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

[goskins10]

19 minutes ago, BleedBNG said:

 

I agree, but the problem would be... would they be willing to go over $22M with giving up the 2 first rounders? Bradford got $35M for 2 years. It they want to sign KC for 2 years, maybe... but I'm not sure for 4 years. 

Sorry, but the contract you are proposing would not even get anyone to sit down. It will take at least $23M to $25Myr for 5 yrs with a $50M signing bonus and about $80M in guarantees - probably something like $48M when the contract is signed with the rest of the guarantees in injury guarantees.

 

Also, if you tag him, he does not have to take the Redskins deal or sit out if he signs the tag. He can play under the tag and get paid about $24.5M this year. Then the Skins will really be up against next year if he plays well again - especially if we make the POs and win even one game. Is that the QB you let walk? But then his tag number goes up to $34M. He can just not sign anything and play under that 3rd tag - making a total of almost $80M in 3 yrs and be an unrestricted FA. Why would he even consider signing for $22M/ 4 yrs?

 

Also, this scenario is not exactly the smartest thing for the team. If you let him play on the tag - you are basically saying he will be released next year or you will be paying a lot more than this year.

 

I know several (it seems like a lot) in here do not see his value or want to acknowledge it - but if the team offers him $22M / 4 yrs - I don't care if the entire thing is guaranteed - he will be gone, and fast. If that's the decision the FO goes - fine. But they better have one hell of a plan B or all will be run out on a rail!

 

Pay the man now - move on! Fans will be apoplectic due to sticker shock for a little while but they will get over it - especially if a new DC can get the D playing in the middle of the pack. This becomes a really dangerous team.

 

[Cooleyfan1993]

8 minutes ago, zskins said:

 

But WHY does it matter that we lost to the Giants. Were we going to win the SB this year?

We most likely weren't but that's the great thing of making it to the playoffs, once you're in, anyone can make a playoff run to the super bowl. all it takes is a little bit of luck, a few bounces to go a teams way. that's why teams want to be in the playoffs, that's why fans want to see their teams make it to the playoffs, to see if their team can get hot/lucky at the right time.

 

 

[elkabong82]

On 1/10/2017 at 1:26 PM, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

 

** where in the hell is the avg starting field position per drive stat? I feel like we had a bunch of 93 yard scoring drives but had few drives starting in our opponents side of the field. 

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

 

LOS/DR     Redskins were 25th in average starting field position

 

Despite the offense being 3rd in yards, it was 25th in starting field position and 22nd in TOP. The defense had the 10th most TOP. So your feeling is correct and many noticed the same and would complain about it in the gameday thread. The offense would drive down a long field a lot (hence the yards) but the defense was on the field all day giving up 3rd down after 3rd down (worst in the NFL, 3rd worst in NFL history!).

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff

 

Here you can see the offense with Kirk overall was very productive in its opportunities. 6th in points per drive. Turnovers hurt them though. Middle of pack in INTs, but 20th most in fumbles lost, ending up as  20th worst in turnovers per drive.

 

If you scroll further down you can see that despite having less time to work with than most, the offense was still 10th in TDs, 1st in FGs, 2nd least punts, 2nd least 3 and outs per drive. Redzone scoring was at the bottom, but I posted in here about Reed's absence being the biggest culprit for drop in production as well as DJax being unreliable in the redzone and also showed how last year Aaron Rodgers redzone production dropped similarily to Kirk this year when he lost his main target Jordy Nelson. The bigger concern for us in redzone is personnel much more so than it is Kirk who produced very well there last year with Reed in a lot.

 

Redzone aside, when you look at the overall numbers for the offense from the previous paragraph, Kirk did very well leading the offense. Redzone is a nitpick issue because of the personnel issues just mentioned and how it affects elites too. We have got to pay Kirk and keep this offense going. It's nuts to think it could be easily replicated with another QB. 

