Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

[MartinC]

Here is one for the "Alex Smith cant throw deep crowd" ...

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000921980/article/alex-smith-matthew-stafford-head-top-deepball-throwers-of-17

[50yrSKINSfan]

Just now, 50yrSKINSfan said:

I agree. I have nothing against Smith as I feel he is a capable QB, but personally I would have waited until FA. I mean they way the Redskins went about this is like Smith is the only option when all you needed was a fill in for a year or two while you build. Hate to loose young good cheap players. Maybe they thought getting Smith will appease the fan base after loosing KC. I do not see us winning the Super Bowl with Smith or KC. Thinking about this I feel Smith will not be here long unless he sets the league on fire and we can get back Fuller in a year.

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

20 minutes ago, MartinC said:

Here is one for the "Alex Smith cant throw deep crowd" ...

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000921980/article/alex-smith-matthew-stafford-head-top-deepball-throwers-of-17

I’m not so sure the argument is that he can’t, as it is that he never really has in his career except last season, when they had a prolific deep threat.

[SkinsFTW]

12 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I’m not so sure the argument is that he can’t, as it is that he never really has in his career except last season, when they had a prolific deep threat.

 

And after they had drafted his replacement.

 

Just like in SF.

 

 

[Vilandil Tasardur]

16 hours ago, WelshSkinsFan said:

 

Wouldn't see Alex as a downgrade from Kirk, close to a wash in my eyes although Alex seems to be a stronger leader.  That said it is a false comparison because it assumes the option was Alex or Kirk when in truth Kirk was gone already, the refusal to entertain offers until after FA opened was as clear as he could be about wanting out.

 

So no we didn't downgrade at QB because Alex is 10 times the QB Colt McCoy is and that is who we would have been left with.  Tyrod cost the first pick in the 3rd round and is not close to the player Alex is, AJ McCarron and the other free agents would have been placeholders at best and also would have cost us comp picks next year.  We upgraded at QB for the cost of a DB and a pick, well worth the price as without a viable QB we would be headed for 2 or 3 wins and no I have no interest in tanking for picks, I want us to focus on winning now every season, tanking is for losers.

I definitely get that logic, but I'm not really sure I agree that Kirk was guaranteed out the door. Do you, for example, think that Kirk would have turned down the exact Vikings contract if we had offered it on the first day of the new year? Maybe so, maybe not. But I haven't seen any indication that we even made offers. 

 

My personal opinion is that Alex is good quarterback when he lacks help, and an excellent quarterback when he has it. 

My personal opinion is that Kirk is substantially greater than good, but not quite excellent, when he lacks help, and has NEVER had any help so we have no idea what that ceiling is. By that logic, we have downgraded at the position, and yes, it's my opinion. But that's why I don't like the trade. 

 

And with that in mind, I can't get on board with this idea that the FO should be applauded for the way they salvaged their own botching of the situation. When a dog craps all over your kitchen and rolls in it, you don't tell him what a good boy he is for also going to the bathroom and bringing the roll of toilet paper.

[WelshSkinsFan]

Definitely agree that there is nothing to applaud here, getting the best fix you can after you screwed up is not praiseworthy.  I am interested to know too if Kirk would have taken the deal but I don't know that he would have or we could have anticipated it at this point.  The Peter King interview with Kirk's agent today makes clear that they were committed to getting to the FA period and holding a silent auction with all interested teams and we could not have risked waiting that long.  I fear that even the 3 years guaranteed would have been a year too late had we offered it this time around.  In 2017 with the tag as the baseline we probably could have offered 3 years $75 million fully guaranteed and I think he would have said yes but that ship had sailed by the time Bruce released his ludicrous statement.

[UKskins]

58 minutes ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

When a dog craps all over your kitchen and rolls in it, you don't tell him what a good boy he is for also going to the bathroom and bringing the roll of toilet paper.

But when Kirk throws game-killing/season ending INTs in spectacular fashion after sucking monumentally in the Redzone all year, we presumably should tell him what a good boy he is for putting up 4000+ yards and padding his stats without helping the team win because he's useless in scoring/pressure situations?

[Rufus T Firefly]

Basically, a two year $54 mil extension. 

 

 

[skinny21]

I don’t really buy the sacks argument - last year, with really poor weapons, an oline that was shockingly injured, and a really poor run game... it’s no surprise to me that Cousins got sacked a bunch.  

 

Regarding Smith, he’s been consistently pretty good about not taking sacks, but how much of that was him scrambling, getting tackled past the LOS and not converting because of it?  How much of it was because he threw the ball away or because he was able to dump it off to backs like Frank Gore and Jamaal Charles?  

It’s doesn’t seem to be a stat we can really break down, and that reduces the weight of it IMO.  

