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

[elkabong82]

16 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

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?

 

It really sucks when I take the time to put a bunch of stats and evidence together to make a case, only to have a poster on the other side of the argument ignore 90% of it and just focus on one thing. There's so much more conversation to be had!

 

OAK, New England, Carolina, MN, KC were top 5 in average starting field position. Now, given that the vast, vast majority of drives start at the 25, as well as a basic understanding of math, it actually should not be surprising that teams average starting field position all center just above that number when also including punt returns, with not a lot of deviation. However, there still is some deviation. Oakland was best at 31.4, Cleveland the worst at 23.41. What you don't understand is that in order to deviate more than just a little bit from the average, there has to be a significant effect in terms of turnovers and starting position from punt returns. So teams that are good at turnovers on D and not letting offenses march up and down the field have better starting spots, and they get a good number of drives that start closer up. That doesn't show up though in the overall average because kickoffs/touchbacks weigh the average down so much. Instead all you did was looked at the number at face value, devoid of context.

 

Turnovers for Defense: Oak 2nd, NE 14th, CAR 7th, MN 7th, KC 1st. Notice how that lines right up with those teams being tops in starting field position?

 

Our offense had 165 drives. The average for the NFL was 177. Detroit is the only team who had fewer. We were 31st in total offensive drives. THAT is how bad the defense was at getting off the field. The defense was 18th in total turnovers, middle of the pack, yet even that wasn't enough to get us out of the bottom tier of avg. starting field position. So more than starting field position hurt by D, number of chances also hurt by D, and that also impacts RZ opportunities. 

 

You and others cannot reasonably deny that if the team had even just 12 more offensive drives to hit the average that scoring wouldn't have gone up, not when we were 6th overall in scoring. 

 

The offense OVERALL was good. Focusing almost exclusively on RZ and acting like the offense just couldn't score (what you and others seem to post incessantly) is completely false and it is nitpicking, especially when you don't acknowledge or discuss or even mention the impact our awful D had in stifling the offense both in field position and opportunities and time of possession. Literally RZ and fumbles were the ONLY bad categories for offense. The rest was VERY good. PLUS, I've gone into detail MANY times now about how personnel, namely Reed's absence and DJax' ineffectiveness, hurt our RZ production the most and even sowed how personnel hurt Aaron Rodgers in the exact same way last year! 

 

In a nutshell: The defense was so bad it significantly limited the offense's TOP, number of drives, hurt avg. starting field position, each of which impacted RZ production. The offense, despite all this, was still 6th in scoring. 31st in TOTAL NUMBER OF DRIVES, YET 6th IN SCORING! Reed out, DJax ineffective hurt RZ production even further and this happens to elite QBs too (proven with Rodgers last year). Pay Kirk, he's a franchise QB.

14 hours ago, goskins10 said:

 

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?

 

Agree with all, except data I found had Skins at 2nd to last in total drives at 165. 

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

[goskins10]

11 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

 

Edit

 

 

Agree with all, except data I found had Skins at 2nd to last in total drives at 165. 

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

 

So www.SportingCharts.com have them at 5th worst with 175. lol   So I wonder which one is right?

https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-drives-per-game/2016/

 

Here is second site that has them with 175.

http://www.footballdb.com/stats/drives.html

 

I wonder if Football Outsiders did not include the last game? They have Atl at 166 - but both the other sites have them tied with us at 175.

 

Really curious now.

[goskins10]

16 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

 

Edit

 

Agree with all, except data I found had Skins at 2nd to last in total drives at 165. 

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

 

Ok, figured it out. Football Outsiders does not include kneel downs.

 

TO/Dr represents turnovers per drive. FUM/Dr represents fumbles lost per drive. LOS/Dr represents average starting field position (line of scrimmage) per drive. TOP/Dr represents time of possession per drive. DSR represents Drive Success Rate, as introduced in Pro Football Prospectus 2005, which measures the percentage of down series that result in a first down or touchdown. Take-a-knee drives at the end of a half are discarded.

[elkabong82]

6 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Ok, figured it out. Football Outsiders does not include kneel downs.

 

TO/Dr represents turnovers per drive. FUM/Dr represents fumbles lost per drive. LOS/Dr represents average starting field position (line of scrimmage) per drive. TOP/Dr represents time of possession per drive. DSR represents Drive Success Rate, as introduced in Pro Football Prospectus 2005, which measures the percentage of down series that result in a first down or touchdown. Take-a-knee drives at the end of a half are discarded.

 

Ok, makes sense. That's better that they do that. Good find.

