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

[Spearfeather]

1 hour ago, elkabong82 said:

 

 

 

Kirk w/ Reed, 10 games:  273/399  68%  3,263 yds  18 pass TDs, 8 INTs, sacked 16, 0 rush TDs : 1.8 TDs per game, 0.8 INTs per game

Kirk w/o Reed, 6 games:  133/207 64%   1,654 yds  7 pass TDs, 4 INTs, sacked 7, 4 rush TDs : 1.8 TDs per game, 0.66 INTs per game

 

The last time I posted this, actual posters tried to argue that Kirk's rush TDs didn't count, that only the 7 pass TDs should count. They were being ridiculous just to fit their narrative. That's what I was talking abot before.

 

 

 

 

They sure did.

 

Because his completion percentage dropped. His TD/Int ratio dropped. His yardage dropped.

 

But your " overall production " is saved by ...

 

 

 

QB sneaks.

 

 

 

 

" Did you hear?  Reed's out this Sunday. "

 

" That's o.k.  Cousins will make up for it with his legs "

[bobandweave]

24 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

The 49ers are on hell on a crappy team since Harbaugh left. It'll take time to climb up. Kirk wouldn't help much.

 

If he won't answer there question of needing a QB why would he answer ours? See I don't agree on this logic, if Brady or Rodgers went to the 49ers would they help? Of course they would. So why wouldn't Kirk?

 

Any NFL team needs a capable QB and one will help any team needing a QB. That's why people are talking about Jimmy G, McCarron, Tyrod even because when your a team without a QB you must have a capable guy. If Kirk can't help them then he can't help us and we know he can play and is capable.

 

Rookies are unknowns and we will all learn a sense of the front offices belief in them after this week but they are extremely risky. If I was a GM I'm going after a QB who has shown to be capable before drafting one in the top ten of the draft most times because it's smarter to do that. 

 

Thats also ignoring that players are going to flock to San Fran now because of the belief that Kyle is a good coach who will right that ship. They are already being chosen over other teams by players and this will continue this offseason. It's become a good place to play again

[RemoveSnyder]

Why would the Redskins want to empower Shanny Jr. & the 49ers?

 

The #2 pick is not a reason. 

 

[wit33]

Kirk displayed value by keeping the offense at an overall average to above average level during periods key guys were missing or Jones was somehow the starting RB.

 

This should be recognized.

 

[bobandweave]

7 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

Why would the Redskins want to empower Shanny Jr. & the 49ers?

 

The #2 pick is not a reason. 

 

 

I don't think that the number two picks is in discussion and wouldn't you think that if we're going to lose Kirk anyway this year or next we have to get something for that? 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

26 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

Thats also ignoring that players are going to flock to San Fran now because of the belief that Kyle is a good coach who will right that ship. They are already being chosen over other teams by players and this will continue this offseason. It's become a good place to play again

 

What?

[bobandweave]

3 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Kirk displayed value by keeping the offense at an overall average to above average level during periods key guys were missing or Jones was somehow the starting RB.

 

This should be recognized.

 

 

I agree and saying the same. The only reason we were relevant is because of the offense and what we had on that side of the ball last season. We also can not build a dominating defense in a single offseason that leads to that side carrying us to relevancy, can it improve of course but the identity of this team is the offense and that's likely leaving this year or next. Barring some unforeseen extension given to the three main players which should happen but not looking like it now. Not when there are consequences for not moving Kirk when we could and other teams with more money then we have also in play.

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

What?

 

Maybe you should follow the news more then you are?

 

http://thefalconswire.usatoday.com/2017/02/25/kyle-shanahans-49ers-sign-falcons-free-agent-dt-target/

 

This player had five offers to choose from and choose the 49ers, feeling around the NFL today is what I said. The 49ers are becoming an attractive place to go now that Kyle is there 

[RemoveSnyder]

First of all, you have to define the why in how things have gotten to the nuclear option of trading the franchise QB.

 

Cousins would literally have to walk into my office, drop trou and manipulate his ass cheeks while mock impersonating me, turn around and give me the finger, and say: "I'll see you in hell before I ever sign a long term contract with you ****s!" 

 

That's a reason to trade someone. Not the ass cheeks mime or the middle finger necessarily, I'd probably think that was funny, honestly. But when the someone declaratively states they will not do business with you, not now, not ever, that's a reason. The #2 pick is not a reason. The #2 pick is a causal benefit from the act of trading a commodity.

