Common Kirk....I just don't know....

[Llevron]

2 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

 

This is a tricky area for me.  Part of me thinks, well, we've been able to field a very competitive team this year (maybe the past 2+ years) while paying Kirk's large contracts, and we're doing that without some key draft picks from the Griffin trade.  Is 1 or 2 low level contracts (say 1.5-3mil/year) going to make that much of a difference?  (This in reference to those saying he's worth 20, but not 25, etc.).  But then I think, will we lose Breeland, not be able to sign a good receiver, or lose out on the Mason Foster type of re-signs if we do sign Kirk to a LTD? 

 

Agree. Its is tricky. If we could lock up this defense for two years and the exact same offense for two years and keep Kirk, we can pay him whatever it takes. I really believe if we could get 1 score to go 1 minute left Kirk for 12 games a season and playoffs we would win the Superbowl. I honestly believe that. Hes that good in the last minute. But the problem is that we cant lock up both sides of the ball AND him AND expect that level of play consistently. I think we could get that from him if everything around him stayed the same. Hes a beast of habit. 

 

Yall dont know this, but I really think the injuries this season cost us a home playoff game. And thats WITH the eagles being this good. ****. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

7 minutes ago, SWFLSkins said:

 

I wish Kirk would extend plays just a little like he does, opens up the field if the WR's keeping running around. 

I don't disagree with you here.  I'll be curious to hear from the powers that be, upon watching the all 22, whether or not he had much opportunity to make a break for it yesterday.  It didn't look like it to me on the TV cut.  There were 2 sacks that I felt like he had an opportunity to get rid of the ball and didn't but I didn't see much room to run at all.

 

The other part of that though too is the WR's.  In the few times the opportunity has presented itself, I've taken notice that our guys are not coming back to the ball and trying to make a play for the QB.  I don't think it's deliberate, perhaps its a coaching thing or things are breaking down so fast guys are still in their routes.

[skinny21]

4 minutes ago, BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 said:

Not sure what FO uses to grade 

 

i know PFF goes player by player play by play. Either way, them having a poor O line is point that is made during every game they play by the broadcasters. That’s why i was surprised you were fighting it so much 

 

Maybe its the rushing stats? But again those are born out of necessity because Wilson is constantly running for his life. 

 

But yes, some of those lines were as bad as ours was yesterday. There is a reason why RW is so good at escaping. He HAS to be. 

Personally, I have trouble believing any starting NFL oline has been as bad as ours has been the past two weeks.  We were essentially fielding a 4th preseason game oline.  

[wit33]

The winning “window” point is one that gets me thinking the most about meeting demands of Kirk and agent — the Skins have some legit talent in mid to late 20s that need to be maximized and some younger guys ready to assist. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

18 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

I'll admit there are a few non Kirk fans that don't bring much to the table in terms of valid arguments. As I've said yesterday's drive was big and anyone having an issue is absurd. If that Kirk was there every week I'd be happy to sign him. Gritty wins are always better than pretty losses. 

 

You'd rather win ugly than lose pretty. 

10 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Agree. Its is tricky. If we could lock up this defense for two years and the exact same offense for two years and keep Kirk, we can pay him whatever it takes. I really believe if we could get 1 score to go 1 minute left Kirk for 12 games a season and playoffs we would win the Superbowl. I honestly believe that. Hes that good in the last minute. But the problem is that we cant lock up both sides of the ball AND him AND expect that level of play consistently. I think we could get that from him if everything around him stayed the same. Hes a beast of habit. 

 

Yall dont know this, but I really think the injuries this season cost us a home playoff game. And thats WITH the eagles being this good. ****. 

I think some are looking at this as way too static a situation. In the NFL rosters are always fluid. The way the really good teams "lock up" positions is only partially by extending their good players. The other variable is continuing to infuse the team with young talent through the draft. The fact is, you have to pay some guys to keep them. The way the best teams mitigate that is by replacing some of the "other guys" with 3rd and 4th round draft picks without a huge drop-off. If we can figure that part out, then we have a way to stay competitive even if we have to pay Cousins (or Brown or Breeland...). 

