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

[bobandweave]

20 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Well, for starters it's damn near impossible to determine how many "wins" a player is worth, especially since wins are a team "stat"...but in terms of the discussion of backup QBs, usually the best you can hope for in a backup QB is one who can keep the ball rolling for short periods of time (half a game, 1 or 2 games here and there). They understand the scheme and can and have lead the team to victories when coming off the bench or when pressed to start. If you have a backup QB who plays like a starter, he won't be your backup QB for long. So unless the plan is to have a continuous rotation of starter-quality backups coming and going from the team every few years--which is pretty much impossible to do--if you get a guy like McCoy, a backup who knows his role and doesn't get the jitters whenever he's put into the game (and actually has really good field presence), AND can lead you to wins, especially on the road...that's considered a valuable commodity.

 

Yes you bring up two good points - I remember the Colt McCoy win in Dallas. And yes I know that QBs who are quality backups like Tyrod Taylor and like Kirk Cousins will move on if they show they can start. Thing is this is about timing to me. When we needed to rely on Colt against the Cowboys he delivered. That's not the same as saying this guy can do it outside of spot duty game here or there. Kirk came off the bench and beat the Ravens in 2012 like this and went to Cleveland and won a game there. Does that mean that in 2012 Kirk could have led the team to victories in the future weeks? Unknown right?

 

If your Qb goes down early in the season then you have a decision to make. Either you throw your highly paid backup who can play well for a game maybe two into the mix and secure some victories until eventually the bottom drops out and the other guys adjust to that player and the team inevitably starts losing again OR you can save what 2.5 million and draft a guy and take the approach that if the starter goes down the teams screwed so what good are those 1-2 extra wins when they seasons basically lost anyway? Those 1-2 extra wins on a lost year hurt your draft position. Why not save that 2.5 million you can use on a different starter and instead just draft someone cheap and use that guy? If the drafted guy plays well guess what? You now have a commodity to trade. If he plays like ass then guess what? Your drafting someone else to replace him

 

Lets not get me wrong, not talking about high draft picks here. Not talking 1st-2nd-3rd round QBs. The tendency with these backups are that it takes a game or two to get enough film on him by the opposing Defenses so any new QB will get a honeymoon period for a week or two where he's effective. We saw this last year with the Eagles Qb. Once there was film on him his production really regressed. Since this is already built in then the answer to me is that the team drafts a running QB to be the backup. If he's called upon due to injury you put him in, his running ability opens up the rushing attack and you can float on that for for the one to two games you need him for except your saving millions this way. 

 

Now this all goes out the window on the off chance that like in 2012 when the playoffs were a possibility and the starter got injured that you need someone you can rely on more. But that's happening later in the season and 3 million is a lot for this possibility. What happens in that situation when your in the mist of a losing season and those extra wins a Colt McCoy gives you only hurts you longer term in the draft? That

s not good. 

 

To me the only case a higher paid backup QB makes the most sense is what we went through in 2012 (mid season playoffs on the line) but that was a rookie coming into get those wins (cheap late round QB choice) and the other time we saw it with Colt against the Cowboys hurt us because the season was lost anyway

[Tay]

1 hour ago, bobandweave said:

 

For QBs? I agree it happens with other positions. I disagree that this happens with QBs and can't think of any that lasted until July.

 

That's like a team saying what they do between April and July doesn't matter. That's the OTAs, that's the mini camps, that's deep into training camp. Teams need to know what QB's they have so taking that long to decide what to do with one usually does not happen. The reason this happens with other positions is if your stud WR isn't there that's okay because teams sport another 6 of that position anyway. There is only one starting QB on a team.

 

And who wants that story distraction anyway? 

 

The last QB to get franchised was Drew Brees. He agreed to his deal on July 13, 2012. It was finalized on July 15.  

[bobandweave]

10 minutes ago, Tay said:

 

The last QB to get franchised was Drew Brees. He agreed to his deal on July 13, 2012. It was finalized on July 15.  

 

Different situation completely

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/8126187/drew-brees-new-orleans-saints-wins-franchise-tag-ruling

 

Brees was going no where and there was a lawsuit at play. Kirk wants to test the open market he's very public about that he won't come out and ruin his brand but that's code for him wanting to leave. But your right this did happen just saying completely different situations 

17 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

See I don't think any of that changes his market value. He's worth just about what he's worth and there will be a couple teams who will pay that when he hits the market. 

