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

[mistertim]

Honestly this whole thing kinda reminds me of when the Cowboys over payed and signed Romo to a huge deal. We, and much of the rest of the league, laughed at him getting a gigantic extension since he was such a choker.

 

And now we may be about to do the same thing with a straight face. Kirk is basically Romo but without the improvisational abilities.

[purbeast]

1 minute ago, KingGibbs said:

Again. Those of you willing to let Kirk walk have failed to name a viable and better replacement. Addition by subtraction is not an option here. Come up with a solution. You can't.

I agree with this - what is the alternative? 

 

I just can't understand how people who are fans of this team want to let Kirk walk when he's BY FAR the best QB we've had in like 2 decades.  It's just mind boggling to me that fans can truly think this way.

[DM72]

3 minutes ago, KingGibbs said:

Again. Those of you willing to let Kirk walk have failed to name a viable and better replacement. Addition by subtraction is not an option here. Come up with a solution. You can't.

 

We can't let him walk, but I'm for drafting a QB sometime in this years draft.

[bobandweave]

Would anyone not want to sign him long term if he had won some playoff games? Seriously no QB in this league is perfect and doesn't have a bad game here or there. What we are talking about is the future of the franchise over the next three to five years.

 

If Kirk has shown all he can do and some of it has been incredibly impressive some of it has been so bad like yesterday you can't in good faith tie yourself to that for years no matter how piss poor the past has been. He was given a year to prove it and he had mixed results partly due to his play and partly due to others. Those mixed results you can't just forget about and give up on him yet. You also can't hitch your wagon to them yet and think the problem at QB is solved yet either no matter what the cost is. We control his rights and should be prepared to make him prove it again after that game yesterday 

[aREDSKIN]

23 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2684683-kirk-cousins-has-earned-redskins-money-despite-missing-the-playofs

 

"I get it, Washington Redskins fans. You feel the need to blame somebody, and in this day and age, the quarterback is usually that guy. He's either the hero or the patsy, with no middle ground. But Kirk Cousins shouldn't be a hero or a patsy. He's just a good quarterback on a good team that would be a heck of a lot worse without him."

"While this loss and the final month of the season will rightly leave a bad taste in many mouths, it's important to remember Cousins is only completing his second full season as a starter. By all indications, he's yet to reach his potential."

Um, the problem many have here is that KC and his team pretty much bent us over on the contract last year. His performance last half of year year was just spectacular. There were doubts as to why sign him long term and now we know that seems be be a wise decision. Clearly he has issues and imo is not deserving of a top 5 QB contract. It matters not to me how many games he's played in. If you want to be paid as one of the best you have to perform like on of the best and no can legimately say that of KC this year. Way too many questions surrounds his play. This team has way too many areas of need that need to be addressed to become a legimate contender. KC and his team need to realize that or they can just care less and go to the highest bidder and say that's what we are going to do.

We'll probably just tag him and kick the can down the road until 2018 and get 1 more year of performance capabilities to see where we are with KC. Count me in as skepticle. Very skepticle.

[JSSkinz]

2 minutes ago, KingGibbs said:

Again. Those of you willing to let Kirk walk have failed to name a viable and better replacement. Addition by subtraction is not an option here. Come up with a solution. You can't.

 

There is no solution besides drafting someone while also finding a 1 year stopgap.

[Hooper]

6 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

Why do I care? Because we have a horrid center of our defense. And spending 25 million of our cap on Cousins COULD limit what we can do to fix that issue. I could care less about the money itself. Like you said it is not my money. But when it effects the rest of the team I do care. And so should you.

 

Again, a good GM can easily build a great team and pay a QB 25 mil a year. The cap keeps going up while half of NFL rosters are on cheap rookie deals. The players got absolutely taken in the last CBA. 

[mistertim]

Just now, purbeast said:

I agree with this - what is the alternative? 

 

I just can't understand how people who are fans of this team want to let Kirk walk when he's BY FAR the best QB we've had in like 2 decades.  It's just mind boggling to me that fans can truly think this way.

All that means is that we've had **** QBs for a very long time, which is very true. We're so used to terrible QB play that anything better than average seems like God is shining down on us. Not sure what the alternative would be if we let him walk...that would be left up to SM and the coaching staff. But given how thorough SM is I seriously doubt he has no backup plans if he doesn't want to pay Kirk 25 million per year. But I still think that we would likely hamstring ourselves by paying him as if he is an elite QB. We just have too many holes to fill and he simply isn't a good enough QB to mask those holes. So we'd lose at least one if not more receiving playmakers and we would likely not be able to upgrade our defense or OL in the offseason with a couple nice FA pickups. Kirk would regress even more because he's a guy who needs those playmakers around him. Just look at how much his numbers drop when just one guy (Reed) isn't playing.

[bh32]

2 minutes ago, purbeast said:

I agree with this - what is the alternative? 