 

The most glaring stat once again has to do with the defense. The team was 22nd worst in average lead category, meaning they started more drives behind than the majority of NFL teams, despite being 6th in points per drive. That and the limited TOP thanks to the defense really put a strain on the offense's potential. Add in the absence of Reed and a bottom tier run game and it's even more remarkable that Kirk and the pass game still produced as highly as they did. A healthy Jordan Reed and 1 more redzone threat with him (Doctson?), a goalline threat RB (does Kelley improve as a full starter, does someone else step up/brought in?), and a defense that can actually stop people on 3rd down and not give up early points. That's very doable. Keep Kirk with that and IMO you've got a contender. 

 

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, zskins said:

 

But WHY does it matter that we lost to the Giants. Were we going to win the SB this year? I am not going to get hung up on two bad games Kirk had. These two games were not must wins. ALL 16 games are must win. Guess what? It takes a whole ****ing team to win every Sunday not just one player. WHY aren't you upset about the Lions game? THAT game was also a MUST win game. Oh, I know why, because in that game Kirk lead the team down the field and had us winning in the last 1 minute of the game. Pop Quiz: Do you know who lost us that game? Hint: Kirk is not one of the answers. 

 

Analogy: If you are going to hang a huge project on just one guy to get it done then you might be waiting a long time to get that project done. BUT, if you get this guy quality people to help and even if one day this guy oversleeps and comes to work late there are other 30+ people to make sure the project doesn't fall apart. 

 

People need to just get over Kirk can't carry this team on his back. I don't think any QB in the league can carry this team on their back. There are lots of things this teams needs fixing. The QB position is very low on that list!

 

They were must win games because our playoff hopes were DIRECTLY riding on both of them at the time we played. And everyone knew it, including Kirk. MNF game against Carolina...we win and we're in...Kirk laid an egg. Final game of the season vs the Giants...again, we win and we're in. And Kirk laid an even bigger egg. And these games matter more when judging him because THAT is when the pressure is really on. Losing to the Lions sucked but it was close to the beginning of the season so it isn't like our playoff chances at the time rode on it. The games like Carolina and NYG are when you truly see a QB's mettle and how he responds to huge pressure situations. Kirk simply doesn't seem to deal with pressure that well and doesn't seem to have that "clutch" gene that elite QBs tend to have. And, like it or not, that IS a major issue when you're talking about possibly making him the highest paid QB in the NFL.

[mistertim]

49 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

 

LOS/DR     Redskins were 25th in average starting field position

 

Despite the offense being 3rd in yards, it was 25th in starting field position and 22nd in TOP. The defense had the 10th most TOP. So your feeling is correct and many noticed the same and would complain about it in the gameday thread. The offense would drive down a long field a lot (hence the yards) but the defense was on the field all day giving up 3rd down after 3rd down (worst in the NFL, 3rd worst in NFL history!).

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestatsoff

 

Here you can see the offense with Kirk overall was very productive in its opportunities. 6th in points per drive. Turnovers hurt them though. Middle of pack in INTs, but 20th most in fumbles lost, ending up as  20th worst in turnovers per drive.

 

If you scroll further down you can see that despite having less time to work with than most, the offense was still 10th in TDs, 1st in FGs, 2nd least punts, 2nd least 3 and outs per drive. Redzone scoring was at the bottom, but I posted in here about Reed's absence being the biggest culprit for drop in production as well as DJax being unreliable in the redzone and also showed how last year Aaron Rodgers redzone production dropped similarily to Kirk this year when he lost his main target Jordy Nelson. The bigger concern for us in redzone is personnel much more so than it is Kirk who produced very well there last year with Reed in a lot.

 

Redzone aside, when you look at the overall numbers for the offense from the previous paragraph, Kirk did very well leading the offense. Redzone is a nitpick issue because of the personnel issues just mentioned and how it affects elites too. We have got to pay Kirk and keep this offense going. It's nuts to think it could be easily replicated with another QB. 