 

2nd thing - looking at various career metrics - AYC, INT %, yards/game, completion %, TD %, etc. - some things stand out to me.  Most of the guys in the top of those categories include just who you’d expect - Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Manning, Favre, Elway, etc.  In most of those categories, Cousins stacks up quite well, whiffle Smith is further (sometimes much further) down the list.  Two notable exceptions are TD % (mostly populated by old school qbs), and INT % - which has some of the big names (not as many as most every other category), but has Kaepernick #2 all time and Smith ahead of Cousins (of course).  

This tends to be one of the staples for arguing Smith is better than Cousins - along with sack % (addressed above), and record (heavily team dependent of course) - and I’m not sure it deserves the weight of the other metrics.  I will say that one thing about Smith’s record is that he’s had a lot more postseason experience and success than Cousins, which (hopefully) helps us out.  

 

Anyway, with that all said, I’m looking forward to seeing what Smith can do, how Jay works with him, and how much help the FO can provide him.  I think Smith is a great guy and a good qb.  

 

 

Edit: the metrics are based off memory (I looked them up, but it’s been a while), so there’s a chance I mixed something up.  The overall point, metric-wise, I have full confidence in though.  

[Rufus T Firefly]

29 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

whiffle Smith is further (sometimes much further) down the list.

Pretty sure that was an autocorrect, but I'm fine with Whiffle Smith as a nickname (one that I don't apply any connotations to, negative or positive).

[SkinsFTW]

3 hours ago, skinny21 said:

 

Edit: the metrics are based off memory (I looked them up, but it’s been a while), so there’s a chance I mixed something up.  The overall point, metric-wise, I have full confidence in though.  

 

Smith's sack% is almost double Cousins for his career with only last season with our injured OL making it closer than that.

 

4.8 Cousins, 8.3 Smiths last 7 years. So figure that in a game that Cousins got sacked 3 times Smith would be sacked 6 times and in a new system I'd estimate that even with our OL healthy he'd take more sacks than Cousins did as a % last season. 

 

Predicting in at least a couple OL injuries and I believe Smith will be over that 8% sacked again next season almost guaranteed since only the last 2 seasons he was under 8% while only last season Cousins was over 4% sacked.

 

But yeah hes not going to fumble it alot when he does get sacked. Cousins averages 2x the fumbles.

 

 

[Spearfeather]

Smith is going to get sacked more, but he's going to give up less yards doing it, fumble less, and rush for more.

[skinny21]

36 minutes ago, Spearfeather said:

Smith is going to get sacked more, but he's going to give up less yards doing it, fumble less, and rush for more.

See, this is another case of the stats getting a bit tricky.  How many yards did Smith leave on the field because he bailed early and picked up 3 yards?  How many more fumbles would he lose if he stood in the pocket rather than tucking the ball to run (and getting dropped behind the line)?

 

I’m not saying this because I believe you’re wrong, just that there’s so much data missing for contextual comparison.  

 

Generally speaking, I believe Kirk is the better qb in large part because he does rank so highly in the metrics that include many of the greatest ever at the top.  I also think Kirk hasn’t reached his ceiling.  

 

As I said earlier though, Smith is no slouch and I think he can thrive in Jay’s system.  

 

 

Anyway, back to the Hankins thread.

 

[Murphs56]

15 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I’m not so sure the argument is that he can’t, as it is that he never really has in his career except last season, when they had a prolific deep threat.

 

Yeah but props to him for really making it work and taking those shots as opposed to a team like Tampa which couldn't take advantage of DJax. 

[KDawg]

Why do people keep saying Kirk had less weapons/help than Smith over the last three years? It’s driving me nuts. In 2017 that’s true. It’s not in 15 or 16. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Why do people keep saying Kirk had less weapons/help than Smith over the last three years? It’s driving me nuts. In 2017 that’s true. It’s not in 15 or 16. 

I’d imagine its the Redskins entire lack of running game for all of Kirk’s seasons as starter.  To me, that’s a weapon and a QBs best friend.  Plus it all depends on what perspective you’re looking at it from.  Some folks want to make Alex Smith to be only who he was in 2017 and likewise with Kirk.

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Why do people keep saying Kirk had less weapons/help than Smith over the last three years? It’s driving me nuts. In 2017 that’s true. It’s not in 15 or 16. 

 

It's not about facts at this point. Cambridge analytics all up in this ****. 

[Murphs56]

2 hours ago, KDawg said:

Why do people keep saying Kirk had less weapons/help than Smith over the last three years? It’s driving me nuts. In 2017 that’s true. It’s not in 15 or 16. 