 

Agree nothings going to change between now and July except more QB needy teams will have addressed those needs making it more unlikely we can trade him then. That's why its best to do this song and dance with all cards on the table now so we can move on if we have to.

 

I don't want to move on but I'm convinced nothing will get done here because I think Kirk thinks his value to the league is way higher then it really is and until he gets smacked with reality like Adrian Peterson is these days his false sense in his value will keep a deal from getting done. He wants to test the market, unless the team overpays. Not a good commitment from him in anyway towards the future of our team. 

[The Hangman- C_Hanburger]

VERRRY INTERESTING...just saw that Stafford AND Carr are going to test the Market in 2018!!! So Garappolo,Carr, Stafford and Cousins(Absent a LTD) will be competing for top $$ in 2018. Given Snyder and his wallet...what is the pecking order for that group!!! (doing my Sgt Shultz impression).

 

Which would YOU spend the $$ on??? Me..If I could get Stafford...man that would be something! Favre 2.0

[Tay]

32 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Different situation completely

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/8126187/drew-brees-new-orleans-saints-wins-franchise-tag-ruling

 

Brees was going no where and there was a lawsuit at play. Kirk wants to test the open market he's very public about that he won't come out and ruin his brand but that's code for him wanting to leave. But your right this did happen just saying completely different situations 

 

The lawsuit that was at play was to determine if that current franchise tag counted as the 1st or as his 2nd. Since it counted as his 2nd, it gave considerable leverage to Brees. They had approx. 2 weeks to finalize a deal, and they waited until the deadline.

 

The QB franchised before him was Mike Vick. He agreed to his deal 8/30. Not quite the deadline, but it was very late in the window.

 

This is status quo in the NFL. Again, it doesn't make sense to me, but it's not surprising. Especially since Bruce Allen is in charge of this process.

[TSO]

50 minutes ago, The Hangman- C_Hanburger said:

VERRRY INTERESTING...just saw that Stafford AND Carr are going to test the Market in 2018!!!

 

Where'd you see this? Just searched for it and couldn't find anything on this. 

 

That is very interesting if true. It's my theory the only thing keeping the team (rightly or wrongly) from offering Kirk a market deal is they're waiting on those two situations to develop along with Ryan.  Kirk's side likely feels the same way and wants to see. 

[WelshSkinsFan]

I could maybe see Stafford testing the market although it is unlikely but I call BS on any suggestion Carr plans to do the same, he is in lockstep with the Front Office in Oakland (Las Vegas) and I don't see that changing.  More significantly, neither player has ever been tagged so there is no way they hit the open market before 2020. 

[TSO]

4 minutes ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

I could maybe see Stafford testing the market although it is unlikely but I call BS on any suggestion Carr plans to do the same, he is in lockstep with the Front Office in Oakland (Las Vegas) and I don't see that changing.  More significantly, neither player has ever been tagged so there is no way they hit the open market before 2020. 

 

Yeah, same here but I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually did see this. 

 

I'd like to know what the source of that was. 

[Stadium-Armory]

<Moved this comment to the Snyder thread>

[The Hangman- C_Hanburger]

43 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

Where'd you see this? Just searched for it and couldn't find anything on this. 

 

That is very interesting if true. It's my theory the only thing keeping the team (rightly or wrongly) from offering Kirk a market deal is they're waiting on those two situations to develop along with Ryan.  Kirk's side likely feels the same way and wants to see. 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/story/_/id/19102518/predicting-2018-free-agent-quarterback-market-jimmy-garoppolo-kirk-cousins-future

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/index

Front page ESPN

 

[TK]

2 hours ago, bobandweave said:

I hope the mods see this personal attack on me and give you a warning. Don't speak about me again like this. It's breaking the rules and who the hell are you anyway to be allowed to do that? 