[grego]

6 minutes ago, BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 said:

 

 them having a poor O line is point that is made during every game they play by the broadcasters. That’s why i was surprised you were fighting it so much 

 

 

 

we agree on the line being bad of late, just not thats its been bad during wilsons tenure. i question PFF because there seems to be a ton of criticism, not just from stat nerds, but from players and coaches. it generally is along the lines of, they dont know what players are supposed to be doing on a particular play, so how can you grade them? a few years ago, when many of us (including me) were routinely burying our line when griffin played, i remember a pre season game vs detroit where griffin got sacked a bunch and the the tackle (moses?) appeared to whiff on the block. the next day, i heard cooley on 980 explain that robert was getting the pre snap calls (as in, pressure is coming form left or right) wrong. so, griff would tell them to protect the wrong way, the lineman does it, and griff gets crushed. that info makes all the difference in the world, and it was at that moment that i realized why the line looked better in front of cousins, and that griffin couldnt play. 

 

i dont know exactly how football outsiders does their breakdowns, but i understand its different from PFF, and i havent heard nearly the amount of criticism of them as i have for PFF, so i do question when their rankings seem out of whack with other info. also, one thing i noticed was that their rankings are what they are projecting before the season, not what they are doing week to week, so those rankings can differ. 

[SWFLSkins]

13 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I don't disagree with you here.  I'll be curious to hear from the powers that be, upon watching the all 22, whether or not he had much opportunity to make a break for it yesterday.  It didn't look like it to me on the TV cut.  There were 2 sacks that I felt like he had an opportunity to get rid of the ball and didn't but I didn't see much room to run at all.

 

The other part of that though too is the WR's.  In the few times the opportunity has presented itself, I've taken notice that our guys are not coming back to the ball and trying to make a play for the QB.  I don't think it's deliberate, perhaps its a coaching thing or things are breaking down so fast guys are still in their routes.

 

I was particularly miffed on the one series, third qt. maybe,  on first down throwing it, he rolled or ran out and had time but threw it away under no duress, next play he gets sacked and should have ran or threw it away. 

22 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Kirk doesn't have anywhere close to the same skill in terms of mobility. He's picked up a few nice first downs on scrambles down the middle but he'll never be confused with a Vick or Wilson. That's not him.

 

Pretty aware of that, elaborated above. HE and Jay certainly could use some plays where he rolls out, can adlib some. 

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I think some are looking at this as way too static a situation. In the NFL rosters are always fluid. The way the really good teams "lock up" positions is only partially by extending their good players. The other variable is continuing to infuse the team with young talent through the draft. The fact is, you have to pay some guys to keep them. The way the best teams mitigate that is by replacing some of the "other guys" with 3rd and 4th round draft picks without a huge drop-off. If we can figure that part out, then we have a way to stay competitive even if we have to pay Cousins (or Brown or Breeland...). 

 

True. And I know full well that we wont ever keep all 53 players from one year to another. The way I say it is very misleading after reading it twice, but what I mean to say is keeping a retaliative strength a strength and a not letting a unit just fall off a cliff for a few years. That is hard enough. 

 

Basically if Krik knows he can rely on the D to give him a chance every game and play it safe like he likes to until the last minute, he will play within himself until he needs to. Its exactly what he did against Seattle and it works. And I think hes comfortable like that. And if we can keep the D like that, it keeps his job steady and he knows what to expect every game. 

 

does that make more sense or still kinda stupid? 

[Skinsinparadise]

31 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

 

Thing is, I believe we have a window right now.  Smith, Scherff, Crowder, in the next couple of years, and Norman, Swearinger, Ioaniddas, Fuller, etc. just after - what are the chances we find a competitive qb in that timeframe?  It goes much more in depth than that surface level thinking, but that's sort of the crux of my concern with getting rid of Kirk.  We're a good team and just a few pieces (IMO) from being a great team... do we risk slumping by searching for a new qb?  