 

And to trade a franchise QB, the suitors need to pay out the nose. Especially when you have some legitimate question whether the immediate draft class can even yield a QB that could potentially become as good as what Cousins is now, for us. I seriously question that with this year's QB class.

 

Secondly, IF the big ridiculous premise I just wrote above actually existed ... which I don't think does, which Tiki Barber and his ilk do ... I don't trade Cousins within the NFC. And I certainly don't trade him to Shanny Jr. 

 

I don't empower them. You trade Cousins to the AFC. If through your ego you allow a scenario where Cousins and Shanny get together and ramrod you out of the playoffs, or they start to own the NFC in general, you'll never live it down. 

 

Lastly, if we continue with the Cousins "I'll see you hell ...," broken relationship thing, and I somehow get wind that he wants to be in SF, that he and Kyle want to reunite and both are scheming for that eventuality, then I'm doing everything in my power to trade his ass to the CFL. I get Schafer and Allen and any other eggheads I can find, all together and have them tell me what kind of crazy options I have available.  

 

"I'll see you in the CFL before letting you go to SF," is what I'd say.  

 

So, yeah. It's a ridiculous scenario. That's why I don't think it exists. We are better with Cousins. He knows that. He also knows that the Skins have to tag him. And he also knows that 23,94 is guaranteed as soon as that happens, just like lsat year on the 19.95. No reasons to short the amount of money the CBA allows him.

 

From there, both sides are going to have to give and take. I expect that we will overpay this time around. 

 

 

[wit33]

7 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

I agree and saying the same. The only reason we were relevant is because of the offense and what we had on that side of the ball last season. We also can not build a dominating defense in a single offseason that leads to that side carrying us to relevancy, can it improve of course but the identity of this team is the offense and that's likely leaving this year or next. Barring some unforeseen extension given to the three main players which should happen but not looking like it now. Not when there are consequences for not moving Kirk when we could and other teams with more money then we have also in play.

 

Most definitely, much of the talent and resources were on the offensive side of the ball. This will change from a personnel and financial standpoint this off-season.

 

It's unfortunate, as I thought the offense had a chance to be elite last year and lead the charge to making playoffs. Just never seemed to come together last season for them. The core having another year of playoff experience would've been great, before contending in the following years to come.

 

 

 

 

[RemoveSnyder]

33 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

I don't think that the number two picks is in discussion and wouldn't you think that if we're going to lose Kirk anyway this year or next we have to get something for that? 

 

In order to justify trading your franchise QB there has to be a reason. The relationship has to be broken.

 

It has to be completely destroyed to believe that you could not, within the 2017 and 2018 seasons, ever reach a long term contract. Whatever the 49ers have, it isn't better than what the Redskins could have with Cousins on a long term contract. 

 

Until that belief changes, that fundamental bedrock belief that Cousins is the best QB option we have going forward, then the notion of a trade doesn't exist. 

[onedrop]

14 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

 

Maybe you should follow the news more then you are?

 

http://thefalconswire.usatoday.com/2017/02/25/kyle-shanahans-49ers-sign-falcons-free-agent-dt-target/

 

This player had five offers to choose from and choose the 49ers, feeling around the NFL today is what I said. The 49ers are becoming an attractive place to go now that Kyle is there 

if only they were drawing new fans as well.

 

and maybe you should follow along with a dictionary more than YOU are. LOGICAL, a word you seem to know but not comprehend. for someone that whines every time they feel the least bit offended you certainly are overly chippy. 

[TSO]

4 hours ago, Taylor703 said:

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. 

 

Don't you see the issue with this? You say "quit with the lame ass conspiracy theories" and then immediately come up with one of your own in the following sentence. Essentially, you attacked Alexa's theory with one of your own (I don't really agree with that theory either).   

 

We have no idea how high the team is on him. Here's what we know: they've franchise tagged him already at top 5 QB money and are likely going to do it again. That's the only thing we actually know along with the direct quotes from the team that indicate they're very high on him. The why and why nots, the questioning of the negotiation tactics on either side, the media speculation, the analogical deduction, etc... is virtually all "theoretical" and often conspiratorial.   

 

It's a "lame ass conspiracy theory" to assume what you are here. Let's see how the LTD negotiations actually end up or don't end up before deciding how high the team is on him and let's not downplay just how much franchise tagging him means in terms of the team being high on him. 

