Will Cousins Play For The Skins In 2018

[Skinsinparadise]

Yep!

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2017/12/18/kirk-cousins-successful-nfl-teams-have-continuity/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.e519e9a26a3c

Kirk Cousins: Successful NFL teams have continuity

 

...If the Redskins have big-picture decisions to make during the offseason, they could probably be summed up with three words: continuity vs. change.

Change is a constant in the NFL, and over the past few years the Redskins have changed their defensive coordinator (twice), their general manager, their wide receivers, their running backs, their kicker, their defensive leaders and their official mattress provider. But they haven’t changed their head coach, and they haven’t changed their quarterback, and those might be the two positions best able to provide organizational continuity.

 

So with Washingtonians and NFL observers alike wondering about the organization’s direction following consecutive blowout losses that ended the team’s playoff hopes, here comes quarterback Kirk Cousins with a pretty strong vote in favor of continuity.

“I think the body of work, when you look at what’s taken place over the last several years, it would be foolish to try to look at a week or two weeks and try to make a decision on anybody in this organization,” Cousins said Monday morning on 106.7 The Fan’s Grant and Danny program, the day after the Redskins calmed the waters with a home win over the Cardinals.

 

“Continuity’s a big part of football,” Cousins went on. “And I think that trying to build continuity and create continuity’s important. You look at teams that are successful year in and year out — it’s kind of a chicken or the egg, which comes first — but the teams that are successful then have continuity. They have the same head coach, they have the same quarterback, they have a lot of the same star players year in and year out. And there are some key positions that aren’t changing over and over. And I think to get to that level and be a consistent winner, you also have to create that continuity, and that’s important.”

 

 

[bobandweave]

6 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Sorry, but one article that kind of supports whatever point it is you're trying to make isn't going to cut it.  In your opinion, Kirk is an average quarterback.  By your opinion, I mean an opinion that lacks any relevance.

 

Peace brother

 

 

6 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

We lost two 1000 yard WRs because the team decided to not make any offers and to let them walk.  Garcon stated they never even contacted him or made any offer at all, we could have retained him, most likely, at a good price.

 

Not sure how you figure that we could have signed either guy to the contracts they were offered by other teams last off season. We simply didn't have the money to do that and that's the crux of the issue when you give one guy a kings ransom and the financial impact signing him causes. Signing one guy has ripple effects

 

To the posters believing that there will not be negative impacts if we sign Cousins to some elite money deal my goodness, you do realize that players play to make money and owe it to their families to get as much as they can when the average lifespan of an NFL player is only 3.5 years and these men have lifelong negative effects on their bodies after they quit playing right? 

 

The free agents and draft picks will hit the road for greener pastures if the teams unable to give them the money they are deserved. The Redskins are only 1 of 31 other companies hiring. If they can't be successful and put a proven winning team on the field then no one's going to come here and play at a discount. We have to offer competitive wages to get anyone. And the bucket shrinks when  so much of it goes to one single player like a QB.

 

That's why you seem so many teams adding the QB last when making a run - Seattle, 49ers, Dallas, etc. You see the teams that sign QBs to elite money contracts like the Raiders and Lions being slightly above .500 but never making much noise. 

 

 

Quote

Kirk is still top 10 in the league in passing yards (#8) and should top 4000 yards again this year, with a depleted o-line, no running game and practice squad players being plugged into the line-up (Bibbs).  

 

Stats are great for Fantasy and daily games, but in team construction they mean nothing at all unless they are backed up by wins. Would you rather have a QB with top 5 numbers and 6 wins or a QB with top 15 numbers and wins 12 games? This is not Kirks only season where he's had monster numbers without Wins. He's on a trajectory path of mid 2000's Jay Cutler now and that's not someone to break the bank for.

 

 

Quote

Kirk is a top 10 QB in the league, whether you want to admit that or not.  And regardless of if he is "worth the money" or not, he's going to get it, because the market dictates it.  And in a few years when other "not worth it QBs" sign for more, Kirks deal will be an after thought and it won't matter.

