ESPN.com: Kirk Cousins contract talks with Redskins on positive track

[TD_washingtonredskins]

8 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

 

I think what most people mean is that it would have been a "cheap", bargain deal relative to what we'd be paying now, and relative to what other QBs would be paid. Which is kind of ironic, in that even if we 'overpay' for him now it will seem like a "bargain" 3 years from now, much like you're saying Cousins' asking price a year ago wasn't cheap at the time.

 

 

 

Correct! For two straight off-seasons we've had a chance to pay Cousins market value. Had we done so, within two years those numbers would look like a bargain (unless he regresses considerably). Today's slight overpay is tomorrow's discount. 

[PartyPosse]

10 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

I think what most people mean is that it would have been a "cheap", bargain deal relative to what we'd be paying now, and relative to what other QBs would be paid. Which is kind of ironic, in that even if we 'overpay' for him now it will seem like a "bargain" 3 years from now, much like you're saying Cousins' asking price a year ago wasn't cheap at the time.

 

I've always maintained that there really is no "bargain" price or "paying through the nose" for a QB when he's good. You only pay through the nose when he ends up sucking instead of improving lol...that's why I had zero problem with the franchise tag last year. The Skins didn't "gamble", they played it smart.

Agreed, but i think that line of thinking is only justified when you have a big enough body of work. What I mean is obviously any contract could seem like a bargain or a bust depending on the level of play from the player after signing (Haynesworth vs, say, Fletcher for example). As far as I'm concerned the FO did the smart thing in wanting to see more than what they had seen after the 2015 season. Very rarely do contracts ever match the level of play from the player over the duration of it. It either ends up being great value for the team or for the player (who ends up getting cut far earlier than the end of the deal, but still walks away with a hefty guarantee). I think the "bargain in three years" mentality doesn't necessarily play out here only because, say Kirk does sign a deal that makes him the highest paid QB in the league and say in three years he's now the 4th or 5th highest paid, is that still equal value to a 25 TD season?

 

I believe that in a few years when the cap gets over 200 million and QBs start demanding a percentage as opposed to just a flat rate and the way the NCAA is churning out NFL-ready QBs at an alarming rate coupled with the very affordable rookie deals, you will start seeing teams signing QBs to shorter deals and cutting ties with mediocre ones making far too much money, similar to how RBs have been sort of outcasted in the last few years. 

[PartyPosse]

20 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Correct! For two straight off-seasons we've had a chance to pay Cousins market value. Had we done so, within two years those numbers would look like a bargain (unless he regresses considerably). Today's slight overpay is tomorrow's discount. 

And that's the risk. You are taking a chance on whether or not he has peaked. Even if we sign him to market value now, I don't think the average numbers would offset the "bargain" aspect of increasing market value in a few years. This team could very well be built to win right now, which is why i'm ok with the franchise tag this year. I'm hoping Kirk at least acknowledges the FO's concern over certain aspects of his game and at least understands why the team takes those into consideration regarding contract stalls. If he's not going to be able to get over big game jitters and other minor, yet concerning attributes of his game that don't seem too glaring on a fringe playoff team as opposed to a perennial superbowl contender, then market value or not he's no good to the team. It's not an easy decision for any team to make based on what they've seen from him since he became a Redskin so I understand why it's been such a long and arduous process.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

19 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

And that's the risk. You are taking a chance on whether or not he has peaked. Even if we sign him to market value now, I don't think the average numbers would offset the "bargain" aspect of increasing market value in a few years. This team could very well be built to win right now, which is why i'm ok with the franchise tag this year. I'm hoping Kirk at least acknowledges the FO's concern over certain aspects of his game and at least understands why the team takes those into consideration regarding contract stalls. If he's not going to be able to get over big game jitters and other minor, yet concerning attributes of his game that don't seem too glaring on a fringe playoff team as opposed to a perennial superbowl contender, then market value or not he's no good to the team. It's not an easy decision for any team to make based on what they've seen from him since he became a Redskin so I understand why it's been such a long and arduous process.

 

I think the $23-25M per year is fair even when you factor in "big game jitters" with Cousins. He's also played a bunch of important games where he's looked unstoppable. So I think the way he played against New York or Carolina last year is something that will happen less and less often once he's locked in and comfortable somewhere long-term. I certainly could be wrong about that...but without Cousins, we don't even have a team that can play in big games late in the season haha. 