 

I agree. 

 

Some of Kirk's critics I notice are slamming the people backing Kirk as being part of some sort of Kirk cult.   It's absurd.   No one is saying Kirk is the best QB in the league.   The more vocal Kirk supporters have called out bad games as bad games.  I said myself Kirk (along with the whole offense) played poorly for a chunk of that game until he big time rallied at the end.  But we don't live and die with each game as if the verdict on Kirk fully rides on them.   We are looking at the full body of work.  

 

Reading through the posts.  I think the bottom line in this conversation is a debate between optimists and pessimists about this team. I'd characterize the typical Kirk person as an optimist about the team's present.  That is what I believe is driving the tone of most of the Kirk backers.   It's not about being a Kirk backer but backing a team that we think is on the verge of being a serious contender.  And Kirk is a vital part of that.  This defense when healthy might only be a player or two from being really good.  The offense might just be a running back and one polished receiver from being very good.   

 

This team has beaten one of the hottest teams in the NFL on the road (Rams) beat one of the hottest teams at the time (Raiders), was one play away from beating the undefeated Chiefs.  They just beat Seattle on the road who won 4 in row previously.  They lost to the Eagles twice but were close in both games and banged up like mad in the 2nd game and lost to Dallas mostly because of a blocked field goal.  

 

Doing a full reset on this team to me makes no sense.   And people are acting like the future is really scary when Kirk gets his big contract.  However, the dude already counts 24 million against the cap THIS year.   We are actually seeing a roster in play in real time that answers the question of can we be competitive if we pay a QB.   The answer clearly IMO is yes.   But yeah if I felt this was a mediocre team at best and is on the road to nowhere (and over the years there were years where I felt that), then what the heck lets start over and see if we can find the next Aaron Rodgers -- we'd have nothing to lose. 

 

But personally, I think this team is seriously on the verge.  One more off season.

[SlkyCaramel]

1 minute ago, BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 said:

I think it’s very unfair to assume ppl that are not all in on Kirk are just RG3 stans.

 

 I was one of very few ppl championing Kirk here in 2014 and i defended him like crazy in 2015. 

 

 

 

I think this idea that people who have issues with Kirk are all RG3 stans is CRAZY. I barely even liked RG3 most of the time he was here and I was beyond ready for him to go before he did. I also championed him getting benched. 

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

12 minutes ago, grego said:

 

we agree on the line being bad of late, just not thats its been bad during wilsons tenure. i question PFF because there seems to be a ton of criticism, not just from stat nerds, but from players and coaches. it generally is along the lines of, they dont know what players are supposed to be doing on a particular play, so how can you grade them? a few years ago, when many of us (including me) were routinely burying our line when griffin played, i remember a pre season game vs detroit where griffin got sacked a bunch and the the tackle (moses?) appeared to whiff on the block. the next day, i heard cooley on 980 explain that robert was getting the pre snap calls (as in, pressure is coming form left or right) wrong. so, griff would tell them to protect the wrong way, the lineman does it, and griff gets crushed. that info makes all the difference in the world, and it was at that moment that i realized why the line looked better in front of cousins, and that griffin couldnt play. 

 

i dont know exactly how football outsiders does their breakdowns, but i understand its different from PFF, and i havent heard nearly the amount of criticism of them as i have for PFF, so i do question when their rankings seem out of whack with other info. also, one thing i noticed was that their rankings are what they are projecting before the season, not what they are doing week to week, so those rankings can differ. 

Well i mean the NFL respects it enough to have each player’s PFF ranking underneath their names during the SNF player intros 

 

you can play up the Cris Collingsworth (who thought enough of it to buy it) Angle if you want but that would be a reach imo

 

And i believe all of those rankings are year end rankings with the exception of 2017 one

 

Them having a poor OLine is not debatable. These are just random articles I’m googling. (even the WaPost uses PFF btw)

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/2017/9/25/16363040/seattle-seahawks-offensive-line-failing-very-badly-whiffed-blocks

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/sports/wp/2016/09/15/seahawks-and-russell-wilson-could-finally-pay-the-price-for-ignoring-offensive-line/

 

 

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

double 

 

apologies everyone for wasting space on the ****ing Seahawks o line 

[PartyPosse]

13 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The more vocal Kirk supporters have called out bad games as bad games.

