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

[Morneblade]

10 minutes ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

At least until the draft.  The picture changes dramatically if the 49ers take a QB though because as of right now they are the only team that can afford the contract he wants and are thought to be willing to sign him.  The Browns might but does Kirk think he would be better off there?  I have to doubt it.  Kirk's camp is continuing to bet the draft strengthens their position and Bruce is betting it won't, for our sake I hope Bruce is right.

 

No trade is going to happen. What is very likely to happen is the a week before the deadline things will heat up and a LTD will be done at the 11th hour. On hte tiny chance that does not happen, Bruce has already said the Transition tag is in play for 2018. He is going nowhere in the next 2 years.

[WelshSkinsFan]

I don't see a trade either, just a long game of chicken until a few days before the deadline.

[Veryoldschool]

I envision Daniel Snyder sitting stupefied in his office after the end of the 2017 season when it finally sinks in he can’t get Cousins to sign at any price because he jerked him around too long.  Dan will have no option but to fire Bruce Allen to expunge his bad feelings and more importantly serve as the sacrificial lamp for the angry fans because of course he won't take responsibility, that is for disposal employees. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

 

It's called negotiating. You don't start at market value, you start below and work your way to a middle ground. 

 

The difference between 20 million each year and 24-25 million is a starter on the roster. And it's very likely on a LTD the first year's cap hit will be below the current tag number.

 

Guaranteed Kirk's side has asked for above market value, as they should. Both sides will end up meeting somehwere in the fair market value range. 

Hopefully. 

 

Just curious, what will your explanation be if they never come up to $24-25M? 

[elkabong82]

1 hour ago, Tsailand said:

 

Last year Kirk's final offer was below market value, and the team still didn't pick it up.

 

That's debatable. In comparison to this year yes it's low, but in the context of post-2015, pre-2016, even $19.5 per year with a sizeable chunk gauranteed was a big investment, which in the wake of RG3 the team was being extra cautious.

 

This year it's an entirely different context. There isn't much uncertaintyat this point. Kirk is a franchise QB. So the negotiations proceed and if you review the timeline of Von Miller and other deals for big stars, the team is on pace.

[elkabong82]

8 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

Hopefully. 

 

Just curious, what will your explanation be if they never come up to $24-25M? 

 

It will mean they didn't think Kirk was worth that kind of  oney. It will be a poor decision on their part. Annual salary isn't the issue though. That's going to average between 23 and 25 mil. The guaranteed money will be the issue.

[zoony]

Damnit get this ****ing deal done and let's move on. 

[RedskinsMayne]

2 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

Last year Kirk's final offer was below market value, and the team still didn't pick it up.

 

 

last year a completely different situation than this year.

i'm not sure why the team is worried about guaranteed money. He give cousins a lot of money and he stinks it up and we have to carry a lot of cap space, that will set us back 2-3 years. If we let cousins walk that will also set us 3-4 years.  We gave a lot of our big-money players the boot this year, so it's not like we can't afford to carry cap.

[illone]

1 hour ago, zoony said:

Damnit get this ****ing deal done and let's move on. 

 

There is no motivation from either side right now.  The business side of this whole thing dictates that both will hold out as long as possible to get the best deal.  If it happens this year it will be July 14th at 11:59pm, and if not it will happen next year, perhaps the same date and time.

 

In other words, don't hold your breath 

[purbeast]

3 hours ago, Morneblade said:

 

No trade is going to happen. What is very likely to happen is the a week before the deadline things will heat up and a LTD will be done at the 11th hour. On hte tiny chance that does not happen, Bruce has already said the Transition tag is in play for 2018. He is going nowhere in the next 2 years.

Yep, let's pay him $75 million guaranteed for 3 years when we could have paid him $70 million guaranteed for 5 years.

 

Sounds like a Redskins move for sure.

 

"Winning off the field."

[Morneblade]

8 minutes ago, purbeast said:

Yep, let's pay him $75 million guaranteed for 3 years when we could have paid him $70 million guaranteed for 5 years.

 

Sounds like a Redskins move for sure.

 

"Winning off the field."

 

[Tsailand]

5 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

That's debatable. In comparison to this year yes it's low, but in the context of post-2015, pre-2016, even $19.5 per year with a sizeable chunk gauranteed was a big investment, which in the wake of RG3 the team was being extra cautious.