[PartyPosse]

6 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I think the $23-25M per year is fair even when you factor in "big game jitters" with Cousins. He's also played a bunch of important games where he's looked unstoppable. So I think the way he played against New York or Carolina last year is something that will happen less and less often once he's locked in and comfortable somewhere long-term. I certainly could be wrong about that...but without Cousins, we don't even have a team that can play in big games late in the season haha. 

And that's another aspect that the team has to take into consideration. There is no doubt that Kirk had the benefit of a solid team around him (for the most part... obviously the run game is a bit of a concern but not as detrimental as many seem to think it is). The offense is also built around a lot of short, high-percentage completions and the benefit of the WCO confusion. Are his numbers a reflection of his talent, the scheme, the weapons around him or a combination of all of the above? I'm not taking anything away from his ability to run the system and his arm strength is off the charts, but the way he looked in the redzone really REALLY scares me. It's like he doesn't have the benefit of what the WCO brings to the table when that deep in enemy territory and his penchant for avoiding the middle of the field in the redzone does nothing except make it easier for the defense to close in on ball carriers. Again, how much of that is system or play calls or Kirk's own confidence is something else that the FO has to take into consideration. Whatever the answer, that was as much a negative as the defense was in terms of how successful the last season ended up being. 

 

My point is I'm not saying Kirk is good or isn't good. That's not what i'm alluding to. My point is the team has just as much reason to believe all the negatives about Kirk as they do the positives simply because he hasn't shown enough consistency one way or another and his last 5 games of last year sums that up to a T. To me the 2016 was a step back from 2015. It was an unfortunate situation that the team didn't really have an opportunity to evaluate Kirk thoroughly until the last year of his rookie contract but let's be honest, the opportunities, regardless of how sporadic, in his first three years spot starting didn't exactly scream franchise QB. I'm pretty sure many who are critical of the FO for not signing him after the 2015 season would have been completely fine if the team had moved on from him following the 2014 season. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

@PartyPosse my question to you then becomes this: If not Cousins, then who? Eventually you are going to have to trust and pay a QB to stay here long-term. How much do you need to see out of someone before you do that? 

 

I would be skeptical that McCoy or Sudfeld (even for pennies on the dollar) can keep this team competitive. 

[PartyPosse]

5 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

@PartyPosse my question to you then becomes this: If not Cousins, then who? Eventually you are going to have to trust and pay a QB to stay here long-term. How much do you need to see out of someone before you do that? 

 

I would be skeptical that McCoy or Sudfeld (even for pennies on the dollar) can keep this team competitive. 

I think that's probably why they tagged him and are still trying to sign him. I honestly don't think they want him or believe in him as the longterm QB but the alternatives are probably the best leverage Kirk has. Obviously that's an opinion, but otherwise I can't see why nothing can be ironed out. Something tells me if they don't get something done by July 15, they draft someone early next year and transition (not franchise) tag him the year after. Someone will obviously overpay for him next year and obviously you run the risk of not receiving compensation if they decline to match, but at least you'll know his value and let's be honest, if he has another meh season this year (whole lotta empty yards but a mediocre TD total) at some point you have to learn to accept him as the QB that he is. 

[Conn]

1 hour ago, PartyPosse said:

I believe that in a few years when the cap gets over 200 million and QBs start demanding a percentage as opposed to just a flat rate

 

If you think this is going to happen, then you should be even more in favor of "overpaying" (using your definition) Cousins now. Because it will be a bargain soon enough. You're very inconsistent on this topic. 

[Conn]

1 hour ago, PartyPosse said:

 the way the NCAA is churning out NFL-ready QBs at an alarming rate 

 

They are? 

[PartyPosse]

13 minutes ago, ConnSKINS26 said:

 

If you think this is going to happen, then you should be even more in favor of "overpaying" (using your definition) Cousins now. Because it will be a bargain soon enough. You're very inconsistent on this topic. 

No because I don't expect to see it in the next few years (Even though it's already being discussed) and when it happens it'll be beyond the tail end of any Kirk contract (I can't see him signing for more than 4 years). 

 

And no, i'm not inconsistent. You keep going on about market value and cap increases and all that while I still maintain my stance that he isn't a QB i feel will lead us anywhere beyond maybe a first round playoff loss so to me regardless of what money is being discussed is already too much IMO. You're so focused on the going rate for QBs that you consistently fail to see my personal opinion that he's just a mediocre to good QB at best. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

31 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

You keep going on about market value and cap increases and all that while I still maintain my stance that he isn't a QB i feel will lead us anywhere beyond maybe a first round playoff loss so to me regardless of what money is being discussed is already too much IMO. You're so focused on the going rate for QBs that you consistently fail to see my personal opinion that he's just a mediocre to good QB at best. 

