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

[DC Lumber Co.]

Also the tight windows thing is more of a nod to Jays offense getting receivers open and Kirk's decision making within that offense. Why force passes when he doesn't have to? Don't see how its a knock on Cousins at all, imo...

[mistertim]

24 minutes ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

This also supports the notion that it may not be the smartest move to re-sign two receivers that struggle in the redzone. One of them sure, but we need more than Reed in the redzone to improve our offense. All defenses need to do currently is double Reed and we will settle for a FG the majority of the time. Doctson could be a solution along with a Zay Jones or Josh Reynolds in the draft

 

Um, so it is now the receivers who struggle in the red zone?

 

Seriously, for all the people who **** at us who point out Kirk's flaws the pro-sign-Kirk-for-whatever people can make some seriously pretzel shaped contortions to excuse his weaknesses when they're factually pointed out.

27 minutes ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

This also supports the notion that it may not be the smartest move to re-sign two receivers that struggle in the redzone. One of them sure, but we need more than Reed in the redzone to improve our offense. All defenses need to do currently is double Reed and we will settle for a FG the majority of the time. Doctson could be a solution along with a Zay Jones or Josh Reynolds in the draft

So now you're essentially admitting that Kirk has to have some sort of red zone monster to be successful?

[DC Lumber Co.]

21 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Um, so it is now the receivers who struggle in the red zone?

 

Seriously, for all the people who **** at us who point out Kirk's flaws the pro-sign-Kirk-for-whatever people can make some seriously pretzel shaped contortions to excuse his weaknesses when they're factually pointed out.

So now you're essentially admitting that Kirk has to have some sort of red zone monster to be successful?

 

Not at all. Kirks success has been proven to not be a fluke now. Two full seasons worth of evidence. But when a QB looks great in all other facets of the game, can throw for 5k yards, and the arm strength to make all the throws...if theres an area that the offense is struggling in, I don't think its crazy to err on the side of giving that QB the benefit of the doubt. You give him a a chance to see if his production will go up with taller receivers.

 

Just saying there is a reason Reed is Kirk's go-to option in the red zone, and we targeted a player like Doctson. Too lazy to do the research but I'd put money on finding a correlation between red zone TD leaders and height. And it doesn't take a genius to see that throwing fades and jump balls to a player the size of Desean Jackson isn't a good strategy.

 

I could flip the same question back to you. Sure, you can argue that a great QB shouldn't NEED anything in particular to be successful. But that doesn't stop teams from doing their best to surround them with talent. Even if Kirk's one flaw is in the red zone and its all his fault, whats so wrong with surrounding him with the type of players that can make his life easier in that aspect of the game?

 

The main point anti-kirk guys miss is this: You work with the strengths of the guy you have, period. Very few QBs have no holes in their game. Jay Cutler looked great when placed in an offense that worked off of bootlegs and play action. His knock was being able to process the whole field, so Shanny cut it in half. And when he put up great numbers in that scheme, he wasn't paid any less because of his deficiencies, he got paid due to his strengths. And hes still getting paid. He's going to sign with yet another team this offseason because teams understand, unlike this fanbase, that QBs don't grow on trees.  

 

Its about winning, not placing your players under a microscope, and picking apart all the ways that they aren't like Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers.

 

[wit33]

3 hours ago, onedrop said:

huh? the first 4 words of your second line completely negate the first. making the whole post totally pointless. 

 

Nah man...

 

it's just recognizing you can go to game tape and show him making throws in tight windows, but this doesn't take place consistently enough and especially in the red zone areas.

 

I just choose to realize it's subjective In a sense and that others are totally fine with his level of play up to this point.

 

With that said, I do believe this represents one of the reasons why he's not being handed over whatever amount of money he wants. 

 

In my opinion, he doesn't give pass catchers enough opportunities to make plays down the field and in the seams, when in one on one situations. 

[SBboundbaby]

46 minutes ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

 

 

 

Its about winning, not placing your players under a microscope, and picking apart all the ways that they aren't like Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers.

 

 

but when you don't want to pay out the ass for said player. you gotta rep your case as to why he should not make 20 mil a year. it is just business.

