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

[wit33]

@ncr2h

 

Respect for pulling all the data out, definitely provides better perspective.

 

You mentioned a small sample size being a factor, what are your overall  thoughts on the team and Kirk's struggles in the red zone last year? 

[petedaddy]

Just now, wit33 said:

@ncr2h

 

Respect for pulling all the data out, definitely provides better perspective.

 

You mentioned a small sample size being a factor, what are your overall  thoughts on the team and Kirk's struggles in the red zone last year? 

 

Not taking any fault away from Kirk, but I thought the play calling in the red zone was atrocious

 

10% of his red zone throws were the stupid fade...I wonder what his red zone numbers would look like without the fades

 

Also, and this is a problem we have anywhere on the field, but we can't run the ball... Makes us a lot easier to defend on a compressed field

[Morneblade]

1 minute ago, wit33 said:

@ncr2h

 

Respect for pulling all the data out, definitely provides better perspective.

 

You mentioned a small sample size being a factor, what are your overall  thoughts on the team and Kirk's struggles in the red zone last year? 

 

This isn't directed at me, but I'll chime in. I thought play calling was pretty bad in the red zone. We got conservative, tried to do things we were not that good at, and we telegraphed what we were doing.

 

Nothing like on first and second down, bringing in "heavy Jumbo" and then run to the right side. And get stuffed every time. And then on 3rd down spread the field and throw a fade to someone under 6'0.

[Gamebreaker]

2 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

There's merit to pointing to his 2015 numbers, but it's just tough to rationalize such poor number this past year. It would seem normal to drop off to average from time to time, but all the way to one of the worst in the league is strange. 

 

What are your thoughts?

 

I think it's a combination of playcalling, lack of a running game, Kirk's performance and the opposing defenses learning the tendencies of McVay's better. They were just all subpar which equaled a really bad overall performance for the offense in the redzone. I don't think Kirk should be blamed for that all on his own. 

[Morneblade]

3 minutes ago, petedaddy said:

 

Not taking any fault away from Kirk, but I thought the play calling in the red zone was atrocious

 

10% of his red zone throws were the stupid fade...I wonder what his red zone numbers would look like without the fades

 

Also, and this is a problem we have anywhere on the field, but we can't run the ball... Makes us a lot easier to defend on a compressed field

 

 

OMG, we just posted the same damn thing. Guess you got the email, right

[wit33]

@petedaddy

 

I actually am a proponent of the fade route even though it hasn't been a go to type play for the Skins in a while. I just wish they'd be more creative and do some back shoulder stuff as well, keep teams guessing. I especially like the fade stuff last year with the inn ability to run the ball, like you said. You'd have to imagine Pryor will help tremendously. 

 

 

[Morneblade]

3 minutes ago, wit33 said:

@petedaddy

 

I actually am a proponent of the fade route even though it hasn't been a go to type play for the Skins in a while. I just wish they'd be more creative and do some back shoulder stuff as well, keep teams guessing. I especially like the fade stuff last year with the inn ability to run the ball, like you said. You'd have to imagine Pryor will help tremendously. 

 

 

 

And a healthy Doctson. Huge difference in the ability to go up and get the ball.

 

I also don't think we attacked the middle of the end zone enough. Or be creative. Spread the field and run a draw. Go heavy and hit a TE (or tackled eligble) in the flat. We pretty much lined up in a package, and did the most obvious thing.

[wit33]

6 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

This isn't directed at me, but I'll chime in. I thought play calling was pretty bad in the red zone. We got conservative, tried to do things we were not that good at, and we telegraphed what we were doing.

 

Nothing like on first and second down, bringing in "heavy Jumbo" and then run to the right side. And get stuffed every time. And then on 3rd down spread the field and throw a fade to someone under 6'0.

 

Yes, the heavy Jumbo stuff was weird and lacked creativity. I hate speaking like I'm capable of coaching, but split some one out, motion or pass out of it more often. The pace was terrible as well,  zero confidence in what they were about to run lol. 

 

I just wonder if they were doing that in part to help Cousins out and take responsibility away. 