 

I do agree he's going to get paid but as a life time fan of this team I do hope that either a) He signs here and I'm dead wrong about who I think he is or b.) he signs somewhere else and is the guy I think he is and becomes someone else's problem. A day after he leads the offense to only 15 offensive plays in the first half and only converts a single third down I can't get behind Kirk Cousins because imo had we been playing a competent team yesterday and not one with a single offensive weapon (Fitzgerald) and a terrible QB (Gabbert) we likely would have lost again because of the ineptness of the offense he leads in fact

 

2015 - 10th in scoring offense per game
2016 - 12th in scoring offense per game
2017 - 18th in scoring offense per game

 

Where is the trajectory going here with Cousins? Sure his yards are stabilizing and staying high but yards don't win you games, points do. And any QB who can't win when the game matters gets a team to a mediocre .500 record year over year. That's not what we as fans want. We should all be wanting to see playoff wins and Superbowls. If JKC was still running the show he would likely have traded Kirk away because if you can't Win games or score points as a QB what really are you offering the team?

 

@Skinsinparadise, continuity when you've done something to brag about makes perfect sense. When you crumble every time the lights shine bright like Kirk's done year after year and reward that with elite money to me is rewarding mediocrity and never something to support.

 

The Ravens made Flacco prove he could win it all before investing in him and that team year over year continues to create a winning franchise farming system anyone should be proud of. They continue to have a philosophy of team building this franchise lacks. This franchise lacks the fundamentals of proper team building

 

The winning QB's deserve elite money, the average do not. Sure age is important and its one of Kirk's best negotiating tricks at his disposal today but in a division where 2 out of the 4 teams already have proven winning QB's younger then Kirk is that even something to consider important to this discussion? The teams given him three years to prove he could win when it mattered and just like in years past he showed us all he couldn't.

 

His starting record vs the division in these prove it years has been sub .500 (8-9 in 17 games) and the reason it's not much worse then that is the Eagles and Cowboys had to rebuild. Those clubs rebuilt through great scouting and drafting. This year Kirk's got 1 win and 4 losses against the NFC East which is really bad and we are going to reward that with an elite money breaking contract? It makes no sense

[ncr2h]

15 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

 

2015 - 10th in scoring offense per game
2016 - 12th in scoring offense per game
2017 - 18th in scoring offense per game

Did you factor the strength of defense into this at all?  For example, in 2016 we faced the #1 most difficult schedule in terms of opposing defenses.  Therefore, the fact that we were able to place #12 in scoring offense is quite an accomplishment.  In 2015, we faced the #28 most difficult schedule of opposing defenses.  Is that a fair adjustment?  See here for the rankings (far right column).

 

Are yards really not important at all?  Who had a better game - generic QB X whose stat line reads 2/20 for 2 yards, 2 TDs, and 0 INTs?  Or QB Y whose stat line reads 50/50 for 1,000 yards, 0 TDs, 0 INTs?  QB X's team ran the ball down the field for 79 yards and then he threw the final yard.  QB Y drove his team up and down the field, and then someone else scored (or they kicked field goals).  Like many things in life, there is a spectrum.  But at some point, it's obvious that you would trade a certain amount of passing TDs for passing yards.  Where do you draw that line?  Or do you not draw that line at all, and the only thing that matters to you is passing TDs (which is what I took away from your post - forgive me if I got the wrong impression)?

[Destino]

2 hours ago, bobandweave said:

 

Not sure how you figure that we could have signed either guy to the contracts they were offered by other teams last off season. We simply didn't have the money to do that and that's the crux of the issue when you give one guy a kings ransom and the financial impact signing him causes. Signing one guy has ripple effects

 

That's why you seem so many teams adding the QB last when making a run - Seattle, 49ers, Dallas, etc. You see the teams that sign QBs to elite money contracts like the Raiders and Lions being slightly above .500 but never making much noise. 

So the Pats, Steelers, Chiefs, Panthers, and Saints are slightly above .500?  None of them can afford playmakers on offense, a good running game, or a good defense?  

 

 

Quote

The winning QB's deserve elite money, the average do not.

Wins and losses are a team stat, not a QB stat.  There is no shortage of examples of good QBs losing a lot of games.  

[Skinsinparadise]

11 hours ago, bobandweave said:

@Skinsinparadise, continuity when you've done something to brag about makes perfect sense. When you crumble every time the lights shine bright like Kirk's done year after year and reward that with elite money to me is rewarding mediocrity and never something to support.