 

The Broncos had just given Brock 19/year for four years, even though he was a below average QB who had only started 8 games.  Kirk had just started a full season and played at a top-10 level.  The free market would have given him 21M+

[ATown Jacoby]

Wowsers. Could you imagine this?  Having an opportunity to essentially get on the cheap (rookie deal) Myles Garrett for KC8.  Browns won't do this but interesting.  

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/04/12/would-browns-trade-the-first-overall-pick-for-a-quarterback/

[Rskins06]

I don't see either side motivated until after the draft.  I believe both are waiting to see what Cleveland and SF are going to do.  If either of them throw the #1 or #2 pick at them for KC, you have to believe they would jump on it.  Having 2 1st round picks would be huge.  Not saying this is going to happen or the reason nothing is getting done with a LTD currently, but why not wait and see what happens.  If nothing happens , pretty sure negotiations will heat up and a deal would eventually get done.  Of course, all this speculation goes out the window if you believe some mock drafts and them taking a QB at #17.

[purbeast]

You guys are crazy if you think having the #1 or #2 pick is more important than having a franchise quarterback after not having one for 25 years.

[RedskinsMayne]

i would want more than a first for a franchise qb

[ThomasRoane]

1 hour ago, purbeast said:

You guys are crazy if you think having the #1 or #2 pick is more important than having a franchise quarterback after not having one for 25 years.

 

Especially when all the rules are skewed to favor a high scoring, pass dominant offense.  I can see it now.  The Redskins draft defense and we the fans sit on the edge of our seats hoping that Colt or Sudfeld can drive the offense down the field so Hop can kick a game winning field goal each week. Yay mediocrity!

 

Even if they took Garrett you just know that something would happen to him in training camp.  Many of the first rounders have largely been snakebit with a devastating lack of lady luck. 

 

If the Redskins blow this with Kirk the franchise will experience a huge hit financially.  The fans can't take the trauma of losing a GM and the best QB the team has had in over 20 years in one season. 

[WelshSkinsFan]

I would not worry about trade scenarios, nobody is offering us the 1st or 2nd pick for Kirk and I really don't think that is going to change.  Cleveland is taking Garrett regardless of any smokescreen they might put out and the 49ers are looking to trade back and get more picks as they have so many holes to fill. 

[Morneblade]

Here are some very interesting stats that @Voice_of_Reason compiled over in the http://es.redskins.com/topic/412030-more-important-to-improve-offense-or-defense/ thread. While it's more about how do we best improve the team as it stands right now, with Kirk Cousins as our QB, it also going into just how productive the offense was, even with the Red Zone issues, that quite honestly look to be more of a young playcaller than QB. It also points out just how much our defense did not help out, and with a running game that was hampered with sub par run blocking just how much Cousins means to this football team. And how much better we would have been with a moderate Defense. And maybe, most importantly, how much our Defenses inability to get off the field on 3rd down was the prime reason we ended up with a 8-7-1 record.

 

If you have not been over there, you should go, it's a excellent discussion on football.

 

---------- from @Voice_of_Reason:

 

"@thesubmittedone, as promised, I looked up some additional drive stats.  these come from www.footballoutsiders.com  They are one of my favorite stat compiling websites.  (As an aside, I've been in data analytics as a career thing for the better part of 20 years in some form or another, so I'm definitely a data geek in real life. Translating it to football is fun)

 

So this is fascinating.  The correlation to number of drives to successful offenses is virtually non-existent.  Or possibly inverted, which I didn't expect at all. 

 

- The average NFL team had 177 drives in the season.  (For those playing at home, that's 11 per game.)

- The Redskins had the second fewest drives in the NFL at 165.  That's essentially 1 drive less per game than the average.

- Atlanta, who had the highest scoring offense, had 166 drives.  They also had the 27th worst scoring defense.  So, the 'Skins and Falcons were essentially in the same spot from a drives perspective.

- BUT, Atlanta was the elite, stratospheric offense.  They averaged 40.5 yards per drive (1), 3.06 points per drive (1),etc, etc.  So they essentially scored their way out of having fewer drives.