 

It's just as legitimate to speculate that they're willing to pay him top 5 money long term, and/or making him the highest paid (for now), but they think they can lower that amount a little bit by waiting to see how the rest of the QB market plays out (all those QB needy teams eventually filling their spots, leaving Kirk with only the Skins as a legit long term option, thus giving the team more leverage). Nothing wrong with that, and that wouldn't mean they're not "as high on him as some fans". The only difference would be that the organization is employing a negotiating strategy they believe is sound (and actually consistent with many of these type of contracts and how deadlines drive them) versus the fans saying "pay him now". Again, that has no bearing on how high or not they're on him.  

 

Or not, God knows. Maybe they're just as low on him as you are. But why don't we wait to find out while acknowledging what everyone is doing here (speculating, to various degrees) instead of calling one thing a "lame ass conspiracy theory" and in the same breath stating your own? 

[Veryoldschool]

22 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

 

In order to justify trading your franchise QB there has to be a reason. The relationship has to be broken.

 

It has to be completely destroyed to believe that you could not, within the 2017 and 2018 seasons, ever reach a long term contract. Whatever the 49ers have, it isn't better than what the Redskins could have with Cousins on a long term contract. 

 

Until that belief changes, that fundamental bedrock belief that Cousins is the best QB option we have going forward, then the notion of a trade doesn't exist. 

 

You are bringing it today!  Trading or letting a 28 year old elite franchise QB is brain dead stupid.

 

The guys here disputing whether Kirk is an elite QB were the ones who were the most patient with his predecessors many shortcomings.  They never got over it.  

[Taylor703]

@thesubmittedone I'm basing my argument off of the teams reluctance to hash out a deal with Kirk. I mean there's no middle ground. Kirk has basically made it known he's not taking a discount, which I don't think he should, but the team clearly has reservations about giving him the deal he wants. I ultimately think they will hash out a deal but the teams silence speaks volumes on this front. At least in my opinion. 

 

I mean, come on TSO. People are really arguing that Dan and Bruce won't give Kirk a deal because they're sad over Robert. I mean, really? That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and I'd be absolutely shocked if your feelings aren't similar. I think we can both agree Roberts failures have nothing to do with the hang up of Kirks deal...

 

[onedrop]

4 hours ago, TheShredSkinz said:

Been reading these threads for a while now and I still don't (maybe I missed that part) know what the pro 'show him the $$) Kirk side thinks is too much money.

 

@Alexa , @onedrop, @Skinsinparadise, @goskins10.......how much is too much for you. 26,27,28 or would you even give KC 30mill a year+++??

 

I've never been "pro show anyone the money" as much as I've been anti "tear our hair out over sensationalistic accounts regarding money that isn't ours going to someone thats earned a seat at the table and whose pay won't prevent anyone else from joining the party"

[Taylor703]

10 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

You are bringing it today!  Trading or letting a 28 year old elite franchise QB is brain dead stupid.

 

The guys here disputing whether Kirk is an elite QB were the ones who were the most patient with his predecessors many shortcomings.  They never got over it.  

We wouldn't be trading or letting an elite QB go. Kirk is not elite. 

[thebeermonkey]

I would be amazed if he signs long term now. I think we'll tag him and trade him. 

 

Wherever he goes the first thing I would do as the coach of that team would be to invest in TE. 

[Wildbunny]

1 hour ago, bobandweave said:

Maybe you should follow the news more then you are?

 

http://thefalconswire.usatoday.com/2017/02/25/kyle-shanahans-49ers-sign-falcons-free-agent-dt-target/

 

This player had five offers to choose from and choose the 49ers, feeling around the NFL today is what I said. The 49ers are becoming an attractive place to go now that Kyle is there 

 

Woaw, so because they paid 16M for a 4 year contract with 5.5M the first year for a guy that have 5.5 sacks in an eight year career, now SF is the place to be? Don't make it sound brighter that what it is really. The guy had visits planned in Atlanta, Denver and Seattle doesn't mean he got offers from them. And most probably not that kind of money.

 

You're really stiring the pot here.

[elkabong82]

2 hours ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

 

Reed has always been an extremely good receiving TE since he came into the league, and definitely at the start of the 2015 season.    Please don't insult the intelligence of this forum by trying to claim otherwise.  His issues have always been health and blocking.  Niles Paul was talked about as the starter going into 2015 because he was a much more capable blocker than Reed.  I'm pretty sure we can agree that receiving prowess out of a TE is a bigger boon to a QB than blocking prowess. 