[Morneblade]

11 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

Yes, the heavy Jumbo stuff was weird and lacked creativity. I hate speaking like I'm capable of coaching, but split some one out, motion or pass out of it more often. The pace was terrible as well,  zero confidence in what they were about to run lol. 

 

I just wonder if they were doing that in part to help Cousins out and take responsibility away. 

 

No way to know for sure, but I can't see why. Cousins was what made the offense go. I'm not sure why you would get to the redzone and take the keys away from him, or not trust him to stick a slant in the endzone, after he has stuck it all over the field. But who knows, other than Gruden and McVay. Either way, the whole offense bogged down inside the 20. I don't know this, I have no states to back it up, but it seemed like we had a better chance of scoring a TD if we were outside the 20, because we didn't all of a sudden get conservative.

 

Another thing, especially when you consider the Defense, you would think they would be agressive, and not "just settle" for FG's because the D can keep people out of the endzone. You'd think that they would be more aggressive, because you figure you're going to be in a shooting match.

[carex]

11 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

No way to know for sure, but I can't see why. Cousins was what made the offense go. I'm not sure why you would get to the redzone and take the keys away from him, or not trust him to stick a slant in the endzone, after he has stuck it all over the field. But who knows, other than Gruden and McVay. Either way, the whole offense bogged down inside the 20. I don't know this, I have no states to back it up, but it seemed like we had a better chance of scoring a TD if we were outside the 20, because we didn't all of a sudden get conservative.

 

Another thing, especially when you consider the Defense, you would think they would be agressive, and not "just settle" for FG's because the D can keep people out of the endzone. You'd think that they would be more aggressive, because you figure you're going to be in a shooting match.

 

the reasons why teams bog down in the red zone is you're not able to spread the field as much, and I agree that it at least seemed we were better at scoring between the 20-30 than in the red zone

[wit33]

@Morneblade

 

Conservative is a great way to put it. 

 

Thinking about it, I can see how the personnel from last year would shrink the field a bit for Kirk and schematically. Here I go again trying to be a coach, but I wonder if teams squeezed the middle of the field without fear of being over-the-top.

 

Pryor and Doctson (still an unknown) would seem to solve this shortcoming. 

[Morneblade]

42 minutes ago, wit33 said:

@Morneblade

 

Conservative is a great way to put it. 

 

Thinking about it, I can see how the personnel from last year would shrink the field a bit for Kirk and schematically. Here I go again trying to be a coach, but I wonder if teams squeezed the middle of the field without fear of being over-the-top.

 

Pryor and Doctson (still an unknown) would seem to solve this shortcoming. 

 

Definitely. Not only fades, but slants as well. 2 big bodies that can put their body between a CB or safety. Reed and to a lesser extent Garson were the only guys that we really had that could do that. M Harris I think can, but he didn't get enough reps last year. This year, we have 4 guys 6'2 and over. I'm not sure we've ever had that. Could change a lot of things down there.

[Rattlesnake88]

2 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

Definitely. Not only fades, but slants as well. 2 big bodies that can put their body between a CB or safety. Reed and to a lesser extent Garson were the only guys that we really had that could do that. M Harris I think can, but he didn't get enough reps last year. This year, we have 4 guys 6'2 and over. I'm not sure we've ever had that. Could change a lot of things down there.

This is so exciting to me. Our wide outs have always been small speedy types, or big slow and always injured. If we can keep all these big athletic receivers healthy...

 

As his airness recently said "the ceiling is the roof"...And FedEx has no roof.

 

It's real, this damn team finds new ways to sucker me every damn year. 

[Bang]

8 hours ago, wit33 said:

@petedaddy

 

I actually am a proponent of the fade route even though it hasn't been a go to type play for the Skins in a while. I just wish they'd be more creative and do some back shoulder stuff as well, keep teams guessing. I especially like the fade stuff last year with the inn ability to run the ball, like you said. You'd have to imagine Pryor will help tremendously. 

 

 

I agree, Pryor is exactly the kind of guy you need to run the fade..  emphasis on "need".

You need a guy with gigantic hands and a big tall body who can sky.