- Washington, by comparison, had 39.8 yards per drive (2) but 2.4 points per drive. And here's where we can start to bring in the offensive scoring issues.  Atlanta score TDs on .349 (1) of drives, the 'Skins .255.  (10).  So, even with the 'Skins redzone troubles, they were the 10th best team at turning a drive into a TD.  That's interesting. **If you have a craptastic defense, you have to score more points per drive.  That is obvious, but now statistically proven.  

- The teams with the top 5 number of drives were SF (193), Arizona (192), Baltimore (189), Den (189) and Oak (189).  Car, LA Rams, Miami and Jax were all next, all right around 186 drives. 

- What those teams all had in common was they were at the bottom of "plays per drive." So, because they had so few plays per drive themselves, they were 3-out and punt a lot.  More 3-outs leads to more drives.  

- Where did the "good offenses" rank in terms of # drives?  Atlanta - 166 (29), Washington - 165 (28), NO - 177 (15), GB - 167 (28), DAL - 167 (27), NE - 173 (21), 

- What did all of those teams have in common?  You guessed it, they all lead the league in plays per drive/TOP per drive.  Actually, all of them were in the top 7 in TOP per drive except NO. Drew Brees rocks, so he tends not to need as much time to score.  But in general, by having more plays per drive, they shortened the game just with their offense, regardless of what their defense did.

 

The more I look at it, the more I draw comparisons between New Orleans and Washington.  Both had very good offenses, lead by really productive QBs.  (Let me state that in no world is Cousins as good as Brees, who is a SB winning, sure fire first ballot HOF QB.  But they both lead very productive offenses.)  And had craptastic defenses.  While Atlanta was able to overcome it's defense because they were SO MUCH BETTER on offense (4 ppg better than NO in second place), in the end, neither NO nor Washington were able to, and both finished ~8-8 (8-7-1, 7-9).

 

So, with that little bit of statistical analysis behind us, I don't think my conclusion has changed any.  Keep the offense productive, but you have to improve the defense from poop on a stick to average, and you can win games.  Because short of Julio Jones walking through the door, the offense will not go from Very Good to once in a generation awesome, which is actually what Atlanta was last year.  They were a point per game BETTER than the Greatest Show On Turf Rams. But not as good as the Brady/Moss 2007 Patriots, which to my eye, is the best offense I've ever seen." 

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Morneblade said:

Here are some very interesting stats that @Voice_of_Reason compiled over in the http://es.redskins.com/topic/412030-more-important-to-improve-offense-or-defense/ thread. While it's more about how do we best improve the team as it stands right now, with Kirk Cousins as our QB, it also going into just how productive the offense was, even with the Red Zone issues, that quite honestly look to be more of a young playcaller than QB. It also points out just how much our defense did not help out, and with a running game that was hampered with sub par run blocking just how much Cousins means to this football team. And how much better we would have been with a moderate Defense. And maybe, most importantly, how much our Defenses inability to get off the field on 3rd down was the prime reason we ended up with a 8-7-1 record.

 

If you have not been over there, you should go, it's a excellent discussion on football.

 

<lifts self-imposed perma-ban from this thread to thank @Morneblade>

 

There is actually other statistical stuff in the "Offense vs. Defense" thread, especially in the OP, which might be interesting to some folks.  

 

Please head on over there to discuss. However, it is NOT a Cousins thread, so if all you want to do is hash-over Cousins topics, please keep it in here, it's rightful home.

 

I'm outahere. 

 

<re-imposes perma-ban to thread to maintain sanity.>

 

[Tsailand]

2 hours ago, Morneblade said:

- BUT, Atlanta was the elite, stratospheric offense.  They averaged 40.5 yards per drive (1), 3.06 points per drive (1),etc, etc.  So they essentially scored their way out of having fewer drives.

- Washington, by comparison, had 39.8 yards per drive (2) but 2.4 points per drive.

 

What was average starting field position for those two teams?

[Morneblade]

4 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

What was average starting field position for those two teams?