 

hail

[HTTRDynasty]

4 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

Yeah, I've already broken down stas for THIS season, and Cousins' production w/o a healthy Reed only dropped off when people "ignored" his rushing TDs. If you don't believe go look it up for yourself. Right now you've got a nifty box graphic that accounts for 38 games. Yet Cousins has only started 32, and Reed really only emerged halfway through last season. Sure it helps your narrative, but it doesn't hold up to context. The only part of Cousins game that suffered w/o Reed this year was RZ production, and that happens to most QBs.

 

Umm, no.  Actually, Cousins has 42 starts.  1 in 2012, 3 in 2013, 5 in 2014, 17 in 2015, and 16 in 2016.  And Reed has been a very good receiving TE since he came into the league (2013).  Just because he broke out on the national scene in 2015 and became a household name doesn't mean he hadn't "emerged" yet.  The graphic clearly demonstrates how much Cousins needs Reed in order to put up the stats and wins of an above-average QB. 

 

And how can you say his production only dropped off without Reed when you ignore his rushing TDs?  He had 5 rushing TDs in his career with Reed playing, and only 4 rushing TD's without Reed.  Seems pretty obvious that adding rushing TDs would help, not hurt, the case for Cousins putting up worse stats without Reed.  Also, do you realize how drastic a 11% drop (from 69.7% to 58.8%) in completion percentage is?  Only 6 QBs had lower than a 60% completion percentage last season, and only Ryan Fitzpatrick and Brock Osweiler had a lower passer rating than the 75.6 Cousins had without Reed.

 

No matter how much you try to twist the argument, it is clear that Cousins is nowhere close to the same player without Reed in the game.  He is not a QB that can play above average without his number 1 option, such as Brady does without Gronk, or Matt Ryan does without Julio, or Drew Brees did when he lost Jimmy Graham, or Matt Stafford when he lost Calvin.  His stats are much more similar to Andy Dalton without AJ Green.  Which would be fine if we were going to pay him a contract similar to Dalton's and if Jordan Reed wasn't a much bigger injury risk going forward than AJ Green.

[goskins10]

6 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Most of those guys who are in the top 10 aggressive throwers have to be aggressive because of the lack of weapons around them that can consistently create separation.  Most of those guys only have one true weapon, if that, that can create separation game after game, throughout the course of a season.  Cousins has 4-5 of those guys.  So no, I'm not using the stat to point out that Cousins does not have the ability to be an aggressive thrower.  I'm using the stat to show that he doesn't have to be an aggressive thrower because he has the weapons around him to make him productive without taking a lot of the risks other QBs have to take.

 

Do you think the guys Kirk has around him do not have a significant impact on his performance?  Let's take a look at how Kirk has performed in his career without Reed (as of Dec. 21, 2016):

 

 

A significant difference, correct?  How do you think he will perform going forward without Desean and/or Pierre, in addition to the always looming threat of Reed being injured, with possibly another concussion, which could end his career?  McCloughan and Co. are well aware of this, and I'm sure they are weighing the implications of shelling out over $100 million to a QB who is nothing more than below average without his top injury prone target. 

 

 

I pointed out last time you posted this graphic it is not true. Surprised you trotted it out again. It is factually inaccurate and paints an exaggerated view. In 2016 alone Reed missed the week 6 win against Philly and the week 16 win against Chicago. To be fair Reed was only in week 14 against Philly for 10 snaps and was mostly a decoy as he was injured. He caught 1 ball for 10 yds. But technically he had him. So that's 2-2 in 2016. Reed missed 2 losses in 2015 making it 2-4 over 32 starts as the #1. Not exactly the same smoking gun when you get the facts right.

 

If you include 2014 it looks much worse as he was 0-4. But it still does not come to 1-10. If you want to really skew the data, include 2013 and 2012. But then if you do that, he beat Cleveland without Reed and should get credit for Jacksonville as Robert barely played. So that's 2 more wins. One is never going to be right no matter how you cut the data since he has 2 wins in 2016 alone.