 

Anyway, sure, we can just use 2016 stats if you want.  By the way, Reed was actually out vs. Arizona too, so it's 9 games with Reed and 7 games without Reed or with him as a decoy:

 

Kirk w/ Reed, 9 games: 251/364, 69%, 331 yards per game, 17 pass TDs, 6 INTs, sacked 12 times, 0 rush TDs: 1.9 TDs per game, 0.67 INTs per game

Kirk w/o Reed, 7 games: 155/242, 64%, 277 yards per game, 8 pass TDs, 6 INTs, sacked 11 times, 4 rush TDs: 1.7 TDs per game, 0.86 INTs per game

 

The passer rating stats with and without Reed this season?  104 passer rating with Reed.  92 passer rating without Reed.

 

 

Again, the entire point with Reed was that he wasn't a primary weapon until 2015 when Kirk was starter. But yet somehow Kirk doesn't get credit for helping Reed emerge, instead it's the narrative from some that Kirk is only good because he has Reed, which stats this year I just showed is not true.

 

Before Kirk, Reed never went over 500 yards receiving and only had 3 career TDs. So yeah, your argument that Kirk can't win without Reed is faulty because it includes stats from when Cousins wasn't a starter and Reed wasn't a primary weapon. This is two replies now where you've ignored that argument.

 

I counted the Arizona game as one where Reed was out. That was week 13. Reed was out week 6 and 7, week 13 and 16, and in week 14 and 15 he had 1 catch in each game and was a decoy only due to injury. My stats were fine. There was no drop in production from Kirk when Reed went out.

 

[Taylor 36]

13 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

 

Woaw, so because they paid 16M for a 4 year contract with 5.5M the first year for a guy that have 5.5 sacks in an eight year career, now SF is the place to be? Don't make it sound brighter that what it is really. The guy had visits planned in Atlanta, Denver and Seattle doesn't mean he got offers from them. And most probably not that kind of money.

 

You're really stiring the pot here.

That's all he does.  He can't bring any real knowledge or facts to the conversation, only illogical nonsense that gets shot down by multiple posters but he chooses to completely ignore the facts that shut down his argument and continues spewing the same nonsense over and over.  If you call him on it, he'll whine and cry and call you a meanie and tell you that you should be "professional."  That's why I say:

 

[elkabong82]

2 hours ago, Spearfeather said:

 

 

They sure did.

 

Because his completion percentage dropped. His TD/Int ratio dropped. His yardage dropped.

 

But your " overall production " is saved by ...

 

 

 

QB sneaks.

 

 

His completion % dropped from 68% to 64%. Nowhere near enough to justify the claim that Kirk is bad w/o Reed. Come on man.

 

His TD ratio stayed the same. His INT % actually dropped, but only slightly so I didn't count it as a huge plus.

 

QB sneaks? LOL! Nice memory!

 

Rush TD vs. Detroit, Arizona, and 2 vs. Chicago. 

 

Detroit- rush TD from 24 yards out, starts at 0:58

Arizona- rush TD was a QB sneak

Chicago- rush TD from 14 yards out, starts at 2:22. His 2nd rush TD was a sneak. 

 

So only half were sneaks. And the reason they could do one is because Kirk drove the team down the field. And a TD is a TD is a TD. The simple fact you have to try and cherrypick them out to fit your narrative shows just how weak it is.

[stevenaa]

Kirk is not going anywhere.  He won't consider any deal from the team until after he's tagged.  Why?  Because it gives him more leverage.  This is all about nothing but financial dickering.   There is no upside to the team coming to a long term deal yet,  and there's no benefit to Kirk doing that.   It's just part of the business process where both sides are trying to get the deal they want.  In the end,  what ever he's paid may seem over the top this year, average next year and a bargain the year after. The caps going up significantly.   Just because the team doesn't just give in and give Kirk what he's asking for right away, doesn't mean they aren't sold on him,  anymore then any of this means he doesn't want to be here.  Here's a hint.  A team does not ever tag a guy 2 years in a row with the franchise tag if they don't think he's a franchise player. That would be hugely financially irresponsible .  So if you don't think that Kirk is a franchise QB,  suck it up because the evidence suggests the team does.