 

Listen, if that's your opinion of him as a player, then you're 100% justified in your opinion of his contract. In that scenario, we might as well cut ties with him and use that money to build a better defense, running game, etc. Also, if your assessment is correct, then we should have let him walk after 2015 and played McCoy along with a better supporting cast. 

[BleedBNG]

1 hour ago, PartyPosse said:

Something tells me if they don't get something done by July 15, they draft someone early next year and transition (not franchise) tag him the year after. Someone will obviously overpay for him next year and obviously you run the risk of not receiving compensation if they decline to match, but at least you'll know his value and let's be honest, if he has another meh season this year (whole lotta empty yards but a mediocre TD total) at some point you have to learn to accept him as the QB that he is. 

 

Confused... to transition tag him the year after, you'd have to FT (ex or non ex) him next year at $34M. Did you mean trans tag next year?

[Conn]

55 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

No because I don't expect to see it in the next few years (Even though it's already being discussed) and when it happens it'll be beyond the tail end of any Kirk contract (I can't see him signing for more than 4 years). 

 

And no, i'm not inconsistent. You keep going on about market value and cap increases and all that while I still maintain my stance that he isn't a QB i feel will lead us anywhere beyond maybe a first round playoff loss so to me regardless of what money is being discussed is already too much IMO. You're so focused on the going rate for QBs that you consistently fail to see my personal opinion that he's just a mediocre to good QB at best. 

 

Then, in order to better represent your argument, I think you should just embrace that POV and argue for letting Cousins hit FA. Be the voice for letting him move on, as the contract you think he's worth is so unrealistic as to be impossible anyways, and it just detracts from the conversation as it makes it seem like you're living in another universe. With how you feel about what he's "worth", realistically what you're saying is we should just move on. So just say that, imo.

[purbeast]

It amazes me how many people have this undertone that they would love to see Kirk fail if he is signed to a LTD just so they can be like "I told you so."  It just reminds me of the people who simply couldn't let go (and still haven't) of RG3.  In the end I think people (who do) want him signed want him signed because we want the Redskins to be better.  

 

Then everyone who doesn't want to sign him to an LTD because they don't think he is the "best QB in the league so not worth the money" hasn't actually given one realistic scenario on an alternative that would be better than signing KC.  All of the alternatives that I've read everyone talk about is basically going back into the QB carousel and hoping to hit on a QB in the draft, like you know, we've been doing for the past 2 decades, wasting away critical picks and missing on all.

 

Oh, and that's on top of us having a QB that we drafted and is a good QB, in KC.  But nope, let's not pay him, let's hope to hit on another one and then pay that guy instead, and by that time, it will be WWAAAYYYY more than any salary KC would get in an LTD this year.

[PartyPosse]

24 minutes ago, purbeast said:

It amazes me how many people have this undertone that they would love to see Kirk fail if he is signed to a LTD just so they can be like "I told you so."  It just reminds me of the people who simply couldn't let go (and still haven't) of RG3.  In the end I think people (who do) want him signed want him signed because we want the Redskins to be better.  

 

Then everyone who doesn't want to sign him to an LTD because they don't think he is the "best QB in the league so not worth the money" hasn't actually given one realistic scenario on an alternative that would be better than signing KC.  All of the alternatives that I've read everyone talk about is basically going back into the QB carousel and hoping to hit on a QB in the draft, like you know, we've been doing for the past 2 decades, wasting away critical picks and missing on all.

 

Oh, and that's on top of us having a QB that we drafted and is a good QB, in KC.  But nope, let's not pay him, let's hope to hit on another one and then pay that guy instead, and by that time, it will be WWAAAYYYY more than any salary KC would get in an LTD this year.

I assume you are referring to me, which means you didn't read the post I made yesterday about not wanting to be able to say I told you so because in the long run it's bad for the team.

 

in terms of alternatives, you are correct and as I've said that's the only plausible reason to sign him long term imo. However that doesn't justify signing him long term either. If you're in an abusive relationship, you don't marry the first person who doesn't abuse you just because they don't abuse you.

 

Honestly I get the other side and why they want him signed. But I just don't see him being the guy and if he's not the guy then why not just cut ties? Others have different opinions of him and his potential which is why I can see why my opinion to them seems so absurd.