Except it's not. And you're not a Mod here so there is no need for you to telling anyone what the Rules are & what they should or shouldn't say since you have repeatedly shown you do not know them, understand them, or comprehend them. In short, while you've enjoyed your time here, you've managed to interrupt everyone else's enjoyment of your time here. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

17 minutes ago, The Hangman- C_Hanburger said:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/story/_/id/19102518/predicting-2018-free-agent-quarterback-market-jimmy-garoppolo-kirk-cousins-future

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/index

Front page ESPN

 

 

??...that article doesn't say Carr is gonna test the free agency market next year. In fact, his section says "Not Going Anywhere" and claims the Raiders will wrap him up in a LTD before the 2017 season ends...

[The Hangman- C_Hanburger]

2 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

??...that article doesn't say Carr is gonna test the free agency market next year. In fact, his section says "Not Going Anywhere" and claims the Raiders will wrap him up in a LTD before the 2017 season ends...

The Intro on Page 1 alludes to Carr as being in the mix. Inside it goes into detail. It was Stafford that got my attention. I said it was INTERESTING, not Plausible :). Brees as a stop gap has a nice option ring too....

 

Just saying that Kirk may have some competition for top $$

 

 

[Tsailand]

2 hours ago, bobandweave said:

Why are QBs like Colt McCoy who possess such a low ceiling considered valuable backups?

 

Because he gives you a chance to win if your franchise QB gets knocked out of the game or misses a few weeks. 

 

I'll bet the Raiders wish they'd had him instead of Connor Cook last year.

 

 

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

20 minutes ago, The Hangman- C_Hanburger said:

The Intro on Page 1 alludes to Carr as being in the mix. Inside it goes into detail. It was Stafford that got my attention. I said it was INTERESTING, not Plausible :). Brees as a stop gap has a nice option ring too....

 

Just saying that Kirk may have some competition for top $$

 

 

 

You said: ".just saw that Stafford AND Carr are going to test the Market in 2018!!!"

 

Not "might" test the market or "could" test the market, but "are going to" test the market.

[The Hangman- C_Hanburger]

4 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

You said: ".just saw that Stafford AND Carr are going to test the Market in 2018!!!"

 

Not "might" test the market or "could" test the market, but "are going to" test the market.

So I got caught by the headline. BFD

[TSO]

50 minutes ago, The Hangman- C_Hanburger said:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/story/_/id/19102518/predicting-2018-free-agent-quarterback-market-jimmy-garoppolo-kirk-cousins-future

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/index

Front page ESPN

 

 

Sorry, brother, but I don't see how you got that they're "going to test the market in 2018" from this. You said it like it was factual and not opinion. 

 

It's just predictions from ESPN analysts. 

14 minutes ago, The Hangman- C_Hanburger said:

So I got caught by the headline. BFD

 

Woah woah... it's only a big deal if you make it one. You initially posted something that was simply untrue and would've been pretty significant to the topic here. Nothing wrong with anyone asking for proof and, when none was given, dismissing it and your original post. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

26 minutes ago, The Hangman- C_Hanburger said:

So I got caught by the headline. BFD

 

No you didn't lol...the headline doesn't indicate anything about Carr and Stafford. Not sure how you reached the conclusion you reached earlier, but hard to reconcile what you said earlier with what was said in the articles you linked.

 

 

[The Hangman- C_Hanburger]

49 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

No you didn't lol...the headline doesn't indicate anything about Carr and Stafford. Not sure how you reached the conclusion you reached earlier, but hard to reconcile what you said earlier with what was said in the articles you linked.

 

 

They took the intro headline off the ESPN NFL front page. I wish I had taken a screen shot but WTH. It had Garoppalo, Cousins, Carr and Stafford in the same sentence about 2018 FA as a link to the detailed story. You are looking at the article NOT the intro. I guess others thought it misleading because it's gone now. So..if I jumped the shark based on the intro...so be it.

[Morneblade]

Just now, The Hangman- C_Hanburger said:

They took the intro headline off the ESPN NFL front page. I wish I had taken a screen shot but WTH. It had Garoppalo, Cousins, Carr and Stafford in the same sentence about 2018 FA as a link to the detailed story. You are looking at the article NOT the intro. I guess others thought it misleading because it's gone now. So..if I jumped the shark based on the intro...so be it.