Gonna have to disagree with that statement.

19 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Basically if Krik knows he can rely on the D to give him a chance every game and play it safe like he likes to until the last minute, he will play within himself until he needs to. Its exactly what he did against Seattle and it works. And I think hes comfortable like that. And if we can keep the D like that, it keeps his job steady and he knows what to expect every game. 

I don't want that from my QB. That last drive was great but that's putting too much on the defense. The three missed FGs were obviously huge as were the many many penalties that offense took. Kirk was lucky he was even in position for that drive.

[Skinsinparadise]

I am not part of the Wilson debate here.  Personally, I think he's really good and to me the scariest QB to face in the NFL with the game on the line.  Hence, yesterday's victory to me was so fun.  I have't looked at it recently but I recall debating Wilson versus another QB (not Kirk) a year or so ago and saw he won a series of games in spite of mediocre performances -- 200 yards or less and 55% completion rates or less, etc.  Their defense some years have been so good that he can have a bad game and Seattle wins anyway.  But I still think Wilson is good.

 

Wilson's O line isn't good.  The current version of the Redskins O line is much worse.  

8 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Gonna have to disagree with that statement.

 

Give me an example, then.   Which bad games, have Kirk's supporters said nice job? 

 

Unless you mean games like yesterday and the Rams game where he wasn't hot for a chunk of the game but he came through when it mattered.  And in those games, its been called just like it was -- rocky but played well when it counted.  That's pretty much word for word as for what I said yesterday. 

 

Everyone I recall slammed him after the first game of the season -- the difference was some of Kirk's detractors acted like his career was defined by that game as the typical Kirk game.   His supporters saw it as just ONE game.  The big part of this debate has been is one game the defining painting of Kirk's career -- or is it just one game?  Big picture -- versus living and dying by the vicissitudes of the NFL. 

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

The bottom line is that Kirk proved me wrong by making clutch plays behind a horrid o line. I’m still on cloud nine because of it 

[Llevron]

5 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Gonna have to disagree with that statement.

 

+1

5 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

I don't want that from my QB. That last drive was great but that's putting too much on the defense. The three missed FGs were obviously huge as were the many many penalties that offense took. Kirk was lucky he was even in position for that drive.

 

I dont necessarily want that from my QB. But its what we have at the moment and we can win that way. What I want is 1 score 1 minute left Kirk. The cat who takes the shots down field when they are there and breaks backs with 3rd and long conversions like its nothing. But thats not what we got. 

 

But I have turned into my father and his father before him. Defense wins championships. I want a strong defense and running game more than anything. But if I can supplant that with a good enough defense and a good enough Offense to win then ill take it if I have to. 

[Veryoldschool]

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

I was AMAZED at how bad that offense looked yesterday... tip of the cap to our defense there.  Half way through the 3rd quarter, you could see Wilson come to grips with the fact that the game was on his shoulders, and he started running off script.  He lost faith in everyone around him and he tried to take it over.  

 

Yesterday, Russell Wison had a better supporting cast in his stadium and LOST.

[grego]

12 minutes ago, BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 said:

The bottom line is that Kirk proved me wrong by making clutch plays behind a horrid o line. I’m still on cloud nine because of it 

 

we agree on that 

[SlkyCaramel]

12 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

Yesterday, Russell Wison had a better supporting cast in his stadium and LOST.

 

Listen, we won and that's great but lets not do this. Wilson has better receivers probably but he has a putrid offensive line (and has for years) and no running game - in fact the starting running back who they repeatedly said they planned to run A LOT in the game (even before it started) got hurt in the first quarter and was out. 

 

Just appreciate the win.