[Spearfeather]

4 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

 

His completion % dropped from 68% to 64%. Nowhere near enough to justify the claim that Kirk is bad w/o Reed. Come on man.

 

 

 

Good, because no one was claiming that.

 

Quote

His TD ratio stayed the same. His INT % actually dropped, but only slightly so I didn't count it as a huge plus.

 

His TD/Int (passing ) ratio dropped, along with completion % and YPG, and his TDs per game came close, but only because of ...

 

 

QB sneaks 

 

Quote

The simple fact you have to try and cherrypick them out to fit your narrative shows just how weak it is.

 

My narrative has always been that Cousins passing production dropped when Reed was out. I don't look for Cousins in the running game to make up for that.

 

But like I said before. I hope we sign Cousins to a long term deal as soon as the time is right.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Every time I peek in here it never ceases to amaze me that at least somebody wants to trade Kirk with absolutely no semblance of a plan to replace him. 

 

Hail. 

[HTTRDynasty]

53 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

 

Again, the entire point with Reed was that he wasn't a primary weapon until 2015 when Kirk was starter. But yet somehow Kirk doesn't get credit for helping Reed emerge, instead it's the narrative from some that Kirk is only good because he has Reed, which stats this year I just showed is not true.

 

Before Kirk, Reed never went over 500 yards receiving and only had 3 career TDs. So yeah, your argument that Kirk can't win without Reed is faulty because it includes stats from when Cousins wasn't a starter and Reed wasn't a primary weapon. This is two replies now where you've ignored that argument.

 

I counted the Arizona game as one where Reed was out. That was week 13. Reed was out week 6 and 7, week 13 and 16, and in week 14 and 15 he had 1 catch in each game and was a decoy only due to injury. My stats were fine. There was no drop in production from Kirk when Reed went out.

 

 

You can't be serious.

 

Maybe, just maybe, Reed had never gone over 500 yards prior to 2015 (he had 499 his rookie year) because he had only played 9 games his rookie year and 11 games his sophomore season?  Then he was able to play in 14 games 2015 - his breakout year on the national scene.  Reed has been a stud receiving TE since his rookie year.  It's why articles like this came out after the season:

 

Jordan Reed's Historic (Yet Amazingly Under the Radar) Rookie Season

 

Bottom Line & Outlook

[Picks up literary mic] In 2013, Jordan Reed had the greatest rookie season by a tight end in Redskins history. On a per game/efficiency basis it was one of the best ever by any Redskin TE, and it should rank in the top ten overall for all rookie tight ends in NFL history. However, at the same time, I can't say with certainty that it was truly a top ten overall (per game and aggregate) season by a rookie tight end in general. This is because there is something to be said for actually playing in nearly all of your team's games and carrying those high per game totals through an entire season. Efficiency typically does decline as volume increases. Would it have dramatically declined for Jordan Reed? I don't know; but I do believe and I can say that Reed's season was one of the best ever by a rookie tight end in NFL history.

 

While, 2013 was a great year for Jordan Reed, I do not at all expect it to be the high point of his career. Reed should greatly benefit from the new coaching staff in Washington. Jay Gruden brings a tight end friendly and pass heavy offense to the table, and the team's new offensive coordinator, Sean McVay, is Reed's former tight ends coach. The addition of DeSean Jackson will keep defenses honest and out of Reed's wheel house in the short to intermediate areas of the field. If he can avoid concussion issues that have dogged him since his days as a Florida Gator, then the sky is the limit for the young tight end. Jordan Reed has the potential to be a true star in this league.

 

http://www.hogshaven.com/2014/4/21/5629712/jordan-reeds-historic-yet-amazingly-under-the-radar-rookie-season

 

Trying to act like Reed wasn't a successful TE his rookie season playing with Griffin is intellectually dishonest.  He is a tougher and more complete player today, but he has always been an exceptional receiving TE.

 

So yes, Reed was a critical weapon in our offense prior to 2015.  I haven't ignored your argument.  And yes, Kirk did start games prior to 2015 as well.  You seem to be the one ignoring this, trying to hand-wave it away as if his starts prior to 2015 mean nothing because it doesn't suit your argument.  So the numbers I originally posted from that article are accurate, even if it doesn't meet your criteria of only including Kirk's starts, with Reed on the team, since 2015.

 

Also, in my prior post, I included the numbers from the week Reed got his shoulder injury until the end of the season (which includes the second Giants game as well, since it was clear that Reed was still not himself when watching that game).