 

It should be noted that other top offenses were also lower on total number of drives, such as ATL and GB, but those teams were 2nd and 6th in avg. lead, not like us at 22nd and in the negatives, typically playing from behind, and their avg. starting field position was 13th and 8th. 

[KokoMike]

We now have an opportunity to trade Cousins for Goff and maybe a lineman and a draft pick or two, since Cousins is the most prolific passer in Redskins history under McVay.  You can bet Cousins is walking now, anyway.

[onedrop]

52 minutes ago, KokoMike said:

We now have an opportunity now to trade Cousins for Goff and maybe a lineman and a draft pick or two, since Cousins is the most prolific passer in Redskins history under McVay.  You can bet Cousins is walking now, anyway.

ill take that bet. reasons be damned, stay vs. goes.....

 

 

[PartyPosse]

1 hour ago, KokoMike said:

We now have an opportunity now to trade Cousins for Goff and maybe a lineman and a draft pick or two, since Cousins is the most prolific passer in Redskins history under McVay.  You can bet Cousins is walking now, anyway.

 

Yeah, i don't think so.

[Nfcbeasts4721]

Go ahead and bash..I deserve it..I swear on everything I wasn't bashing anyone for speaking there opinion on how things should be handled in management..same thing goes for me here..if I don't like a thread or a post in a thread I don't need to read it..I can always move along..ANYWAYS could a scenario play out where we would trade Kirk to the rams for Goff and a first round pick and the rams sign d Jackson?...how would that chap everyone's hyde?..I would be furious if Kirk walked...but it realy realy depends on how he feels on rather playing here or not...what if it was part of a plan Kirk and mcvay made..Heya Kirk..uhh ya Sean...I got a chance to take over the rams and hear it's a hell of alot sunnier there than here..wanna follow?..if that happened I would have to think we hit rock bottom...again!

[Redskinscub]

His pay means nothing to me, can he get the job done or not, I sure hope so but have my doubts..

[wit33]

 

4 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

 

Ok, makes sense. That's better that they do that. Good find.

 

It should be noted that other top offenses were also lower on total number of drives, such as ATL and GB, but those teams were 2nd and 6th in avg. lead, not like us at 22nd and in the negatives, typically playing from behind, and their avg. starting field position was 13th and 8th. 

 

This stat was proven to be incorrect previously, why continue to parade it as something it isn't.

 

The better offenses, the ones who possess the ball the most by sustaining drives will have the ball less in most situations. There will be outliers, because the NFL season is so short.

 

The Skins offense was above average this year. Get away from defending Kirk through these kind of stats.

 

They were what they were, an above average offense, below average defense, and overall an Average team. 

[zCommander]

11 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

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.

 

If after 2 years you can determine that Kirk doesn't have the "IT" factor means you are a ****ing genius! You need to quit your day job and become the next QB coach!

 

Okay kidding aside. WE really didn't know what we have in Kirk even though we actually know what we have. We should bring Kirk back next year and money is not an issue with me. Maybe I am a business guy and think differently then people who don't own their own business. Most of the times he is great and couple of times he had been  okay. But that doesn't mean you give up on the guy that might be bad on his luck or your ****ing defense sucks!. Forget all of that. Who do you want the Redskins to replace Kirk with next year since you oblivious don' t want him to be here next year?

 

 

 

[wit33]

If you use "it factor" as support to your argument, you don't really own a business. JK

 

Doc Walker put it best:

Kirk is not the answer, but definitely is part of the solution. Something like that Lol

 

Hes John Wall. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DC9]

15 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

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.

 

It doesn't matter how well it ended up...

 

The discussion was about 'can it happen' or "would someone give ___ up for Cuzzo."

 

They absolutely would.

 

You under-value him.

 

Have some facts with your breakfast.

[Stefanskins]

8 hours ago, wit33 said:

If you use "it factor" as support to your argument, you don't really own a business. JK

 

Doc Walker put it best:

Kirk is not the answer, but definitely is part of the solution. Something like that Lol

 

Hes John Wall. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"If Kirk is not the answer...."

[Taco Bell]

Letting Kirk go because of trying to pinch pennies despite liking him is the part of this equation that is a sucker's bet to me.  If you have the conviction to not want him at all, that's fine and understandable, but to not want him because of a year or two of where he's ranked on the payment chart is overlooking such basic QB economics.  The QB position is the one that is legitimately fairly paid in the NFL currently, all the other ones screw the players out of getting paid for current production more or less.  It's so simple to understand that Cousins is up next on the carousel and because he threw for nearly 5k with a solid TD/INT ratio and had another winning record and bla bla bla, he's going to make just about or more of what the current Elite QBs made based on their contracts from multiple years ago.  