I HOPE signing Pryor doesn't mean we'll run it as often as we did last year, but, i think when we do, he has a better chance of being successful than anyone we had in 16.

it's a fine 1st of 2nd down try with a guy like Pryor out there..  but it's a one shot, no look play. 1-2-3-throw.  No other options, it works or it doesn't. And that was what made it especially dumb to me last year given the weapons on the field.

 

~Bang

[markmills67]

Am I the only one who will be pi---- If we pay Cousin's the big money LTD at the last minute in July. The front office holding back from paying him has stopped us signing at least 2 top tier signings(NT, ILB), I want cousins locked up asap before for me the 2017/18 season is already over before a snap as been played.

 

HTTR 

[Est.1974]

I'll be more pissed if we pay our QB 24+mil per year and surround him    across the roster with mediocre talent.

[Veryoldschool]

Kirk's critics will never be satisfied and will continue move the goalpost and dish out backhanded compliments as long as Cousins is here.  It must remembered many of his critics in our fan base are embittered defenders of Kirk's predecessor.  In the unlikely event Dan Snyder keeps his hand out of personnel decisions, hire's a GM that is actually given authority and produces a Super Bowl and Kirk is the MVP, Kirk's Cousins will still be nitpicking.

[TheGreek1973]

13 hours ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

I think it's a combination of playcalling, lack of a running game, Kirk's performance and the opposing defenses learning the tendencies of McVay's better. They were just all subpar which equaled a really bad overall performance for the offense in the redzone. I don't think Kirk should be blamed for that all on his own. 

For me it was play calling, the lack of a solid running game and the lack of tall WRs.  This is why in 2015 and 2016 Reed was so important down there and yet he is "only" 6.2.  Imagine now with Pryor and Doctson, I think we will see much better production with those two in there.

[CTskin]

4 hours ago, markmills67 said:

Am I the only one who will be pi---- If we pay Cousin's the big money LTD at the last minute in July. The front office holding back from paying him has stopped us signing at least 2 top tier signings(NT, ILB), I want cousins locked up asap before for me the 2017/18 season is already over before a snap as been played.

 

HTTR 

I don't think Kirk's tag has any relevance on how we attacked free agency. We've done the same thing for the last three seasons with the exception of the unique Josh Norman situation. We overpay average-ish players and hope they miraculously turn into good players. It hasn't worked, but the FO is too dumb to realize it.

 

If it wasn't for Gruden's top notch system, this team would be brutally bad. I believe that losing McVay is a good thing for this team. When he took over play-calling this team went from top-5 to bottom-5 in red zone and on 3rd down percentages.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

2 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

 It must remembered many of his critics in our fan base are embittered defenders of Kirk's predecessor

 

Can you knock this off? Nearly every post of yours in this thread has some type of reference to this it seems like.

 

Trust me, you've ensured that nobody will ever forget that people on this board at one point liked RG3. 

[Skinsinparadise]

Mike Jones just said on 106.7 based on his sources no progress on Kirk contract, its been quiet.  From what he's heard, Kirk's side wants $24 million a year and around $80 million in guarantees -- and the Redskins don't want to pay that much.  Jones thinks Kirk's camp is more than fine with the Redskins not agreeing.  They are willing to play on the tag for one year and then test free agency.  If so, I think it really simplifies why there is so much pessimism both nationally and locally that a long term contract gets done.

 

Basically it sounds like Bruce/Schaffer want Kirk to come down from what he wants.  But why would he if he's perfectly fine with not getting a long term agreement?  So there is really no give and take negotiations until if/when Bruce/Schaffer get into their ball park of what Kirk and his agent want.    And if they don't, Kirk won't sign a LTD.  That simple.

 

 Kirk/McCartney have no interest in haggling because Plan B to them which is hitting FA and playing on the tag is more than fine with them -- actually they'd perhaps even relish it because either the Redskins are boxed in to transition tag him at 28 million or he will be playing in SF for Kyle.

 

In short, perhaps Bruce/Schaffer are confounded by the idea that they have a player who isn't willing to come off of what they want. And as Mike Jones said they are "stubborn" and not backing off thus far.   But, it's not typical negotiations 101.  As Adam Schefter likes to say Kirk might have more contract leverage than any NFL player in NFL history.  

