEARS searching. Not having one destabilizes the entire team, as losing compounds and coaches get fired, continually changing philosophies don't mix with players, and you end up in the morass the Redskins have been in for 20 years, which is constant turnover in key places making everything else that was trying to be built continually obsolete.

 

right now we have a guy who can play at a high level. (In my opinion, best one since Theismann.)

What he gets paid is only what the market dictates due to when he's up for contract and who else is out there. There is no one. He is the top Qb in free agency (and they are hardly EVER in free agency.). he will get Market value, and for QBs market value is almost always higher than the last top guy.

 

~Bang

[Wildbunny]

16 minutes ago, Bang said:

Gave up a big play to Andre Roberts to set up the winning TD.

Can you really blame the D for allowing a catch on someone that is famous for dropping easy balls? He made a career out of it here that everyone knows you don't have to cover him, he'll botch the catch. Word is the NFL took Andre Roberts to use for the definition of a catch... No biggie no one knows what it is...

 

I mean, on this play, the guy that was the most surprised was Roberts himself...

 

[AJ*]

 

25 minutes ago, Bang said:

 

I can play this fool's game, too.

 

when they let the Lions march right down and score? That mattered. Mattered a lot, in fact. Without that debacle, the giants game and Panthers game don't have as much do or die attached. Maybe none at all, in fact. we win that Lions game, and the giants game probably has nothing but seeding attached to it.
 Why isn't that part of this analysis?
Remember, Cousins scored with a minute left, and the defense gave up a 75 yard drive in 49 ****ing seconds. 
Remember? Damn that Kirk Cousins! If only he'd have scored 50 points, we would not have lost, eh?

 

I always love these types of posts that cherry pick out a game or two and blame X because this ONE time the defense did it's job.

How about the other 5 losses and tie?

 

Al;l the games matter.

All of them.
And all you prove by cherry picking out two and claiming the offensive failure in those two games is just how BAD the defense is, in that the offense must be practically perfect each week to overcome the total failure of the defense.

 

the defense would not be to blame if the offense would have been perfect every week.

that makes sense, right?

 

3rd ranked offense, 28th ranked defense.

So of course, it is the offense to blame.

 

uhhh..

 

~Dang

 

Yeah, all games matter but those games I mentioned mattered just a bit more. There's a big difference between playing a game in October simply trying to get a win and playing a must-win game in December for the playoffs, big difference. Those games in December are the reason this thread exists and the reason people are questioning the money that should be spent. If Kirk and the offense had performed up to snuff in those big games and still lost this thread doesn't exist right now. The defense would have been thrown under the bus per usual. The reason this thread exists is because of the way Kirk and the offense performed under pressure. Whenever we had control of our own destiny the offense didn't show up at all and for the most part the defense did. 

[Bang]

6 minutes ago, AJ* said:

 

 

Yeah, all games matter but those games I mentioned mattered just a bit more. There's a big difference between playing a game in October simply trying to get a win and playing a must-win game in December for the playoffs, big difference. Those games in December are the reason this thread exists and the reason people are questioning the money that should be spent. If Kirk and the offense had performed up to snuff in those big games and still lost this thread doesn't exist right now. The defense would have been thrown under the bus per usual. The reason this thread exists is because of the way Kirk and the offense performed under pressure. Whenever we had control of our own destiny the offense didn't show up at all and for the most part the defense did. 

 

No, they don't.

they mattered more because of earlier games that got away.

they mattered more because we failed to win over Cincy. They mattered because we failed to hold the Lions for 1 minute.

they mattered more because we insisted on throwing fade patterns vs Dallas in the red zone, they mattered more because Breeland couldn't find Antonio Brown's jockstrap with a road map.

they all matter, and if any one of them matters more at the end of the year than any other one, it's because of something that happened in the others that makes it so.

 

Pointing to one game in a season where one game could make all the difference and pretending it's THAT one, and not any of the others,,  it makes no sense.

The pressure was on, sure. But they put it on themselves by not taking care of business prior to that.

 

~Bang

 

[wit33]

41 minutes ago, Bang said:

They gave up a 75 yard drive in 49 seconds and lost the game.

Gave up a big play to Andre Roberts to set up the winning TD.

 

Yeah, if that's playing OK, I don't know what to say.

 

they edged out three games on miracle turnovers. Which, while nice, is not any indicator of anything except "whew!"
Dodging bullets is no way to keep surviving gunfights, y'know what i mean?

 

 

 

~Bang

 

For sure, the defense was far from dominant, but my overall feeling is they did enough to allow the offense to win games this year. Yes, the defense not being dominant forced the offense to be above average to good in many games to win. 

 

The team was just average and the defense was below average. The offense was unable to overcome the deficiencies on defense and play at a consistent high level. 

[Bang]

Just now, wit33 said:

 

For sure, the defense was far from dominant, but my overall feeling is they did enough to allow the offense to win games this year. Yes, the defense not being dominant forced the offense to be above average to good in many games to win. 

Hard to dispute that, but I think it can also go the other way..  i think the offense put them in position to win (and specifically in this Detroit game.)

 

in the second Philly game they did much the same,, until Kerrigan forced the miracle fumble the Eagles had marched 65 yards and i would lay a buck that you, me and everyone else reading just knew they would score. But they converted at will, managed to motion and find the single coverage mismatch time and again. It happened a lot this year.

 

I know you're not propping up the defense, but to say they were just "Not being dominant" is being  VERY very kind.  They weren't even competent most of the time.

 

But, i will give way on this point,, it is a team sport, and both offense and defense affect how well the other can play.

 

~Bang

[TSO]

On 1/21/2017 at 9:43 AM, wit33 said:

 

Have you not decided to side with Kirk? Im lost. 

 

My apologies for saying hunkering down with Kirk. That was a passive aggressive shot. Won't be the last, but it will always be done with class

 

Well, I appreciate you at least admitting to it. That's a lot more than most would do.  

 

As for siding with Kirk... it's not really about that. It's just acknowledging everything altogether as well as factoring in the context of his situation. Making it about sides, in a sense, denies the rationale (of which there is plenty, as you admit) involved in the arguments and suggests it's just about some blind bias that lacks objectivity or is entirely subjective. 

 

That's my issue with that. 

[Warhead36]

The D wasn't just below average. It was downright unprofessionally bad. How many 3rd and 10s did they allow? How many times were receivers wide open right down the middle of the field? It was atrocious. Sure you can say the D "contributed" to wins, but it was like 90% offense 10% defense if you want to put it in a ratio.