 

The most glaring stat once again has to do with the defense. The team was 22nd worst in average lead category, meaning they started more drives behind than the majority of NFL teams, despite being 6th in points per drive. That and the limited TOP thanks to the defense really put a strain on the offense's potential. Add in the absence of Reed and a bottom tier run game and it's even more remarkable that Kirk and the pass game still produced as highly as they did. A healthy Jordan Reed and 1 more redzone threat with him (Doctson?), a goalline threat RB (does Kelley improve as a full starter, does someone else step up/brought in?), and a defense that can actually stop people on 3rd down and not give up early points. That's very doable. Keep Kirk with that and IMO you've got a contender. 

 

 

Only problem with that field position ranking is that it is literally about one and a half yards different from the #10 ranked team and 4 yards from the #1 team. Do you honestly think that if we went from 27.16 average starting field position to 28.8 we'd suddenly stop being crappy at scoring TDs on offense given the amount of yards we threw for?

 

How is our utter suckage at scoring TDs in the red zone "nitpicking" but making a big deal out of a couple yards in starting field position not?

[Wildbunny]

For every game kirk sucked he can counter it with games where he actually killed it as well. Including last year.

[goskins10]

6 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

 

LOS/DR     Redskins were 25th in average starting field position

 

Edit

 

Here you can see the offense with Kirk overall was very productive in its opportunities. 6th in points per drive. Turnovers hurt them though. Middle of pack in INTs, but 20th most in fumbles lost, ending up as  20th worst in turnovers per drive.

 

Edit

 

Great data. One thing to add is the Redskins had the 5th fewest drives with 175. With the 6th highest pts/drive (along with the 6th highest scoring % - 42.9%), this also shows the effect of the 3rd down issues on D.

 

Found something else interesting  - We were 28th in TD% scoring in the RZ. However, we were 17th in over TD scoring. So just how good are the Skins at big plays?

 

 

 

 

 

[zCommander]

5 hours ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

We most likely weren't but that's the great thing of making it to the playoffs, once you're in, anyone can make a playoff run to the super bowl. all it takes is a little bit of luck, a few bounces to go a teams way. that's why teams want to be in the playoffs, that's why fans want to see their teams make it to the playoffs, to see if their team can get hot/lucky at the right time.

 

 

 

Luck? Really? Going to the playoffs with luck? Please tell me this is not a serious post. I did laugh quite a bit when I read it though. 

 

4 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

They were must win games because our playoff hopes were DIRECTLY riding on both of them at the time we played. And everyone knew it, including Kirk. MNF game against Carolina...we win and we're in...Kirk laid an egg. Final game of the season vs the Giants...again, we win and we're in. And Kirk laid an even bigger egg. And these games matter more when judging him because THAT is when the pressure is really on. Losing to the Lions sucked but it was close to the beginning of the season so it isn't like our playoff chances at the time rode on it. The games like Carolina and NYG are when you truly see a QB's mettle and how he responds to huge pressure situations. Kirk simply doesn't seem to deal with pressure that well and doesn't seem to have that "clutch" gene that elite QBs tend to have. And, like it or not, that IS a major issue when you're talking about possibly making him the highest paid QB in the NFL.

 

This is serious right? "Clutch" gene? QB are born with it. I studied genetics in college and this never came up in our class. I need to go downstairs and open up my Gene IV book and see what DNA sequences makes up the clutch gene. 

 

Come on man give the guy a ****ing break. Kirk has the "IT" factor. He has been pretty clutch in most of the game. This is his 2nd year as a starter. The more games you play the more comfortable you get at that position and once this happens the so called "clutch it" factor just happens. The kid has it. He just needs to trust himself more. The problem with Kirk is at times he does over analyze himself. All smart people do. Instead of med school he choose football. Aside from this he is still better than Eli. Eli who people think has the clutch factor apparently didn't go beyond the wildcard game even with their stout D this year. So **** happens. IF Kirk is still here we need to go deep into the playoffs next year. No exception. 