 

The Ravens made Flacco prove he could win it all before investing in him and that team year over year continues to create a winning franchise farming system anyone should be proud of. They continue to have a philosophy of team building this franchise lacks. This franchise lacks the fundamentals of proper team building

 

The winning QB's deserve elite money, the average do not. Sure age is important and its one of Kirk's best negotiating tricks at his disposal today but in a division where 2 out of the 4 teams already have proven winning QB's younger then Kirk is that even something to consider important to this discussion? The teams given him three years to prove he could win when it mattered and just like in years past he showed us all he couldn't.

 

 

There are 50 million pages on the Kirk threads that address these points and I recall you've visited these pages because I recall this isn't your first rodeo on the topic.  So I am gathering I am likely wasting my time to refresh those points.  But what the heck, got some energy this morning.

 

A. Kirk leads (or at least did as of a couple of weeks ago don't feel like checking again) the league in 4th quarter comebacks this year

B. The offense was putting up good numbers with one hand behind their back this season and just one dangerous weapon -- Chris Thompson.  Now they don't have a single weapon and have struggled in the last few weeks.  

C.  Maybe there is 2 QBs in the league that can thrive without any run game

D. Kirk has won the division already.  This is his third year as a starter not his 13th.

E.  A bad defense, bad running game, bad passing weapons, bad blocking, bad special teams = a bad team. That's not on the QB.  You take out the franchise QB out of that equation then you got the Cleveland Browns. Some people clamor to test that theory.  But I am with Loverro's article, that's insane. 

 

You were talking Steelers and Patriots in a previous post.  Steelers have arguably the best weapons in the league.    L. Bell is probably the best running back in the league and leads the league in rushing.   For Kirk we are just clamoring for a passable running game that's not pathetic.    Steelers also have the best receiver in the league. Their #2 WR would be our #1.   Patriots had Gronk take over in the 4th quarter for their win last Sunday.  Who is our Gronk?  Vernon Davis?    Who is our Brandon Cooks who is poised to break 1000 yards?  Ryan Grant?  

 

Yeah Kirk was better with Garcon and D. Jax but some act like those guys were elite.  They weren't elite.  Neither guy even sniffs the pro-bowl-all pro team.  They are really good receivers.  But they aren't even in the conversation as to the better receivers in the league.

 

Bring back Kirk.  Get the O line healthy.  Just add one good receiver. One good running back.  Some act like that's asking for the moon.  How luxurious it is to give him a running back an average running game -- not a great one -- but average.  And wow a receiver that you can rely on to catch the ball, no one special, but just one good one.    But yeah that's not about pampering Kirk with weapons like Big Ben has.    It's giving him something to work with.

 

You can get your way and dump Kirk and we can go fishing in the draft and go get our own Blaine Gabbert type in FA.  Still, these guys need something to work with. Even Aaron Rodgers has multiple weapons.  Anyone of their top three receivers would arguably be our #1.

[ColonialWBSkinsFan]

43 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

Bring back Kirk.  Get the O line healthy.  Just add one good receiver. One good running back.  Some act like that's asking for the moon.  How luxurious it is to give a running back an average running game -- not a great one -- but average.  And wow a receiver that you can rely on to catch the ball, no one special, but just one good one.    But yeah that's not about pampering Kirk with weapons like Big Ben has.    It's giving him something to work with.

 

You can get your way and dump Kirk and we can go fishing in the draft and go get our own Blaine Gabbert type in FA.  Still, these guys need something to work with. Even Aaron Rodgers has multiple weapons.  Anyone of their top three receivers would arguably be our #1.

 

@Skinsinparadise I've said it before, it bears repeating again, in my opinion you are the "Yoda" of this message board, and thank you once again for saying this so well.  I for one don't want to see this thing turned over to Colt (who I like very much as a person) throwing 8-yard outs because his arm strength is so poor...or even worse, turn it over to a Gabbert, Hoyer, McKown, TJ Yates "never-has-been" and win 3 games next year...

[Skinsinparadise]

Keim

 

http://www.espn.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/35033/blaine-gabbert-denver-provide-redskins-reason-to-fear-life-without-kirk-cousins

...The question then becomes: Do you trust the Redskins to find a viable replacement should Cousins leave?

 

Since the Redskins won the Super Bowl after the 1991 season, the franchise has drafted 13 quarterbacks. That includes four at various spots in the first round -- two in the top five and two in the bottom seven; three in the fourth; four in the sixth and two in the seventh.