 

Good news is it still comes off that Kirk would be more than willing to come back at a market deal.  Bad news to me is Bruce comes off to me like Keim recently described how agents see this Redskins FO which is they go about FA where the bottom line goal is to get a winning deal/bargain out of each contract.  If that's what's driving Bruce, he's unlikely to win this.  I don't see how he beats Kirk's agent down to a deal that's more favorable to the club's than what's expected.  

 

Can Bruce get a target without a coupon attached?  I got my doubts.  I guess Norman would be an exception.   But I am still stuck on the same theory which drives my optimism -- that is, echoing what Chris Cooley likes to say which is it would be insane for them not get a deal done with Kirk and Cooley doesn't see the people in charge as insane.  

 

Also from today's Mike Jones Q & A

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/football-insider/wp/2017/03/21/making-sense-of-the-redskins-free-agent-signings-thus-far/?utm_term=.ba9e02109a3d

Man, it’s going to take a lot for the Redskins to get back to reaching the playoffs consistently, let alone contending for Super Bowls. This defense is not a championship-level unit. They need more aggressive and disruptive defensive linemen, more impactful pass-rushers, game-changing defensive backs. The Redskins probably need greater consistency in the rushing department as well. I think Rob Kelley will continue to grow, and Washington’s line is solid, although the left guard position could possibly use some work. The Redskins also need a long-term solution at quarterback. They have a talented quarterback, but don’t want to pay him what he’s worth, and he’s not budging either, so they probably need to find another guy. Good luck with that. It took all this time to find Kirk Cousins, and they still don’t fully appreciate him. So, unfortunately, this team isn’t anywhere close to Super Bowl ready.

[TheGreek1973]

Mike Jones IMO is reaching for a story.  Bottom line the team also has not made an effort to move their original offer either.  how about 22 million per and 60 guaranteed?  They they can start the negotiation.  My feeling is if the team comes in with close to 23 million per with 70 million guarantied we may have a deal.

[Est.1974]

@Skinsinparadise I really think it is that simple. Our FO have nothing to negotiate on. 

 

Personally, you either pay him right now, or try to ship him out before the draft to a team picking in the top 6. 

[Skinsinparadise]

10 minutes ago, TheGreek1973 said:

Mike Jones IMO is reaching for a story.  Bottom line the team also has not made an effort to move their original offer either.  how about 22 million per and 60 guaranteed?  They they can start the negotiation.  My feeling is if the team comes in with close to 23 million per with 70 million guarantied we may have a deal.

 

He wasn't reaching for a story, he was asked about it and he answered -- basically saying same old same old.  Kirk wants this and Bruce isn't willing to pay it.  Only thing new was him adding that he doesn't seem to believe there has been any movement.  

 

8 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

@Skinsinparadise I really think it is that simple. Our FO have nothing to negotiate on. 

 

Personally, you either pay him right now, or try to ship him out before the draft to a team picking in the top 6. 

 

Yeah to me this is 100% on Bruce/Schaffer at this point.  It's not even 99% IMO.  Is Bruce willing to pay what most consider market value or isn't he.  There doesn't seem to be much more than that.  

 

If Bruce does intend to pay that sum eventually, I have to give him kudos for being a good poker player within Redskins Park because the pessimism about a deal from both national and local guys seems to be driven by their sources all being on the same page on the subject -- which is they don't intend to pay what Kirk wants and that's no bluff, etc.

[NewCliche21]

6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

If Bruce does intend to pay that sum eventually, I have to give him kudos for being a good poker player within Redskins Park because the pessimism about a deal from both national and local guys seems to be driven by their sources all being on the same page on the subject -- which is they don't intend to pay what Kirk wants and that's no bluff, etc.

 

I know it's easy to armchair GM, but this isn't even just about Kirk.  What quarterback wants to come here, set franchise records two years in a row, and then not get paid?  Why would anyone worth signing want to come here if they treat their players this way?

 

Kirk's no 10, but when you've got an 8.5 or 9 who's willing to go for you, stop holding out for a 10.  What this is going to cost in talent acquisition is gonna be a lot more than a couple million a year and 10-20 million guaranteed.  I'll take an "overpaid" Super Bowl winner over a "value" maybe-next-year guy.