[dave3d]

On 1/10/2017 at 11:17 PM, Stefanskins said:

found it!! TY Cali...

 

Who is that?  And is she signed to a long term deal?

[Stefanskins]

56 minutes ago, dave3d said:

 

Who is that?  And is she signed to a long term deal?

 

Katie Nolan gggGGGgrrrRRRR

[Warhead36]

13 minutes ago, Stefanskins said:

Katie Nolan gggGGGgrrrRRRR

Perfect wife material

[mistertim]

6 hours ago, zskins said:

 

Luck? Really? Going to the playoffs with luck? Please tell me this is not a serious post. I did laugh quite a bit when I read it though. 

 

 

This is serious right? "Clutch" gene? QB are born with it. I studied genetics in college and this never came up in our class. I need to go downstairs and open up my Gene IV book and see what DNA sequences makes up the clutch gene. 

 

Come on man give the guy a ****ing break. Kirk has the "IT" factor. He has been pretty clutch in most of the game. This is his 2nd year as a starter. The more games you play the more comfortable you get at that position and once this happens the so called "clutch it" factor just happens. The kid has it. He just needs to trust himself more. The problem with Kirk is at times he does over analyze himself. All smart people do. Instead of med school he choose football. Aside from this he is still better than Eli. Eli who people think has the clutch factor apparently didn't go beyond the wildcard game even with their stout D this year. So **** happens. IF Kirk is still here we need to go deep into the playoffs next year. No exception. 

 

This is something we just disagree on. I think one issue with Kirk is he DOESN'T have that "IT" factor. He seems to save his worst play for some of the most important games. Those two are glaring examples. The pressure was on, if we wanted to get into the playoffs we HAD to win. He was under the microscope and the bright lights. And both times he laid an egg. And you know exactly what I mean by "clutch gene". Guys who seem to have their best play when things are the most important or there is the most pressure on them; I don't think it's really something one can "learn" as it is more of a personality trait than anything specifically football related. Kirk has shown the opposite. Reminds me of Andy Dalton or a less talented Romo...they put up really nice stats but then fold or make awful plays at the worst times when it matters most. And Eli is actually a great example of a dude who really plays clutch when it matters most. In both of his SB winning seasons he was just mediocre to good during the regular season but then you look at his stats and his play in their playoff runs and he lit it up.

 

And no, I won't "give the guy a ****ing break". He very likely wants to be the highest paid QB in the NFL, if not the highest paid player period. If he wants that then he deserves to have his play under a microscope. I would think SM would probably agree.

[purbeast]

Anyone who thinks the defense "showed up" to the Giants game needs to go take a look at the TOP.  Yes they only let the Giants score 13 points but they couldn't get them off on 3rd down to save their life.  Additionally, the 2nd half the Giants weren't even trying to score and played so vanilla that our defense didn't have to do anything.  

 

I'm sure it's also Kirk's fault that the run game wasn't working at all too.

 

Everyone played like crap in the Giants game, not just Kirk.

[TheItalianStallion]

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 11:17 PM, Stefanskins said:

found it!! TY Cali...

 

(Katie Nolan gif)

 

 

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 10:44 PM, Stefanskins said:

 

 

 

lol...nice.....thanks for cheering me up guys : )

speaking of handball...where was that gif Cali had??....

 

(Katie Nolan gif)

 

 

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 10:44 PM, Stefanskins said:

 

no...not exactly...

 

(Katie Nolan gif)

 

nevermind I'll be right back..I uh...uh, forgot my handball racket..

 

LOL at these gifs being on page (ahem...) 69 of this thread........

[mistertim]

28 minutes ago, purbeast said:

Anyone who thinks the defense "showed up" to the Giants game needs to go take a look at the TOP.  Yes they only let the Giants score 13 points but they couldn't get them off on 3rd down to save their life.  Additionally, the 2nd half the Giants weren't even trying to score and played so vanilla that our defense didn't have to do anything.  