One of those picks has panned out: Cousins.

 

At this point, a long-term deal really isn't up to Washington anyway. That ship sailed two years ago. The Redskins can control Cousins on one-year deals, but for anything beyond that Cousins must believe the organization can build long-term success. Otherwise, the only way he ever returns is under a tag -- whether it's the franchise tag (too expensive at $34.5 million) or the transition ($28 million).

But you don't need to look at Gabbert or Denver as reason to fear the alternative. You just need to look at the Redskins' past 27 years.

[JoeJacobyHOForRIOT]

Although its not what i want i predict the skins letting him walk. I think when a team shells out big bucks for a QB the mindset is "we are ready to compete for a superbowl or deep playoff run" The skins are nowhere near this.

[DJHJR86]

11 hours ago, bobandweave said:

The winning QB's deserve elite money

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

5 minutes ago, DJHJR86 said:

 

"He's just having a bad season"

 

As if he has lengthy resume of good seasons behind that...

 

I recall the conversations over the offseason that it was a no-brainer that Carr is better than Cousins.

 

 

 

[DJHJR86]

3 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I recall the conversations over the offseason that it was a no-brainer that Carr is better than Cousins.

 

What's funny is that Czaban had Tim Hasselbeck on his show yesterday and brought this up to him, and Hasselbeck was genuinely confused as to why Skins fans would even compare the two.  His exact quote:

"That's interesting that you hear that comparison about, you know, Derek Carr and Kirk Cousins, because listen I've watched these guys a lot.  You know, I'm not, I don't know that I've got Derek Carr over Kirk Cousins.  So that's interesting that people in Washington feel that way."

[DaveMate]

I doubt he will accept a multiyear contract around the value he is worth, although of course I wish he would. Hes a good enough QB but not an elite one.

 

The FO messed this one up by not getting him down early. Its a mistake and you cant just keep continuing with it and allow it to get out of control you have to draw the line somewhere.

 

Hes in a good position and hes doing whats best for him not this team. I dont blame him but unfortunately I think its time to move on.

 

[Alexa]

I'm tired of this thing w/ Cousins. It's mentally draining. If I were Snyder I'd remove Bruce Allen from negotiating. Snyder needs to sit down w/ Cousins w/out agents and talk it out. It's just not that hard. Does Snyder even talk to anyone besides his cronies? 

[Boss_Hogg]

There will be a market for Kirk's services after this season. 

 

Jacksonville - perhaps, although I can see Coughlin going after Elijah Manning if the Giants let him go. Jags have the cash to make it happen

Pittsburgh - Ben is playing at a high level, but if he decides to hang it up Kirk would be a good fit. They don't have a lot of cap space

NY Jets - They need a QB and could be suitors

Miami - Remains to be seen what's gonna happen with Tannehill

Cincinnati - Ditto with the Bungles, will the next coach want to keep a 30 year old Andy Dalton?

Arizona - We all saw how awful Blaine Gabbert is, and the corpse of Carson Palmer may not make it back in 2018. Another suitor

San Francisco - jimmy garoppolo is playing very well in Kyle's system. This is a team on the rise with all their cap space and young talent. I'm jealous

 

 

[Garcon More Wine]

On 12/18/2017 at 8:35 AM, kingdaddy said:

Thinking about Cousins, it still needs to be pointed out that we have not won a playoff game with him and have only made the playoffs once. He and Gruden get measured on how they do in big games and they're both on the wrong side of positive in my opinion. Both KC and Gruden get off to poor starts and both struggle to nail down must win games. While it's certainly not all KC's fault, he is part of the reason for our mediocre seasons the past two years. Here's how I see him:

Positives: Great guy, accurate passer, good arm, some mobility, good enough to win with the right pieces around him, effective runner when he runs, durable, has great numbers for a season. Good team player, 

Negatives: Field vision is suspect, appears to lack confidence in his own ability, rarely carries a team, struggles in big games...especially at home, doesn't extend plays compared to upper echelon QB's in the league, has trouble in the red zone getting TD's.

Now, in his defense, KC hasn't had the security of being handed the keys to the car by management being told "this is your team, we're behind you 100%". I would imagine that could make a big difference in his confidence and overall play. So, my answer to keeping Cousins is a little complex but to simplify it, if the management in place is not sold on him as the guy to take us to the promiseland then don't pay him and move on. Go get your own guy. However, if we dump Bruce and new management likes what they've seen then go all in and make it known to him that you're fully committed to him.