 

You did. We all make mistakes. But at least own it.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

10 minutes ago, The Hangman- C_Hanburger said:

They took the intro headline off the ESPN NFL front page. I wish I had taken a screen shot but WTH. It had Garoppalo, Cousins, Carr and Stafford in the same sentence about 2018 FA as a link to the detailed story. You are looking at the article NOT the intro. I guess others thought it misleading because it's gone now. So..if I jumped the shark based on the intro...so be it.

 

 

 

You wouldn't be the first around here to do so lol...

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 hours ago, bobandweave said:

 

Yes you bring up two good points - I remember the Colt McCoy win in Dallas. And yes I know that QBs who are quality backups like Tyrod Taylor and like Kirk Cousins will move on if they show they can start. Thing is this is about timing to me. When we needed to rely on Colt against the Cowboys he delivered. That's not the same as saying this guy can do it outside of spot duty game here or there. Kirk came off the bench and beat the Ravens in 2012 like this and went to Cleveland and won a game there. Does that mean that in 2012 Kirk could have led the team to victories in the future weeks? Unknown right?

 

 

Ummm...I'm not sure what the rest of your post is dealing with but I only responded to your post about not understanding why people think McCoy is a quality backup QB. Remember this:

 

" Why are QBs like Colt McCoy who possess such a low ceiling considered valuable backups?"

 

And that part in bold...did you see anything in my post that sounded even remotely like what you wrote? lol...In fact, I said exactly what you said--that good backup QBs can be effective in spot duty. They don't need to be more than that to be a quality backup. So, yeah, not sure what you're arguing against or who, for that matter lol...

[ncr2h]

Shouldn't Colt's 2014 win over Dallas get a giant asterisk due to the following?

 

1.  Normally abysmal Redskins defense produced 5 sacks and 4 forced fumbles

2.  One of those sacks led to Romo going out with an injury early in the second half

3.  Cowboys tried to finish the game by replacing Weeden (who had scored on 2 consecutive drives) with a severely hobbled Romo

 

McCoy has a 7-18 record for his career, equivalent to 4 wins in a 16 game season.  Maybe he got a raw deal in Cleveland, but he had some dreadful performances for us in 2014 and didn't really accomplish anything other than getting lucky wins against the likes of Charlie Whitehurst and Brandon Weeden.  Just 3 players in NFL history have had multiple games with 4 fumbles:

 

1.  Mike Vick (115 career starts)

2.  The Butt Fumbler (72 career starts)

3.  Colt Mccoy (25 career starts)

 

He fumbles at an extraordinary rate due to his excessive sack-taking, which makes it very difficult to win games with him.  Even worse, it makes him more injury prone, which is the last thing you want to hear about your veteran backup.

[Tsailand]

30 minutes ago, ncr2h said:

injury prone, which is the last thing you want to hear about your veteran backup.

 

I'm OK with this as long as it's not RG3 levels of injury magnetism.  The important thing for a backup QB on a normal team is to give you the best chance to win games coming off the bench and possibly start over a one to four week period.

 

For 90% of teams, if their franchise QB goes down for the season, they automatically are out of contention and might as well "Suck for Luck".  At that point it doesn't even matter how long the backup stays on his feet.

[ncr2h]

5 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

I'm OK with this as long as it's not RG3 levels of injury magnetism.  The important thing for a backup QB on a normal team is to give you the best chance to win games coming off the bench and possibly start over a one to four week period.

 

For 90% of teams, if their franchise QB goes down for the season, they automatically are out of contention and might as well "Suck for Luck".  At that point it doesn't even matter how long the backup stays on his feet.

 

But if I were the coach and Colt McCoy was my #2 QB, I would not enter the season without a #3 QB.  I think if we had a different guy at #2 QB, we could realistically roll with just 2 QBs on the roster, freeing another roster spot for a bubble guy at RB, WR, DB, etc.

 

Teams who are entering their Super Bowl window should splurge for the best backup QB they can find.  All other teams should be looking for either (a) an unproven commodity or (b ) a guy who has consistently proven to be awful.  McCoy is kind of in a weird no mans land where he's not quite as awful as the worst QBs out there, but is also injury prone.  Give me a Blaine Gabbert, Curtis Painter, Jimmy Clausen type of QB any day over a tweener like McCoy.