 

The better comparison would be to compare his performance in terms of snaps with or without Reed - not games. Too many lurking variables. Either way, the data should be accurate. There is no way to get to 1-10. Whoever put that together is at least very sloppy, if not agenda driven to make the numbers up.  It should be for the last 2 years and I would make the argument that he is 3-4. But even if you ant to throw out week 14 2016, it's still just 2-4.

 

[HTTRDynasty]

3 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

I pointed out last time you posted this graphic it is not true.

 

 

Huh?  Today is the first time I have even seen this graphic, which I got from this article: http://wtop.com/sports-columns/2016/12/the-reason-washington-shouldnt-pay-kirk-cousins/

 

You must be thinking of someone else.

 

EDIT:  And the article is as of December 21, 2016, which I put in my post, so obviously it doesn't include the Chicago or second NYG game.

[goskins10]

3 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Huh?  Today is the first time I have even seen this graphic, which I got from this article: http://wtop.com/sports-columns/2016/12/the-reason-washington-shouldnt-pay-kirk-cousins/

 

You must be thinking of someone else.

 

It must have been someone else then, so my apologies for thinking it as you.

 

But the facts still remain the same. Graphic is wrong. And including 2012-2014 is agenda driven as he was not the #1 starter. 2013 especially as it was mop up. Reed was held out. Kirk actually played half way decent. The team had shut down. 2014 was a bad stretch. He just plain did not play well. Reed or no Reed. Even then the numbers never add up.

[HTTRDynasty]

23 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

It must have been someone else then, so my apologies for thinking it as you.

 

But the facts still remain the same. Graphic is wrong. And including 2012-2014 is agenda driven as he was not the #1 starter. 2013 especially as it was mop up. Reed was held out. Kirk actually played half way decent. The team had shut down. 2014 was a bad stretch. He just plain did not play well. Reed or no Reed. Even then the numbers never add up.

 

 

I just added it up myself.  I count 11 starts without Reed playing as of Dec 21, 2016 (and not counting 2012 since Reed was not yet in the league).  So I see nothing wrong with what the author says here in the article:

 

"In Kirk Cousins’ 26 career starts before Monday night when he has had Reed in the huddle, the quarterback has gone a sparkling 16-9-1, including last season’s memorable playoff push. But Cousins has also started 11 games without Reed over the past four seasons — three apiece in 2013, 2014 and 2016, and two games last year. His record in those contests?

 

1-10.

 

The record is staggering enough, but the difference in Cousins’ performance in starts with and without Reed is equally galling. In the 27 games he’s had his tight end (including Monday night), Cousins has completed 69.7 percent of his passes at a rate of 8.16 yards per attempt, throwing 48 touchdowns and just 19 interceptions. In the 11 starts without Reed, his completion percentage drops to 58.8 and his yards per attempt fall to 6.86. He’s thrown just 16 touchdowns, with an equal number of interceptions."

 

I don't see how including 2013 and 2014 is agenda driven, since he is including the stats and record from the games that he did have Reed, as well as the stats and record when he didn't.  All he's doing, in essence, is showing a larger sample size.

 

[goskins10]

8 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

 

I just added it up myself.  I count 11 starts without Reed playing as of Dec 21, 2016 (and not counting 2012 since Reed was not yet in the league).  So I see nothing wrong with what the author says here in the article:

 

"In Kirk Cousins’ 26 career starts before Monday night when he has had Reed in the huddle, the quarterback has gone a sparkling 16-9-1, including last season’s memorable playoff push. But Cousins has also started 11 games without Reed over the past four seasons — three apiece in 2013, 2014 and 2016, and two games last year. His record in those contests?

 

1-10.

 

The record is staggering enough, but the difference in Cousins’ performance in starts with and without Reed is equally galling. In the 27 games he’s had his tight end (including Monday night), Cousins has completed 69.7 percent of his passes at a rate of 8.16 yards per attempt, throwing 48 touchdowns and just 19 interceptions. In the 11 starts without Reed, his completion percentage drops to 58.8 and his yards per attempt fall to 6.86. He’s thrown just 16 touchdowns, with an equal number of interceptions."

 

I don't see how including 2013 and 2014 is agenda driven, since he is including the stats and record from the games that he did have Reed, as well as the stats and record when he didn't. 