 

I just can't understand how people who are fans of this team want to let Kirk walk when he's BY FAR the best QB we've had in like 2 decades.  It's just mind boggling to me that fans can truly think this way.

They are fools,that's why..I guess they want to go back to winning four games a year..

[carex]

18 minutes ago, mistertim said:

So what? Does that excuse Kirk's poor play and terrible completion percentage in the red zone?

 

that is exactly what I'm saying.  It's hard to make bad plays successful and with the personnel they have and were usinf they were lousy plays called

[spjunkies]

1 minute ago, bh32 said:

They are fools,that's why..I guess they want to go back to winning four games a year..

 

4 games vs 8 and still out of what matters.

 

Back to the Norv years woo hooo!!!

[blueskin]

Kirk isn't Brady, Manning, etc.  He's a good qb playing in a system that favors qbs.  

His biggest problem is mental.  Like in baseball, he's a pitcher with good stuff that has a huge mental block.  In baseball, they can send players to the minors, at least.

 

The Redskins don't have that luxury.  If you let him go, you take the very big risk (IMHO) that some other coach will help him get over his mental block.  Then we'll have the odious prospect of watching another one of our former players hitting it big somewhere else, helping them get a ring. 

 

He is a home-grown qb.  We need to keep him, unless he is stuck on being the highest paid ever.  The key for me isn't trying to upgrade qb, we can win with him (that subpar record against playoff contenders is NOT all on him).  IF we build better than a crapfest defense (honestly, with even a mediocre defense we'd be in the playoffs), and get him a competent running game, we could be talking potential year-in/year-out divisional and conference round appearances.  

[mistertim]

4 minutes ago, bh32 said:

They are fools,that's why..I guess they want to go back to winning four games a year..

As much as it would hurt, I'd rather win 4 games a year for a couple years while building up a good defense and letting SM draft a good young QB and then potentially being a perennial SB contender for years to come than be a consistent 8 or 9 win team that every once in a while sneaks into the playoffs but loses in the first round. Is there any guarantee we'd be able to build up such a team? Of course not. But the latter is the only future I see if we give Kirk an enormous contract and as a result have lose some playmakers (that Kirk needs) and being unable to fill all of the holes we have. Kirk isn't good enough to carry a team. IMO we'd be a  middling team for the next 5 years or more with Kirk.

[bh32]

1 minute ago, spjunkies said:

 

4 games vs 8 and still out of what matters.

 

Back to the Norv years woo hooo!!!

Fix the defense and running game and this team will be a contender..

1 minute ago, mistertim said:

As much as it would hurt, I'd rather win 4 games a year for a couple years while building up a good defense and letting SM draft a good young QB and then potentially being a perennial SB contender for years to come than be a consistent 8 or 9 win team that every once in a while sneaks into the playoffs but loses in the first round. Is there any guarantee we'd be able to build up such a team? Of course not. But the latter is the only future I see if we give Kirk an enormous contract and as a result have lose some playmakers (that Kirk needs) and being unable to fill all of the holes we have. Kirk isn't good enough to carry a team. IMO we'd be a  middling team for the next 5-10 years with Kirk.

Who says they can't build a team around Cousins if they give him 20m + contract? 

[JSSkinz]

The better question is did KC prove to SM he is worth a huge long term deal.

 

I think only SM and the staff know this because these red zone issues are either play calling or they're on KC, if its on KC then he's toast, if its on Mcvay then maybe that's something SM wont hold against KC.

 

Its just odd Mcvay can call plays that produce the 3rd best offense in the league but he doesn't know what to do in the red zone, he knew what to do in the redzone last year.

 

 

[mistertim]

4 minutes ago, bh32 said:

Fix the defense and running game and this team will be a contender..

How exactly do we do that if we hamstring ourselves by overpaying for an above average QB? The only way is if we hit on a bunch of draft picks. Both our top picks as well as getting some diamonds in the rough. We won't be able to pay all of our playmakers that Kirk relies on and we won't be able to make any FA moves to bolster a horrible defense and a mediocre OL. 

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

Ok Skip Bayless..This argument is weak sauce..

[bh32]

Just now, mistertim said:

How exactly do we do that if we hamstring ourselves by overpaying for an above average QB? The only way is if we hit on a bunch of draft picks. Both our top picks as well as getting some diamonds in the rough. We won't be able to pay all of our playmakers that Kirk relies on and we won't be able to make any FA moves to bolster a horrible defense and a mediocre OL. 

The cap goes up every year..that's how

[clskinsfan]

6 minutes ago, Hooper said:

 

Again, a good GM can easily build a great team and pay a QB 25 mil a year. The cap keeps going up while half of NFL rosters are on cheap rookie deals. The players got absolutely taken in the last CBA. 