Personally, I'd move on from KC as I'm not convinced he has what it takes to win the big games. I like him, but feel we can do better in the draft. I'd also move on from Jay Gruden for similar reasons....great guy but has shown that we can get close but not do enough to win big games. The Saints game was very telling for me with both KC and JG. 

 

i think he has what it takes.  what he doesnt have is any quality players around him like all the other big ticket QBs.

 

matt stafford and derek carr are making a combined 260 mil for their contracts, and have won ZERO playoff games.  why isnt that talked about?  this is what QBs cost.  cousins is a good one, a top 10-12 QB in this league.  give the man a better team around him and we can win a lot of games.  continue on with a 32nd ranked defense, absolute trash at RB, and WRs that could barely crack clevelands roster, and we'll continue to hover around 500.

 

take cousins away and the roster doesnt improve, we are 3-13 at best with some luck because this roster is trash.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

"He's just having a bad season"

 

As if he has lengthy resume of good seasons behind that...

 

I recall the conversations over the offseason that it was a no-brainer that Carr is better than Cousins.

 

 

 

I recall those conversations well.  It was heck yeah Carr deserves the money because he's Carr -- and its almost comical to even compare Kirk to Carr.   Now, its rewarding Carr was a mistake.

 

Here's the thing.  Stuff happens.  You can have a disappointing season.  Just for a refresher, I just read a bunch of articles about the Raiders season.  One common refrain was what a mistake it was to entrust the running game to M. Lynch.  It's ironic that the team just barely above the Redskins as for the running game ranking is the Raiders.  They are both bad at moving the ball on the ground.  The top 10 teams right now in running all have winning records -- all likely making the playoffs aside from Dallas.  The top 10 worst (Redskins among them) are all having bad seasons with the exception of the mediocre Lions.

[skinny21]

I disagree that the roster is trash (unless you’re talking post injury), but...

Cousins has gotten very little support this year.  

We need to improve the ground game, defense and and get Cousins some more weapons.  

 

I think the defense has the potential to be good, but injuries killed us.  

 

Don’t think the run game is all that far from being decent, but we need (at minimum) a TE that can truly block.  Would be nice to add a starting olineman too.  

 

Definitely need a good receiver.  Crowder, Thompson, Doctson and Reed/Davis isn’t a bad group, but they’d be helped immensely if we do land a talented receiver.  

[Skinsinparadise]

2 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I disagree that the roster is trash (unless you’re talking post injury), but...

Cousins has gotten very little support this year.  

We need to improve the ground game, defense and and get Cousins some more weapons.  

 

I think the defense has the potential to be good, but injuries killed us.  

 

Don’t think the run game is all that far from being decent, but we need (at minimum) a TE that can truly block.  Would be nice to add a starting olineman too.  

 

Definitely need a good receiver.  Crowder, Thompson, Doctson and Reed/Davis isn’t a bad group, but they’d be helped immensely if we do land a talented receiver.  

 

I agree with all of this except I would draft a running back.  I like Perine but not to the degree where I'd trust it all comes together for him next season because if it doesn't -- that's too many times IMO going to the well trusting the running game will be better than the year before without a major upgrade.

 

I don't think the roster is trash at all.  I think the current version of the team is trash but that's a function of injuries.  

[skinny21]

42 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I agree with all of this except I would draft a running back.  I like Perine but not to the degree where I'd trust it all comes together for him next season because if it doesn't -- that's too many times IMO going to the well trusting the running game will be better than the year before without a major upgrade.

 

I don't think the roster is trash at all.  I think the current version of the team is trash but that's a function of injuries.  

I’ll try to explain why I left runningback off that post.

 

Discounting Free Agency for a moment (though assuming we re-sign Cousins and Brown as a baseline)...

 

I think our needs (roughly in order) are:

Receiver

TE (that can at minimum block)

LG

DL (we saw the wheels start to fall off when Allen went out)

NT

ILB 

FS (high hopes for Nicholson, but those injuries...)

Swing tackle

RB

 

It’s not at all because I think we’re set at runningback, just that I have more faith in Perine than the guys we’d have penciled in at those other spots.  Of course, a part of that is because I believe the biggest problems with the run game stem from 1) lack of a blocking TE, 2) lack of drive and sustain from Long and Lauvao (and even Moses to a degree).  