 

 

And 3 days later he won without Reed. And why not include 2012 just because reed was not in the league? He was without Reed and won. How can you count 2013? the last 3 games were garbage mop up. Again, 2014 he played poorly. It had nothing to do with Reed being there or not - he just played bad. That's why he got benched. You either count 2012 or you don't count 2013 and 2014. Can't have it both ways. Also, he beat Jacksonville in 2013. He was not the starter of record but Robert barely played before getting injured. And you also didn't address the other philly game where Reed was a decoy for all of 10 snaps.

 

Agian, comparing game results is not a fair comparison. If you want a fair comparison - compare snaps with or without Reed.

 

This is my last post on this topic (most likely). So I will finish with this - I actually agree Kirk has better numbers with Reed than without overall. But it's not nearly as stark as the graphic tries to make it - and it's also more because Reed is a great player that is virtually impossible to cover. Why would Kirk not go to him as much as possible? Isn't that what he is supposed to do? Get the ball to the playmakers? When you are missing one of the best players on your team - the team does not paly as well.

 

The article and graphic exaggerates the difference and then blames it 100% on Kirk. Nothing in football is that simple. It was lazy reporting in my opinion.

 

 

[HTTRDynasty]

31 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

And 3 days later he won without Reed. And why not include 2012 just because reed was not in the league? He was without Reed and won. How can you count 2013? the last 3 games were garbage mop up. Again, 2014 he played poorly. It had nothing to do with Reed being there or not - he just played bad. That's why he got benched. You either count 2012 or you don't count 2013 and 2014. Can't have it both ways. Also, he beat Jacksonville in 2013. He was not the starter of record but Robert barely played before getting injured. And you also didn't address the other philly game where Reed was a decoy for all of 10 snaps.

 

Agian, comparing game results is not a fair comparison. If you want a fair comparison - compare snaps with or without Reed.

 

This is my last post on this topic (most likely). So I will finish with this - I actually agree Kirk has better numbers with Reed than without overall. But it's not nearly as stark as the graphic tries to make it - and it's also more because Reed is a great player that is virtually impossible to cover. Why would Kirk not go to him as much as possible? Isn't that what he is supposed to do? Get the ball to the playmakers? When you are missing one of the best players on your team - the team does not paly as well.

 

The article and graphic exaggerates the difference and then blames it 100% on Kirk. Nothing in football is that simple. It was lazy reporting in my opinion.

 

 

 

You can include 2012.  It wouldn't change the stats all that much.  And not including 2013 and 2014 doesn't make sense to me. You can't just hand-wave those starts away.  Also, I didn't address the Philly game because Reed being a decoy is Reed having an impact on the game.  His presence (especially in that first game he was hurt when the defense didn't how ineffective he actually was) still drew the defense's attention, which opened up the field for the rest of our team.

 

Comparing snaps would obviously be a much more valuable metric.  Be my guest if you have the time to put that together.

 

Either way you look at it though, Cousins plays significantly worse without Reed in the game, and our team does not tend to have the same success.  I never said Kirk shouldn't go to Reed as much as possible when he's in the game and healthy.  Of course he should.  But when he is without Reed, he has to find other ways to play at an above-average level and help this team win.  Other highly paid QBs find a way to do it, and I think our front office would feel more comfortable making him the highest paid QB in the league if he had already proven that he could still play at an above-average level without his #1 option. 

[onedrop]

3 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

Nah man...

 

it's just recognizing you can go to game tape and show him making throws in tight windows, but this doesn't take place consistently enough and especially in the red zone areas.

 

I just choose to realize it's subjective In a sense and that others are totally fine with his level of play up to this point.

 

With that said, I do believe this represents one of the reasons why he's not being handed over whatever amount of money he wants. 

 

In my opinion, he doesn't give pass catchers enough opportunities to make plays down the field and in the seams, when in one on one situations. 

Well I just choose to realize what it was the you actually said, not some deeper meaning you selected to add afterward.  You told Warhead36 what he did not witness, then a few words later declared the veracity of your own statement subjective. 