36 minutes ago, BleedBNG said:

 

Confused... to transition tag him the year after, you'd have to FT (ex or non ex) him next year at $34M. Did you mean trans tag next year?

Sorry. That is what I meant.

[BleedBNG]

45 minutes ago, purbeast said:

It amazes me how many people have this undertone that they would love to see Kirk fail if he is signed to a LTD just so they can be like "I told you so."  It just reminds me of the people who simply couldn't let go (and still haven't) of RG3.  In the end I think people (who do) want him signed want him signed because we want the Redskins to be better.  

 

Then everyone who doesn't want to sign him to an LTD because they don't think he is the "best QB in the league so not worth the money" hasn't actually given one realistic scenario on an alternative that would be better than signing KC.  All of the alternatives that I've read everyone talk about is basically going back into the QB carousel and hoping to hit on a QB in the draft, like you know, we've been doing for the past 2 decades, wasting away critical picks and missing on all.

 

Since Rypien's SB year, I've never been gun ho on any of the QB's we've had the last 25 years. In fact I'll tell you right now I was wrong on 2 of them... Rich Gannon (went to a SB) and Brad Johnson (won a SB with a very good defense). I still don't feel any of those 2 would have made it far here. Anyways, I have no problem saying it again with KC if he takes us to at LEAST an NFC Championship game in the next 5 years (if signed for that long). Don't have to win it... just help take us there and I'll have no problem saying I was wrong 100 times over. I don't know, getting us to 4 out of 5 playoffs and winning one of them is worth the LTD whatever the cost? I guess? Reminds me of the Nats and Caps. Either way it's frustrating, but then again the last 23 years has been worse. So, maybe KC will come out of his shell in the big games and help take us far. At least beat the Cowboys without a second stringer. I think KC has good character and good work ethics. I just feel we'll have 5 years of 7-9 to 9-7's and win at least one playoff game. If you take out the deal we made to get a QB in 2012 (one brought on more by fan favorite), we haven't actually drafted a QB in the first round in 12 years. We could be at around pick 12 to 15 next year and not all those teams before us would need a QB. If we don't sign KC or KC doesn't like our offer to a LTD this year, I think it would be a critical pick. There was bogus talk earlier of a trade with KC to the 49ers because of Shanahan. Go to a 49ers bulletin board and ask the fans if they would be OK with KC as their QB. Don't be surprised by a majority of the answers.

[Veryoldschool]

Lots of guys can throw for 9,000 yards in 2 years and in the process turn a horrible team with 7 wins the previous 2 years into a better than .500 team without a defense or a running game, lots of guys.  Why pay for big bucks for that when Snyder can find another one in any bus station or just draft another guy running a high school offense in a no defense college conference where the scores are like basketball games and sell you all a bunch of jerseys when he gets you all spun up with another one of his marketing Snyderooskies?  Old Dan may like jobbing you guys almost as much as he does money.....

[Skinsinparadise]

12 hours ago, BleedBNG said:

 

I just feel we'll have 5 years of 7-9 to 9-7's and win at least one playoff game. If you take out the deal we made to get a QB in 2012 (one brought on more by fan favorite), we haven't actually drafted a QB in the first round in 12 years. We could be at around pick 12 to 15 next year and not all those teams before us would need a QB. If we don't sign KC or KC doesn't like our offer to a LTD this year, I think it would be a critical pick. There was bogus talk earlier of a trade with KC to the 49ers because of Shanahan. Go to a 49ers bulletin board and ask the fans if they would be OK with KC as their QB. Don't be surprised by a majority of the answers.

 

They just went about 9-7 last year (close enough to it) with one of the hardest schedules in the NFL and with arguably the worst defense in the NFL.  Yeah somehow I don't think 7-9, 9-7 is Kirk's ceiling.  If they just had an average defense last year they'd likely have been 11-5. 

 

I don't know how you can say lets take out 2012 and if so then its been 12 years since they used a #1.  How many times are teams supposed to take shots at the well?  Redskins have taken more than their fair number of shots.  They drafted four quarterbacks in the first round in the last 23 years.  They spent 3 first rounders on RG3, if I recall three picks to trade up for JC while taking Ramsey and Shuler straight up with their #1 picks.  They traded a 2nd and a 4th for McNabb and a 3rd for Brunell.   It's been reported they tried to use their #1 pick plus trade up and get Mark Sanchez but got outbid and ditto for Jay Cutler.

 

But lets go on that ride again next year( it might be fun), lets see what gem we can land in the mid first  to each their own but that's a cringe worthy journey for me.  