 

I'm sure it's also Kirk's fault that the run game wasn't working at all too.

 

Everyone played like crap in the Giants game, not just Kirk.

 

No it isn't Kirk's fault that the run game wasn't working. It is his fault that his game wasn't working.

 

And not everyone who played poorly in those must win games is likely going to want to be the highest paid player in the NFL. Just one.

[Cooleyfan1993]

8 hours ago, zskins said:

 

Luck? Really? Going to the playoffs with luck? Please tell me this is not a serious post. I did laugh quite a bit when I read it though. 

I meant a team can get hot at any moment in the playoffs and make a run to the super bowl (like the giants did in 07 and 11. it's anyone has a chance once the playoffs start, which is why it was disappointing that the redskins lost to the giants.

 

hopefully I made more sense in this post

[PartyPosse]

54 minutes ago, purbeast said:

Anyone who thinks the defense "showed up" to the Giants game needs to go take a look at the TOP.  Yes they only let the Giants score 13 points but they couldn't get them off on 3rd down to save their life.  Additionally, the 2nd half the Giants weren't even trying to score and played so vanilla that our defense didn't have to do anything.  

 

I'm sure it's also Kirk's fault that the run game wasn't working at all too.

 

Everyone played like crap in the Giants game, not just Kirk.

Here's the thing, the D gave up a ton of yards as per usual but didn't really give up any points. Forgot TOP or opportunities, Kirk had, what 10+ drives the game including one inside the Giants 5 thanks to that botched punt return and could only muster 10 points. Many have been boasting about how efficient we were with points per possession and all that, but Kirk had opportunities in this game. I don't care about any other numbers except points and when I see a defense give up only 13 then they've done their job.

 

The defense's job is to limit the other team from scoring. The offense's job is to score. Kirk didn't do his job, end of story.

[Taylor 36]

1 minute ago, PartyPosse said:

Here's the thing, the D gave up a ton of yards as per usual but didn't really give up any points. Forgot TOP or opportunities, Kirk had, what 10+ drives the game including one inside the Giants 5 thanks to that botched punt return and could only muster 10 points. Many have been boasting about how efficient we were with points per possession and all that, but Kirk had opportunities in this game. I don't care about any other numbers except points and when I see a defense give up only 13 then they've done their job.

 

The defense's job is to limit the other team from scoring. The offense's job is to score. Kirk didn't do his job, end of story.

But hat's not the end of the story.  Football is much more than that, unfortunately.  TOP cannot be underrated.  How many times have teams focused on keeping a certain offense/QB off the field as one of their primary keys to victory in a game?  It doesn't matter how good a QB or an offense is, if you limit their time on the field, you increase your team's chances of winning.  The Green Bay offense and Aaron Rodgers looked bad, really bad, the first quarter last Sunday against the Giants.  Had the Giants defense continued to keep them off the field, Rodgers wouldn't have gotten into the rhythm he did and who knows what happens.  For the most part, our offense struggled to get into a rhythm against the Giants, and we can debate the reasons for that, but, with our defense limiting their time on the field, it only made it worse.  Also, let's not forget that we were down 10 - 0 and our offense got things going to tie the game up, only to watch our defense let the Giants march down the field on another long drive, eating clock, and then kick a go-ahead field goal.

 

For all of the speculation on what GMSM thinks about Cousins, one thing we don't have to speculate on is how the team thought about the defense.  They obviously knew that the defense cost us games otherwise we wouldn't be interviewing candidates for Defensive Coordinator.  People can try to give excuses to the defense as much as they want by sliding around numbers, but the people who get paid to know football like the back of their hand saw that our defense was the problem and have started to correct that.  Once we get the defensive coaching staff cleared away, I think a deal with Cousins will be ironed out quickly after.