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

You can include 2012.  It wouldn't change the stats all that much.  And not including 2013 and 2014 doesn't make sense to me. You can't just hand-wave those starts away.  Also, I didn't address the Philly game because Reed being a decoy is Reed having an impact on the game.  His presence (especially in that first game he was hurt when the defense didn't how ineffective he actually was) still drew the defense's attention, which opened up the field for the rest of our team.

 

Comparing snaps would obviously be a much more valuable metric.  Be my guest if you have the time to put that together.

 

Either way you look at it though, Cousins plays significantly worse without Reed in the game, and our team does not tend to have the same success.  I never said Kirk shouldn't go to Reed as much as possible when he's in the game and healthy.  Of course he should.  But when he is without Reed, he has to find other ways to play at an above-average level and help this team win.  Other highly paid QBs find a way to do it, and I think our front office would feel more comfortable making him the highest paid QB in the league if he had already proven that he could still play at an above-average level without his #1 option. 

 

So if it's fits your narrative on face value then any further analysis is not valuable? Using 2013 and 2014 are disingenuous and you know it. Again, you are completely ignoring that 2013 was total mop up and 2014 he was just plain bad. Maybe it was Reed, maybe not. But making that assumption without doing further analysis does make it valid. 

 

As for the play analysis - if you really wanted to know, you would do it. I honestly could care less. I was providing you a way to gather more meaningful data to prove or disprove your point.

 

I will promise you the team has done the extended analysis and they do know if there is anything to the Reed factor and are using that during the decision making process. Not just the surface data that is typically very misleading. Which is my overall point.

 

[Wildbunny]

That theory regarding Kirk being better with Reed than without... Well, maybe they should also try to throw in the playcalling on both offense and defense to really make a complete breakdown out of it. It's quite easy to just look at first grade statistics but you also know that Reed usually change the kind of playcalling on both sides, that double covering him opens things up elsewhere on O. And Kirk often stated that he goes where his reads takes him. So I still believe that this loss of stats is more due to playcalling than being incompetent from Kirk's side.

 

But that also proves one thing:

We have to et a Reed's remplacement ASAP. Trade the guy.

[markmills67]

Well Fellow Redskins fans, I thought I would start the What will happen with Cousins this offseason, Just the facts.

 

Kirk Cousins will sign a LTD with the Washington Redskins. 

 

5 year deal.

 

$130m at $26m a year average with $75m guaranteed. 

 

HTTR 

[Tsailand]

7 hours ago, goskins10 said:

2014 he played poorly. It had nothing to do with Reed being there or not - he just played bad.

 

He was on pace for 5100 yards, 30 TDs, 27 ints.

[Wyvern]

At this point, I'm handling this Cousins saga, like a seat-belted passenger on an airplane approaching turbulence just after the pilot has ordered all the flight attendents to belt in too. We know it's going to be a bumpy ride, and maybe there might be a point during the turbulence when some of us might even feel the need to throw up.  

 

And it's odd how those bumpy times seem to create opportunities for the inevitable chatterbox sitting near you, who (for whatever reason of their own) starts claiming 'doom and gloom' for our propects for survival -- citing the poor safety record of the airline, the poor quality of the airline's pilots, or even a 3-hour old weather prediction they'd seen before takeoff, that they've now nicknamed "Stormaggedon".  But eventually the flight winds up making it through the very rough patch, with the plane back on the ground again, and the passengers grateful that they (and the plane) arrived intact.

 

Now, there are a lot of players I'm hoping the Redskins will re-sign -- and Cousins is one of them.  But if the Skins FO feels the team loses too much in salary cap to retain Cousins and that the Skins could easily replicate Kirk's performances from a wide range of available QBs who they plug into Gruden's system -- then I'm going to 'belt in' and just see how the Skins do with that decision.  (And should the results of that Skins FO decision happen to suck ...I can always discontinue relying on their product, just like I'd stop flying with a bad airline.)

 

My sense is the Skins FO HAS improved, since the early Snyderatto days.  And the franchise is not a dumpster-fire, even though media pundits (no doubt guided by WaPo's pieces) have decided that's the only angle the public should be left with.  And so, I'm willing to see what emerges from the Skins' FO off-season.