 

That doesn't make Cousins elite, but enough years have gone by where the contracts are going to be similar.  I guess he should make less than Johnny Unitas made too.  No NBA player should ever exceed Jordan's contract.  The salary cap goes up for a reason, it's because contracts continually rise.  Who gives a **** if for 1 year Cousins is the highest paid QB.  Carr's contract will literally dwarf Kirk's when he's up because he's both better and younger.  And so on.  Aarons next contract will make Cousins contract look like change found in the couch because he's that much better relative to Cousins.  This is seriously like the end of Dumb and Dumber when using the logic that Kirk by appearances shouldn't be paid the most when there are so many obvious factors why it will happen for 1 year, or maybe 2.  Maybe none.  And he should be let go because of it.  Every time I read that by somebody I picture Harry and Lloyd making a terrible decision. 

 

Second, of any team that knows pushing the salary cap to the limits and coming out just fine, again and again and again (except when the little giants ****ing steal money) , it's us.   And today, the salary cap is tougher to fill out than in the past since FA's are starting to become fewer and far between as rosters grow younger. That's why, us "saving" our money is asinine because, a smart team isn't going to waste their money on free agents when there is no QB on the roster, paying these FAs at the exact wrong time for when the team would be competitive.  We aren't going to preemptively go on a giants 200m shopping spree on D after letting Cousins walk and before even drafting a QB.  If we are going to spend money, it's going to be maximizing the cap after knowing our QB situation is solidified on the roster.  Which for us, since QBs don't grow on trees during FA, is Cousins.

[mistertim]

4 hours ago, DC9 said:

 

It doesn't matter how well it ended up...

 

The discussion was about 'can it happen' or "would someone give ___ up for Cuzzo."

 

They absolutely would.

 

You under-value him.

 

Have some facts with your breakfast.

 

But it DOES matter how it ended up. How many teams since the Cutler overpayment have given up the 2 1sts for a current QB?

 

None. Here, you can have some of my breakfast facts. I'm a very sharing guy.

 

I think people learned from that after seeing that the Bears and Cutler didn't go on to do anything of import after hamstringing themselves by giving away such a huge sum for a QB. Not likely that a team will do that again for a QB unless the Packers FO all took a crap ton of LSD and in their drug fueled haze offered to trade Rodgers.

[mistertim]

12 hours ago, zskins said:

 

If after 2 years you can determine that Kirk doesn't have the "IT" factor means you are a ****ing genius! You need to quit your day job and become the next QB coach!

 

Okay kidding aside. WE really didn't know what we have in Kirk even though we actually know what we have. We should bring Kirk back next year and money is not an issue with me. Maybe I am a business guy and think differently then people who don't own their own business. Most of the times he is great and couple of times he had been  okay. But that doesn't mean you give up on the guy that might be bad on his luck or your ****ing defense sucks!. Forget all of that. Who do you want the Redskins to replace Kirk with next year since you oblivious don' t want him to be here next year?

 

 

 

 

"I'm a business guy. I own my own business"

"Money is not an issue to me."

 

Those are two very odd things to say next to each other.

 

Anyway, we really can't keep hanging on to this "He's only a 2 year starter" thing. The guy at this point is a 5 year NFL veteran with over 40 starts under his belt, who also happens to be possibly asking for the biggest contract in the NFL. Time to take the kid gloves off. He has displayed some of the same issues throughout his career. He is on and off. He'll play great for a while but then fold sometimes when it comes to big games under the bright lights. His confidence seems to get rattled easily when he's pressured and things go haywire: his mechanics go out the window, he misses wide open receivers, he stares guys down. We've all seen this happen multiple times. He's very robotic which isn't a huge issue but I don't think he's ever really going to be a guy who will make something out of nothing. More times than not when a play breaks down it is over.

 

And we should also get away from this "you don't want him here" straw man. I've never said that. In fact, I've REPEATEDLY said that I do want him back. My issue is that he simply isn't good enough to get paid what he wants. He is probably a top 12 or so QB but he wants to get paid like he's the best. Now, maybe you and others here don't care at all about that, but I do because it could potentially hamstring our efforts to bring in good FAs to fill some key holes we have in other areas and to keep some of our playmakers. And I'm going to go ahead and guess that, while you don't care about money and his contract value, Scot and Bruce most likely do. Just a hunch.