[RWJ]

59 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

They just went about 9-7 last year (close enough to it) with one of the hardest schedules against the NFL and with arguably the worst defense in the NFL.  Yeah somehow I don't think 7-9, 9-7 is Kirk's ceiling.  If they just had an average defense last year they'd likely have been 11-5. 

 

I don't know how you can say lets take out 2012 and if so then its been 12 years since they used a #1.  How many times are teams supposed to take shots at the well?  Redskins have taken more than their fair number of shots.  They drafted four quarterbacks in the first round in the last 23 years.  They spent 3 first rounders on RG3, if I recall three picks to trade up for JC while taking Ramsey and Shuler straight up with their #1 picks.  They traded a 2nd and a 4th for McNabb and a 3rd for Brunell.   It's been reported they tried to use their #1 pick plus trade up and get Mark Sanchez but got outbid and ditto for Jay Cutler.

 

But lets go on that ride again next year( it might be fun), lets see what gem we can land in the mid first  to each their own but that's a cringe worthy journey for me.  

Hopefully average become just that with Tomsula and Manusky.  I mention Tomsula first because he's the DL guru.

[Cliffmark1]

9 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

@PartyPosse my question to you then becomes this: If not Cousins, then who? Eventually you are going to have to trust and pay a QB to stay here long-term. How much do you need to see out of someone before you do that? 

 

I would be skeptical that McCoy or Sudfeld (even for pennies on the dollar) can keep this team competitive. 

They can promote doug Williams to Starting QB.  He was great! 

[PartyPosse]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

They just went about 9-7 last year (close enough to it) with one of the hardest schedules against the NFL and with arguably the worst defense in the NFL.  Yeah somehow I don't think 7-9, 9-7 is Kirk's ceiling.  If they just had an average defense last year they'd likely have been 11-5. 

You can argue your case, but get facts right. 9 of the 16 games came against teams with 500 or below records and take away the two cowboys game and the overall record of our opponents was like 16 games under 500. Don't get me wrong though, the team did excel against crummy teams, going 6-2-1 against them. Also, the defense didn't look great, but guess what? The team was pretty much right in the middle in terms of PPG against (14th). The two teams right in front of them in terms of even worse defense performances? Oakland and GB both made the playoffs. Oakland also gave up a whopping 2.8 more yards per game than the Skins. Their schedule was also SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult than ours. Maybe it's their run game that helped them? Nope. They had the same number of rushing TDs as us and had a higher YPC. 

 

Sorry, Carry on. 

[Burgold]

16 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Correct! For two straight off-seasons we've had a chance to pay Cousins market value. Had we done so, within two years those numbers would look like a bargain (unless he regresses considerably). Today's slight overpay is tomorrow's discount. 

I'm not sure. I don't think Cousins wold have ever settled for market value. I think he always wanted a premium. I don't really begrudge him that, but I think it's true. He's been very good and pretty consistent for a year and a half, but on the other hand, I don't think anyone confuses him with Rogers or Brady. Yet he does seem to think that market value for him is the top of the elite scale. Rather, I think his agent believes he should create a new top.

 

Ultimately, we won't know what he really wants until he signs. We only know what he has rejected (if the rumors are to be believed).

[goskins10]

4 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

You can argue your case, but get facts right. 9 of the 16 games came against teams with 500 or below records and take away the two cowboys game and the overall record of our opponents was like 16 games under 500. Don't get me wrong though, the team did excel against crummy teams, going 6-2-1 against them. Also, the defense didn't look great, but guess what? The team was pretty much right in the middle in terms of PPG against (14th). The two teams right in front of them in terms of even worse defense performances? Oakland and GB both made the playoffs. Oakland also gave up a whopping 2.8 more yards per game than the Skins. Their schedule was also SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult than ours. Maybe it's their run game that helped them? Nope. They had the same number of rushing TDs as us and had a higher YPC. 

 

Sorry, Carry on. 

 

If you are going to tell someone to get their facts right you should do the same - The Redskins were 19th in pts against (23.9), not 14th - you have to sort twice on NFL.com to get low to high. While I agree pts against is probably the most important, you can't just ignore the other statistics - Redskins were 28th in yds/gm and dead last in 3rd down %. 

 

Also, not sure where you get that Oakland played a "significantly more difficult" schedule that the Redskins. In terms of strength of schedule Oakland was 14th and the Redskins were 11th. And you can't just cherry pick and take out the ones you don't like. So saying removing Dallas changes it is total bull****. If you do that you also have to take out the top 2 records for Oakland. Also, the Redskins offense played against the #1 defensive schedule in the NFL. That has nothing to do with records. So your statement is patently false.