[PartyPosse]

18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I am not part of the Wilson debate here.  Personally, I think he's really good and to me the scariest QB to face in the NFL with the game on the line.  Hence, yesterday's victory to me was so fun.  I have't looked at it recently but I recall debating Wilson versus another QB (not Kirk) a year or so ago and saw he won a series of games in spite of mediocre performances -- 200 yards or less and 55% completion rates or less, etc.  Their defense some years have been so good that he can have a bad game and Seattle wins anyway.  But I still think Wilson is good.

 

Wilson's O line isn't good.  The current version of the Redskins O line is much worse.  

 

Give me an example, then.   Which bad games, have Kirk's supporters said nice job? 

 

Unless you mean games like yesterday and the Rams game where he wasn't hot for a chunk of the game but he came through when it mattered.  And in those games, its been called just like it was -- rocky but played well when it counted.  That's pretty much word for word as for what I said yesterday. 

 

Everyone I recall slammed him after the first game of the season -- the difference was some of Kirk's detractors acted like his career was defined by that game as the typical Kirk game.   His supporters saw it as just ONE game.  The big part of this debate has been is one game the defining painting of Kirk's career -- or is it just one game?  Big picture -- versus living and dying by the vicissitudes of the NFL. 

Some Kirk supporters don't think he's had a bad game yet. I remember the first game how he was being supported because he barely had time to throw because the OL was struggling and if it weren't for dropped balls etc.

 

my point is there has been overdramatic and blind ignorance on both sides of the argument. He gets off easy by supporters and us on the other side definitely criticize more harshly than we should.

[SWFLSkins]

ah, metrics........how you besiege thee with befuddlement...... 

 

 

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

 

Agree. Its is tricky. If we could lock up this defense for two years and the exact same offense for two years and keep Kirk, we can pay him whatever it takes. I really believe if we could get 1 score to go 1 minute left Kirk for 12 games a season and playoffs we would win the Superbowl. I honestly believe that. Hes that good in the last minute. But the problem is that we cant lock up both sides of the ball AND him AND expect that level of play consistently. I think we could get that from him if everything around him stayed the same. Hes a beast of habit. 

 

Yall dont know this, but I really think the injuries this season cost us a home playoff game. And thats WITH the eagles being this good. ****. 

Honest question...can you spell out what parts we can't keep together on this offense/defense?  

[Llevron]

19 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

Honest question...can you spell out what parts we can't keep together on this offense/defense?  

 

Hell naw lol

 

Im working on the assumption we cant keep everyone. I am no cap guy. But it makes sense to me that we cant keep everyone, especially if they play well. Now im open to you showing me the math to help me see otherwise. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Wow, average at best receives, damaged o-line and questionable run game, yet Kirk still gets it done, twice.. not good enough.

[skinny21]

24 minutes ago, SlkyCaramel said:

 

Listen, we won and that's great but lets not do this. Wilson has better receivers probably but he has a putrid offensive line (and has for years) and no running game - in fact the starting running back who they repeatedly said they planned to run A LOT in the game (even before it started) got hurt in the first quarter and was out. 

 

Just appreciate the win.

I would be surprised if anyone agrees with you on the position that Kirk had a better supporting cast.  If this team were fully healthy, you'd definitely have an argument.  

To take it a step further - oline, K, and receivers all favored Seattle.  Run game we could call a wash (to do that you'd have to exclude Wilson's scrambling, which is reasonable).  

23 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Some Kirk supporters don't think he's had a bad game yet. I remember the first game how he was being supported because he barely had time to throw because the OL was struggling and if it weren't for dropped balls etc.

 

my point is there has been overdramatic and blind ignorance on both sides of the argument. He gets off easy by supporters and us on the other side definitely criticize more harshly than we should.

I'm with SIP here.  Can't recall anyone claiming Cousins was anything other than bad in game 1*.  That's separate from saying he played poorly but didn't get a great deal of help from the run game, receivers or oline.  I would argue that you can't label the rest bad games because 1) he pulled out game winning drives or 2) his supporting cast was decimated.  

 

 

*@Veryoldschool doesn't count, lol