 

3 hours ago, Stefanskins said:

"If Kirk is not the answer...."

 

I think the point was that he isn't going to be able to carry a team like an elite QB, but he's good enough to win as long as we have other pieces around him and get the defense out of the gutter.

[Renegade7]

22 hours ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

Elf circle GIF

 

Not signed in

 

70 pages, that sounds about right.

[DC9]

2 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

But it DOES matter how it ended up. How many teams since the Cutler overpayment have given up the 2 1sts for a current QB?

 

None. Here, you can have some of my breakfast facts. I'm a very sharing guy.

 

I think people learned from that after seeing that the Bears and Cutler didn't go on to do anything of import after hamstringing themselves by giving away such a huge sum for a QB. Not likely that a team will do that again for a QB unless the Packers FO all took a crap ton of LSD and in their drug fueled haze offered to trade Rodgers.

 

Bro... Bradford got a 1st and 4th just last year.

 

Cousins is better than both of them.

 

Again, you under-value Cousins....

 

Have some facts for a late lunch...

 

  Great come back... since I've been on ES your record of being right is near the bottom.  Great at hot takes, though.

[bobandweave]

On 1/11/2017 at 9:29 PM, BleedBNG said:

We really do need to improve the running game in big games for Cousins to get better in those games

 

If Jay takes over play calling next season I do not think anyone should think that we will run more then we did this year. Jay's biggest complaint before coming here was that he didn't call enough running plays even when it was working. I do not expect that to change next season. Now if he implements a different offense next year all bets are off including Kirk.I doubt that Kirk wants to learn a new offense unless he is signed long term and feels secure doing it. Things just got much harder to predict for next year with yesterday's news. Too much up in the air, the teams screwing up not figuring this out quicker then they seem to be

[PartyPosse]

24 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

Bro... Bradford got a 1st and 4th just last year.

 

Cousins is better than both of them.

 

Again, you under-value Cousins....

 

Have some facts for a late lunch...

 

  Great come back... since I've been on ES your record of being right is near the bottom.  Great at hot takes, though.

The Bradford trade probably made it virtually impossible for us to trade Kirk for 2 firsts. As much as it pains me to say it, Bradford, technically had a better season than Kirk and a much worse running game. 

[mistertim]

24 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

Bro... Bradford got a 1st and 4th just last year.

 

Cousins is better than both of them.

 

Again, you under-value Cousins....

 

Have some facts for a late lunch...

 

  Great come back... since I've been on ES your record of being right is near the bottom.  Great at hot takes, though.

 

Yes he got a 1st and a conditional 4th rounder to a desperate team that was panicking. That is totally different than 2 1st round picks PLUS probably the highest QB contract in the NFL for Kirk. We do agree that a 1st round pick is slightly more valuable than a 4th right? You say I undervalue Cousins and I say you overvalue him. Difference of opinion but at least we seem to like the same food.

[DC9]

6 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

The Bradford trade probably made it virtually impossible for us to trade Kirk for 2 firsts. As much as it pains me to say it, Bradford, technically had a better season than Kirk and a much worse running game. 

 

1 minute ago, mistertim said:

 

Yes he got a 1st and a conditional 4th rounder to a desperate team that was panicking. That is totally different than 2 1st round picks PLUS probably the highest QB contract in the NFL for Kirk. We do agree that a 1st round pick is slightly more valuable than a 4th right? You say I undervalue Cousins and I say you overvalue him. Difference of opinion but at least we seem to like the same food.

 

You're both right.

 

Let's ignore stats and facts cause you don't like either.

 

Let's go re-sign Griffin and get Art Briles in here.

 

Both are doing outstanding work at the moment.

[PartyPosse]

6 minutes ago, DC9 said:

 

 

You're both right.

 

Let's ignore stats and facts cause you don't like either.

 

Let's go re-sign Griffin and get Art Briles in here.

 

Both are doing outstanding work at the moment.

Me? I'm just saying I don't think any team would give up 2 firsts for Kirk is all. No team would have given up as much as they did for Bradford if it wasn't for desperation after Bridgewater went down. 

[DC9]

1 minute ago, PartyPosse said:

Me? I'm just saying I don't think any team would give up 2 firsts for Kirk is all. No team would have given up as much as they did for Bradford if it wasn't for desperation after Bridgewater went down. 

 

Great point...

 

No one is going to want a top QB.

 

Especially the several out there with really good defenses and no QB.

 

Honestly have nothing else for either of you.

 

You guys aren't interested in real life.

 

Go have fun running the Pistol in Madden 13.