 

Yeah. I just did some research on our cap situation and we are actually in good shape. If you figure we are going to cut Hall and Lauvao and a couple of other cheaper guys. We should end up with 55 million of cap space or so before signing Cousins. You figure he will count 20 mill against the cap on a long term deal. Another 5 Mill for the Rookie pool and that leaves you 30 Mill to fix the defense and resign Garcon. That should leave the ability to add two or three impact defensive free agents. So I stand corrected. I still think its crazy to pay Cousins what he will get. But it is the going rate and there isnt a better alternative unfortunately.

[mistertim]

4 minutes ago, jschuck12001 said:

The better question is did KC prove to SM he is worth a huge long term deal.

 

I think only SM and the staff know this because these red zone issues are either play calling or they're on KC, if its on KC then he's toast, if its on Mcvay then maybe that's something SM wont hold against KC.

 

Its just odd Mcvay can call plays that produce the 3rd best offense in the league but he doesn't know what to do in the red zone, he knew what to do in the redzone last year.

 

 

Yeah it really doesn't pass the smell test. I think Kirk relied on Reed a TON last season in the red zone...if not to catch TDs then to draw a bunch of attention. The lack of a healthy Reed for a decent amount of time really exposed that IMO. Our run game wasn't especially good last year either and the OL is about the same with an improved Scherff. 

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

10 minutes ago, mistertim said:

As much as it would hurt, I'd rather win 4 games a year for a couple years while building up a good defense and letting SM draft a good young QB and then potentially being a perennial SB contender for years to come than be a consistent 8 or 9 win team that every once in a while sneaks into the playoffs but loses in the first round. Is there any guarantee we'd be able to build up such a team? Of course not. But the latter is the only future I see if we give Kirk an enormous contract and as a result have lose some playmakers (that Kirk needs) and being unable to fill all of the holes we have. Kirk isn't good enough to carry a team. IMO we'd be a  middling team for the next 5 years or more with Kirk.

If you look at history, paying him is going to **** us.

 

Colts paid Luck ridic money and they can't even compete in the AFC South

[carex]

9 minutes ago, jschuck12001 said:

The better question is did KC prove to SM he is worth a huge long term deal.

 

I think only SM and the staff know this because these red zone issues are either play calling or they're on KC, if its on KC then he's toast, if its on Mcvay then maybe that's something SM wont hold against KC.

 

Its just odd Mcvay can call plays that produce the 3rd best offense in the league but he doesn't know what to do in the red zone, he knew what to do in the redzone last year.

 

 

 

really?  I recall redzone production being a long term problem.  It's part of why kicker was such a big deal for us.  We'd have some nice long drives, stall out and then not even get three

[SkinsGuy]

9 minutes ago, mistertim said:

As much as it would hurt, I'd rather win 4 games a year for a couple years while building up a good defense and letting SM draft a good young QB and then potentially being a perennial SB contender for years to come than be a consistent 8 or 9 win team that every once in a while sneaks into the playoffs but loses in the first round

 

Come on, Tim. This is bull****, and you know it.  

 

If the team let Cousins walk, and they go 4-12 next year, you and others would be the first to call for Gruden's head, Scott's head, the head of whoever the QB is.

 

It is easy to say you don't mind a 4-win season in 2017... in January. Come September though, things change.

 

We get that you aren't a big fan of Cousins, but don't piss down our backs and tell us it's raining by saying stuff like that.  

[grego]

21 minutes ago, jschuck12001 said:

There is no solution besides drafting someone while also finding a 1 year stopgap.

 

'drafting someone'? 

 

Its really not that easy. (which is the point) 

[goskins10]

15 minutes ago, aREDSKIN said:

Um, the problem many have here is that KC and his team pretty much bent us over on the contract last year. His performance last half of year year was just spectacular. There were doubts as to why sign him long term and now we know that seems be be a wise decision. Clearly he has issues and imo is not deserving of a top 5 QB contract. It matters not to me how many games he's played in. If you want to be paid as one of the best you have to perform like on of the best and no can legimately say that of KC this year. Way too many questions surrounds his play. This team has way too many areas of need that need to be addressed to become a legimate contender. KC and his team need to realize that or they can just care less and go to the highest bidder and say that's what we are going to do.

We'll probably just tag him and kick the can down the road until 2018 and get 1 more year of performance capabilities to see where we are with KC. Count me in as skepticle. Very skepticle.

 

How did you come to that conclusion? From all credible reports the conversation was: The team offered Kirk I believe $16M/yr and Kirk and his agent said they were pretty far apart. Team offered the tag and Kirk signed with no intention of negotiating for a long term agreement, preferring to bet on himself. How is that bending the team over? You are making a lot of assumptions about Kirk and his team." that are not factual.

 

He will not be tagged unless it's to tag and trade - which despite this option being thrown around in here is just not nearly as easy as it sounds. He may get tagged then a long term agreement be made. If he actually plays on the tag, it will be his last as a Redskin. He would then be due $34M in 2018 - something the team will never pay.