 

I’m not seeing Perine consistently missing gaping holes, lacking the burst to hit any holes that do (occasionally/rarely?) open, or the drive to push for those extra couple of yards.  I haven’t really noticed him displaying Kelley’s issues with 1) getting chased down and 2) running right at 2nd level defenders rather than pressing angles.  Now, a part of that is because we haven’t really seen him get to the 2nd level... but I think much of that comes with the injured oline and a lack of a field stretching threat in the pass game.  

 

 

So again, I have no problem picking up a back in FA or the draft.  I would just have other positions as higher priorities.  

[Skinsinparadise]

16 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I’ll try to explain why I left runningback off that post.

 

Discounting Free Agency for a moment (though assuming we re-sign Cousins and Brown as a baseline)...

 

I think our needs (roughly in order) are:

Receiver

TE (that can at minimum block)

LG

DL (we saw the wheels start to fall off when Allen went out)

NT

ILB 

FS (high hopes for Nicholson, but those injuries...)

Swing tackle

RB

 

I agree with most of this except for I think if you land a true NT, you might be fine at DT.  But in theory I always like adding to the D line.  ILB might be ok with Mason Foster returning.  But if R. Jones is the BPA at our pick, I'd grab him in a heartbeat.

 

I'd go myself this way:

 

1. WR

2. TE -- who can block

3. NT.  Enough is enough with struggling to stop the run.  

4. RB

5. LG -- if they bring back Long and move Chase to center, I think they'd be ok but I'd love a really good LG

6. DL

7. FS.  Hoping Nicholson is fine.  Tough to land every need

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I don't think we can afford to go WR in the draft.  It's going to have to come from free agency and the list is rather limited.  We are seeing the growing pains of drafted WR's with Doctson right now.  He shows flashes but he's got a ways to go with the route tree.  I'm not sure we can afford to have a guy that needs to develop on the other side of him.  Allen Robinson sounds great to me, but even with the injury, I expect him to fetch some good $ and may even want to stick around in Jacksonville all things considered. 

[skinny21]

14 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I agree with most of this except for I think if you land a true NT, you might be fine at DT.  But in theory I always like adding to the D line.  ILB might be ok with Mason Foster returning.  But if R. Jones is the BPA at our pick, I'd grab him in a heartbeat.

 

I'd go myself this way:

 

1. WR

2. TE -- who can block

3. NT.  Enough is enough with struggling to stop the run.  

4. RB

5. LG -- if they bring back Long and move Chase to center, I think they'd be ok but I'd love a really good LG

6. DL

7. FS.  Hoping Nicholson is fine.  Tough to land every need

I should reiterate that my list of needs didn’t include anyone but Brown and Cousins returning, so if Foster returns (along with Spaight and Vigil as depth), I’d bump down ILB.  If Long returns, I’d maybe drop LG a bit (though I’m with you in wanting a good one there).  I think I’d still have LG ahead of runningback though - I like what I’ve seen from (and the potential of) Perine more than what I’ve seen from Long.  

 

Really, I expect to be in the minority here.  I look around at other teams that are able to still have very productive run games even when their star backs don’t play (Arizona, Minnesota, etc.) and then I look at our run game issues with different backs - Morris, Kelley, Jones, Perine, and I (admittedly) leap to the conclusion that addressing our blocking is priority one, runningback priority two.  I would back this up how often opposing linemen seem to disrupt running plays in the backfield.

 

Anyway, I don’t expect others to agree with me that Perine is capable enough, but that’s where I’m at.  

[UKskins]

8 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I should reiterate that my list of needs didn’t include anyone but Brown and Cousins returning, so if Foster returns (along with Spaight and Vigil as depth), I’d bump down ILB.  If Long returns, I’d maybe drop LG a bit (though I’m with you in wanting a good one there).  I think I’d still have LG ahead of runningback though - I like what I’ve seen from (and the potential of) Perine more than what I’ve seen from Long.  

 

Really, I expect to be in the minority here.  I look around at other teams that are able to still have very productive run games even when their star backs don’t play (Arizona, Minnesota, etc.) and then I look at our run game issues with different backs - Morris, Kelley, Jones, Perine, and I (admittedly) leap to the conclusion that addressing our blocking is priority one, runningback priority two.  I would back this up how often opposing linemen seem to disrupt running plays in the backfield.