 

Not sure where you were going with the whole run game thing. The point being made was that other teams had better defenses. In terms of Oakland - not sure why you wanted to just go with that team - oh that's right, it's the whole cherry picking thing again - it's true that in terms of most defensive statistics, Oakland and Washington were about the same - except one critical stat - Redskins were dead last in 3rd down % at 47% where Oakland was 16th - 39%. More importantly to this conversation, the team was a missed FG and a defensive stop on Detroit from being 10-6. Neither of those things are in Kirk's control.

 

But back to my main point here, before admonishing others for getting facts straight you may want to make sure you have the facts right. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

You can argue your case, but get facts right. 9 of the 16 games came against teams with 500 or below records and take away the two cowboys game and the overall record of our opponents was like 16 games under 500. Don't get me wrong though, the team did excel against crummy teams, going 6-2-1 against them. Also, the defense didn't look great, but guess what? The team was pretty much right in the middle in terms of PPG against (14th). The two teams right in front of them in terms of even worse defense performances? Oakland and GB both made the playoffs. Oakland also gave up a whopping 2.8 more yards per game than the Skins. Their schedule was also SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult than ours. Maybe it's their run game that helped them? Nope. They had the same number of rushing TDs as us and had a higher YPC. 

 

Sorry, Carry on. 

 

I was talking about schedule in the context of Kirk.  The idea that the defense faced some weak offenses just brings my point home even better. Thank you.  Sorry, Carry On.

 

http://www.espn980.com/2017/01/27/the-truth-about-kirk-cousins-2016-season/

 

3. Kirk did all of this while facing the toughest schedule of opposing defenses that any quarterback faced during the 2016 regular season.

Yes, you read that right.  Kirk did what he did this past regular season despite facing the hardest schedule of opposing defenses per Football Outsiders’ DVOA metric.  Nine of the Redskins’ 16 games were against teams that finished the season in the top 11 of the NFL in total defense: Pittsburgh (no. 11), the Giants twice (no. 2), Baltimore (no. 6), Philadelphia twice (no. 4), Minnesota (no. 9), Arizona (no. 3) and Carolina (no. 10).  The Redskins faced just the 28th-toughest schedule in 2015.  A lot of people like to discount Kirk’s 2015 due to the opposition.  Fine.  Then upgrade his 2016 due to the opposition.

7 hours ago, RWJ said:

Hopefully average become just that with Tomsula and Manusky.  I mention Tomsula first because he's the DL guru.

 

Agree.  I am optimistic about this season.  We had an offense last season.  The defense didn't help. I think that's poised to change.

[skins island connection]

{ stretching } ahhh, it feels good to come out of hibernation.

It was getting too wild in here so it was best for me to just step away for awhile, gather myself, and give myself a chance to get a different perspective on Redskins issues.

 

OK, here I go.  Something that's been bugging me is this; is the FO waiting for KC to regress so they can use it as leverage in contract negotiations? It sounds sadistic in ways, but being he's lost his 2 best WRs in Garcon and DJax, this could very well be a slow season for KC. Yes, we still have a very good WR group, but it also takes a QB/WR chemistry to become better. I'm in the camp of just sign the guy and get the soap opera over with; its not like this team has made poor choices in the past.

 

But also, the argument of missing the playoffs [ is it still called paloffs? ] isn't KC's fault, but the fault of the rest of the team. I am not getting my hopes up of Manusky making this defense competitive, there are so many areas that need serious upgrades that it will take a few years. Had the defense been anything close to decent, we would have easily made the playoffs and quite possibly won a game or 2. I still regret the FO not getting a quality proven DC who could at least get some order and direction, but I'm gonna sit back and see if Manusky can do something; Barry was a laughing stock hire, and this team has suffered enough of the 'friends' hires.

 

One other thing is the offense. Better run blocking and a better running game will help balance the offense, and it will have a negative impact on Cousins' stats, yards-wise. Some may point to that and say he has regressed, but if we're winning without having to throw 40+ times a game, chalk it up to balance, unless he goes on an interception frenzy. Even if he starts off slow, that's ok; he seems to start slow then heat up later.

 

I will say I was hoping to see Allen retiring or going somewhere else. I'm not a fan of his, something about him and his way of being in the middle of issues all the time gives me the impression he's the guy stirring the pot, or the ****.