 

To be very clear --- I've been a BIG fan of Cousins since he was drafted -- and even through his trying times (the last few games of Shanny's tenure, and the revolving QB era of Gruden's first season, etc.). And I don't think we've seen Cousins' 'ceiling' yet.  Cousins is already a mature and polished NFL-experienced QB -- and Kirk has shown the competitive will and discipline to continue to build up his repertoire of skills and to improve on those he already has.  These are valuable character traits that lead him to being as successful as he is,  today.  And so, I don't believe that just any QB (Sanchez?, Hoyer?) could be plugged into Gruden's system and deliver the same results.

 

...But, then again, I'm not flying this plane.

 

[RWJ]

3 hours ago, markmills67 said:

Well Fellow Redskins fans, I thought I would start the What will happen with Cousins this offseason, Just the facts.

 

Kirk Cousins will sign a LTD with the Washington Redskins. 

 

5 year deal.

 

$130m at $26m a year average with $75m guaranteed. 

 

HTTR 

You mean your opinion; not facts.  If facts please let us know.

[markmills67]

12 minutes ago, RWJ said:

You mean your opinion; not facts.  If facts please let us know.

I meant just the main points of the contract that I think will happen. 

 

HTTR 

[Est.1974]

Bit of a tenuous link here to the trade discussion, lots of suggestions out there that SF would go DL at #2 with Jonathan Allen. Seems that going DL at #2 is unlikely now having signed Earl Mitchell. Very tenuous I know. 

[Alexa]

On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 8:15 AM, Taylor703 said:

 

Yes, I'm totally sure this is the reason they're having reservations about paying Kirk the most money of anybody in the league. Probably has nothing to do with his up and down play....

Wrong. They could have done a deal last year after his 2015 season. Instead they basically insulted him with lower tier starter money.

[Alexa]

On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 8:53 AM, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

While I don't believe this is the sole reason Kirk doesn't have a contract, it would require a view through some very burgundy and gold glasses, to entirely dismiss your theory.  I'm sure that deep down Kirk's success is a thorn in the side of Dan, who was in love with Griffin and now looks like a complete buffoon for betting the farm on him, only to have the red weasel look like Quarterbackstradamus for drafting Kirk and continuing to this day to go on and on in the media about how great he is.

Or course it's a thorn in his side. Seriously, if Griffin had done the exact same thing Kirk has done the last two years he would have a deal. Does anyone here with a straight face think otherwise? They wanted to give Griffin 16 million so damn bad when there was really no reason to do so.

 

 

[Taylor703]

13 minutes ago, Alexa said:

Wrong. They could have done a deal last year after his 2015 season. Instead they basically insulted him with lower tier starter money.

 

Sure, they could've but they didn't. He was good for half the season and they weren't going to give him over $20M a year for a half season of good play. 

6 minutes ago, Alexa said:

Or course it's a thorn in his side. Seriously, if Griffin had done the exact same thing Kirk has done the last two years he would have a deal. Does anyone here with a straight face think otherwise? They wanted to give Griffin 16 million so damn bad when there was really no reason to do so.

 

 

No they didn't. Picking up Griffins option was basically a death kneel for his redskins career. The first sign of injury in a preseason game and he never took another snap again. Quit with the lame ass conspiracy theories of why Kirk hasn't been paid. The team isn't as high on him as some fans are. That's life. 

[fjblair]

12 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Huh?  Today is the first time I have even seen this graphic, which I got from this article: http://wtop.com/sports-columns/2016/12/the-reason-washington-shouldnt-pay-kirk-cousins/

 

You must be thinking of someone else.

 

EDIT:  And the article is as of December 21, 2016, which I put in my post, so obviously it doesn't include the Chicago or second NYG game.

 

Whatever man. At this points there is a plethora of data/charts/arguments to support whatever position in this drama that you choose to rally behind. Most people don't need graphs to understand that signing KC to an expensive long term deal is the best bet on the table. If the Redskins are too stupid(and it is very possible) to make the obvious move and sign Cousins there are a number of teams that will pay him the market value. Yes it is a gamble but so is rolling the dice and trading him.