[PartyPosse]

23 minutes ago, Taylor 36 said:

 

 

For all of the speculation on what GMSM thinks about Cousins, one thing we don't have to speculate on is how the team thought about the defense.  They obviously knew that the defense cost us games otherwise we wouldn't be interviewing candidates for Defensive Coordinator.  People can try to give excuses to the defense as much as they want by sliding around numbers, but the people who get paid to know football like the back of their hand saw that our defense was the problem and have started to correct that.  Once we get the defensive coaching staff cleared away, I think a deal with Cousins will be ironed out quickly after.

 

I think a lot of it also depends on if and when McVay leaves and when we do hire a new OC. Despite it being Gruden's offense, how much do we limit ourselves if working with Cousins is at the top of the list in terms of dealbreakers? 

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

[tomwvr]

On 1/10/2017 at 11:09 AM, bobandweave said:

 

Given the choice I would take these guys next year over Kirk -

 

Aaron Rodgers
Andrew Luck
Ben Roethlisberger
Cam Newton
Dak Prescott
Derek Carr
Drew Brees
Jameis Winston
Marcus Mariota
Matt Ryan
Philip Rivers
Russell Wilson
Tom Brady

 

That's 13 names, so if he is top 12 in the league you have to take two off that list at a minimum. who comes off to make him a top 12 QB in the game today?

i would take dak off - rookie year and derek carr with his broken leg as well as last year cam newton

 

and if i go to the various nfl sites kirk is some place from 11-14th

 

[DC9]

16 hours ago, BleedBNG said:

 

I agree, but the problem would be... would they be willing to go over $22M with giving up the 2 first rounders? Bradford got $35M for 2 years. It they want to sign KC for 2 years, maybe... but I'm not sure for 4 years. 

 

Yeah I think they would. 

 

Hopefully it doesn't come to that.

[DC9]

16 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

Philly got a 1st rounder for Bradford and that was a major reach because the Vikings were in no man's land and panicking after Bridgewater got hurt. So some team would have to give up 2 1st rounders along with an enormous contract for Cousins if we franchised and then traded him. I don't see it happening. And if it did he would almost be guaranteed to go to a bottom dwelling team like the Browns or Jets where he would have a complete crap team around him with no playmakers and a new system. I think he would fail pretty hard.

 

You under-value Cousins if you think that's the case.

 

I'll just leave this here:

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=4037373

 

The Chicago Bears acquired disgruntled Denver Broncos quarterback Jay Cutler in a trade on Thursday afternoon, giving up quarterback Kyle Orton and first-round picks in 2009 (18th overall) and 2010, along with a third-round pick (84th overall) in 2009 to do it.

 

Again, hopefully it doesn't come to this.  I think we get something knocked out.

[mistertim]

3 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

You under-value Cousins if you think that's the case.

 

I'll just leave this here:

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=4037373

 

The Chicago Bears acquired disgruntled Denver Broncos quarterback Jay Cutler in a trade on Thursday afternoon, giving up quarterback Kyle Orton and first-round picks in 2009 (18th overall) and 2010, along with a third-round pick (84th overall) in 2009 to do it.

 

Again, hopefully it doesn't come to this.  I think we get something knocked out.

 

And that really didn't turn out all that well for Chicago. Cutler ended up being exactly who he was before...a good but not great QB who had flashes of brilliance followed by moments of ineptitude and stupid decision making. I don't see a team making that mistake again, especially with a QB who has something of a history in shrinking in big games. Those Carolina and NYG games are going to really hurt him IMO when other teams might evaluate him. If they're thinking of spending high draft picks and a **** ton of money to acquire him, they're going to be focusing in like a laser on his play, including the negatives.

[mistertim]

2 hours ago, tomwvr said:

i would take dak off - rookie year and derek carr with his broken leg as well as last year cam newton

 

and if i go to the various nfl sites kirk is some place from 11-14th

 

 

Yeah I think Dak is insanely overrated at this point. Best OL and best running game in the NFL tends to help.