 

Anyway, I don’t expect others to agree with me that Perine is capable enough, but that’s where I’m at.  

Actually, I do agree with a lot of that. Perine has shown flashes of being a good RB, or if you're not willing to give him good, he's at least shown he can be an OK, competent back. I agree he has had no help from the O-Line - my only major knock on him at this point is his absolute determination to give us a heart attack at least once a week with fumbles. He has some crazy luck with just being down, or a penalty flag being thrown for something somewhere else on the field. I would love a dominant RB but I agree, we have other positions that are higher priority right now... Riggo would be struggling for yard running behind our line this season.

[Garcon More Wine]

trash is hyperbole on my part, but we dont have any above average skill players right now.  reed and thompson are the only special guys we had, both lost to injury.  every WR we have is average at best, to very below average, and every starting RB we have is poor.

 

outside of cousins and our oline, our offensive skill players are a non factor.  put it this way, if you were a defensive coordinator, what player would you truly be concerned about gashing you?  whos the guy on this offense teams have to plan for?  again it was thompson, but if your 3rd down running back is your top guy, thats a huge problem.  reed has been that guy, but he was a non factor all year due to injury.

[Voice_of_Reason]

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Bring back Kirk.  Get the O line healthy.  Just add one good receiver. One good running back.  Some act like that's asking for the moon.  How luxurious it is to give him a running back an average running game -- not a great one -- but average.  And wow a receiver that you can rely on to catch the ball, no one special, but just one good one.    But yeah that's not about pampering Kirk with weapons like Big Ben has.    It's giving him something to work with.

I agree with everything you said except the bold part.  I think we need 2 starting WRs.  I also think we need new TEs because Reed is always hurt, and neither Reed nor VD can block a 4 year old if they got up a head of steam. 

 

However, I REALLY believe that isn't too hard to find in one off-season by a competent GM. Big question: do we have one of those?  Answer: probably not.  Different thread.  

 

If it was me, in a vacuum, I'd use a first round pick on a RB.  (I know, I know, best available. Don't draft for need. YOU DARE NOT DRAFT A DL OR OL!! WE ALWAYS IGNORE THE TRENCHES! YOU HAVE LOST YOUR MIND!!!!  HOW DARE YOU!!! I get it.)  But if it was even close, I'd use the first pick on a game changing RB.  Because the examples are EVERYWHERE of backs that can be force multipliers across the board.  If you need examples, look what the Jags, Rams and Cowboys are able to do with really good backs.  

I would sign 2 starting WRs in FA. I don't know who yet, and that's for a different thread. But they would complement the newfound run game, and be able to stretch the field, and you know, CATCH THE DAMN BALL. They both don't have to be #1 types, but I would spend real money on one, and some money on the other. Grant/Docston/Crowder cannot be your projected starters coming out of the draft/FA.  If they are, then you've relegated yourself to 8-8 at best.  If Doctson develops into a great WR, added bonus.  But I don't think you can go into next year assuming that's going to happen based on what we've seen this year.  

 

Because I like Cooley and trust him, especially on scouting TEs, I'd draft that TE he keeps raving about from some mid-west school.  Wisconsin maybe?  I think he's targeted as a 2nd or 3rd round pick. If at all possible I'd trade Reed for a conditional 14th round pick. 

 

You have to sign a couple defensive guys in FA because you would be offense-heavy in the draft., I get that.  But with those moves, assuming Kirk is back, you could once again have a top 5 offense, and the defense IS better, assuming you can sign somebody to play ILB.  

 

Another point: I would be WAY more aggressive in FA and the draft if Kirk is on a tag.  If he's on a tag, I say that you load up best you can to make a run at the SB.  Because if he's on the tag, he's probably leaving in 2019 anyway.  The only chance he stays is if the team has massive success.  So both to bolster the chances of keeping him, and  maximizing what might be his last year year, I would gas up Redskins One and go after it.  

 

Signing Kirk to a tag and then "just doing enough" in FA/Draft is essentially a waste of a season.  If you go 8-8, 9-7 and then Krik leaves, you've just wasted a lot of time for nothing.  

If he signs a LTD, I wouldn't be near as aggressive, you an afford to take a longer view.  Just my $.02.