 

Atlanta was 29.3 yard line, we were 27.4

[elkabong82]

15 hours ago, Tsailand said:

 

The Broncos had just given Brock 19/year for four years, even though he was a below average QB who had only started 8 games.  Kirk had just started a full season and played at a top-10 level.  The free market would have given him 21M+

 

The Texans did the offer, not the Brocnos, and they went above market value to poach him from the Broncos who offered 16/yr which was around his market value. Everyone criticized the Texans for overpaying and that move blew up in their faces. It's also a good example in a long line of ones as to why the Skins were reasonable to exercise caution after the first year. Kirk had 1 season under his belt as starter, and he didn't play top 10 level until the 2nd half of the season, and against weaker defenses. There were good reasons to want to see more first.

 

Kirk was never going to hit free market so any estimates as to that value are inapplicable, same as now.

 

This also has nothing to do really with my original post which was discussing THIS year. 

[Veryoldschool]

10 hours ago, ATown Jacoby said:

Wowsers. Could you imagine this?  Having an opportunity to essentially get on the cheap (rookie deal) Myles Garrett for KC8.  Browns won't do this but interesting.  

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/04/12/would-browns-trade-the-first-overall-pick-for-a-quarterback/

 

If Danny Snyder did this deal than Myles Garrett would turn out to be an epic bust, epic nearly as bad as RGIII.  Garrett would show up supremely full of himself, immediately balloon up 50 pounds and than develop hamstring and or back problems and sweat like a pig on the bench after 1 series.

 

I have nothing against Garrett, it is Snyder who I think is awful and turns to crap everything he touches.

 

The HUGE flaw in this scenario is the Skins don't have Cousins under a long term deal now.  Unless they have Cousins signed to a long term contract than all they have to trade to the Browns is the rights to Cousins in 2017.  No team is going to offer a lot for a 1 year deal since it also cost 24M.

[Morneblade]

Pryor just got back from his workout with Cousins. Looks like things went well.

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/30919/after-working-with-kirk-cousins-terrelle-pryor-says-were-going-to-do-well

 

MONROEVILLE, Pa. -- The benefit started the night before they worked on the field for the first time. Washington Redskins receiver Terrelle Pryor spent two hours in the hotel room of his new quarterback, Kirk Cousins, talking football.

It mattered.

They discussed various plays Pryor had run in Cleveland last season and how they were similar to what he’d run this year -- just with a new name. Cousins taught him a number of plays and then quizzed Pryor.

“He started giving me hand signals like I was out wide," Pryor said. "It took me a while and then I started knocking them down without getting them wrong.”

After he signed with the Redskins, Pryor had said Cousins’ presence was among the reasons he was excited for 2017. Now, after working with him ahead of Monday’s first offseason voluntary workout, Pryor is even more excited.

 

During their time together in Florida, they only misfired on one or two passes -- out of 200, he said.

“It was about him getting my timing down,” Pryor said. “There were a couple routes I had to run a couple times because he’s a timing thrower, and he throws it to spots. But we’ll get there. When we get there Monday, we’ll go two or three times a week and work on that as well. I was eager. It was great to work with him and get to know him.”

Pryor also tapped into his quarterback history to help develop their relationship more, sharing information on various plays or routes with Cousins. They discussed the importance of being precise with certain routes in the red zone, creating more separation and keeping the timing of the play. And he liked how Cousins responded.

“He’ll take that info in and say, ‘I really like that,’" Pryor said. “That’s how I knew me and him would click. We’re going to do well.”

It also excited Pryor to see some of his other new teammates up close. Tight end Jordan Reed and receivers Josh Doctson and Jamison Crowder attended the workout in Florida, as did third-string quarterback Nate Sudfeld.

 

“What do you do when we’re on the same side and it’s Cover 2?” Pryor said. “Where is the safety at? It puts Jordan one-on-one with the linebacker inside. If the safety stays inside, then I’m outside one-on-one. Or you got Josh Doctson. If he starts showing on film the way he showed me down there -- he’s catching crazy balls one-handed and jumping out of the sky. Then you have Crowder? What do you do?”

It added up to a good trip for Pryor, who even won a $100 bet with Jon Gruden, who worked with the group. They ate at Gruden's house each night and would golf on the course that borders his property. Pryor said on the par-5 that’s at the back of his house, he faced a putt for par.

“I knocked it down, like a 20-foot putt,” Pryor said. “I didn’t take the money off him though.”

Instead, he was much happier with what he felt he left Florida with: a budding rapport with his new quarterback.