 

Yeah I've seen that narrative out there. It's been a big Kirk Cousins contract justification and talking point. The fact that his 2017, he was throwing to a lot of nobodies and that has kind of trickled down to previous years

[Wyvern]

I'm a little surprised to see this from Kdawg,

 

is it really your position is that the Redskins running game of 2015 and 2016 was just a powerful a threat as the Chiefs running game for that same time period?  In 2015, the Chiefs had the #6 running game, the Skins the #20.

 

Granted, in 2016, there was a sag in the Chiefs running game, and it was closer to the Skins RB performances -- but let's be real -- the Chiefs running game did routinely set up their passing game.  Whereas, it was on the Skins passing game to demand enough respect, that it could open things up for a tepid, unreliable Skins running game.

[TSO]

I think “weapons surrounding” gets mixed up with “supporting cast”. The former implies skill positions around him on offense. The latter includes defense and ST. At least that’s how I take it. 

 

If we’re talking about the latter, I find it difficult for anyone to claim Kirk has had a better supporting cast throughout his career than Alex, who has consistently had top defense’s (and I believe ST units as well, but that’s going off of faint memory) around him. Not to mention rushing attacks. 

 

Interestingly enough, Alex had way better “weapons surrounding” him on offense last season than Kirk, but his “supporting cast” suffered with the defense, though the rushing attack was deadly, especially early on. He did very well, either way. 

 

Kirk had the worst out of the two in terms of weapons last season, you can call it a wash in terms of supporting cast. 

 

In the prior two years, I’d say Kirk had the better “weapons surrounding him”, but the worst “supporting cast” of the two. 

 

It’s definitely interesting to look at it all.

 

I’m not sure why defense isn’t thought of as much when analyzing QBs. It’s consistently missing from the discussion. It’s important because there are a bunch of factors that change with it, like pressure on the QB and the passing game, playing from behind versus ahead, how that affects playcalling, the amount of possessions you get, how often you get them (getting cold on the bench or staying in the game?), etc... 

 

Either way, I really hope Alex gets a better “supporting cast” than Kirk did as a Skin. 

 

Did I use enough quotations? Anyone want more?  

[skinny21]

19 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Pretty sure that was an autocorrect, but I'm fine with Whiffle Smith as a nickname (one that I don't apply any connotations to, negative or positive).

That is just awesome... no way in hell I’m fixing that, lol. 

[Taylor 36]

4 hours ago, KDawg said:

Why do people keep saying Kirk had less weapons/help than Smith over the last three years? It’s driving me nuts. In 2017 that’s true. It’s not in 15 or 16. 

As I pointed out a few pages back when you tried to make this argument, some of those awesome-sauce receiving weapons were often injured, so on paper the roster read that Cousins had them, but he didn't.  Reed has missed over half of the Redskins' games the past three seasons combined.  Jackson was often injured, and even when he did play, he had games where he wasn't burning anyone due to injuries.  Pierre was the only consistent, reliable skilled weapon that Cousins had to work with as a starter here, and Bruce didn't even call him to see if they could get him to stay last year. 

 

Sure, every team has to deal with injuries, but acting like he had a full cast of healthy characters around him on every snap is being disingenuous.  If Reed could have stayed healthy, I would give you the argument, because with Reed on the field healthy, this team has a great shot at winning.  But, that just wasn't the case.  Davis has been good, even great at times in Reed's absence, but he doesn't draw DC's attention like Reed, nor has he been a consistent baller.  He's definitely had some off games.  Crowder has had shown some flashes, just as Doctson has had some moments, but they've also had some horrible drops/plays as well.  The consistency has not been there.  So, I'm not sure why you keep saying that Kirk had just as good if not better weapons than Alex the past three years.

[KDawg]

@Wyvern surprised to see what from me? Objective truth?

 

No. I don’t believe the Skins running game was better. I do believe the Skins OL and receiving weapons were better in 15 and 16. And I won’t blink saying that. Gruden’s system has been typically designed like the Reid offense in the sense that the pass sets up the run. Difference is Gruden schemes more downfield attacks. Gruden’s system is literally set up to amass a 4000 yard passer every season. 

 

@thesubmittedone that’s an exact point I brought up in another thread and almost word for word I said, “if you’re talking offensive weapons, Kirk has has had a much better group aside from 2017. If you’re including D and ST, I’d agree, Smith has had a better team around him. 

 

@Taylor 36 because he did. 

 

In 2015 Reed had 87 receptions, 952 yards and 11TD in 14 games.

 

Jackson played in 10, over 500 yards and 4 TD.

 

Garcon played in 16, 72 rec, 777 yards, 6 TD

 

Crowder played in 16, 59 rec 604 yards 2 TD.

 

Thats a bit better than you’re giving credit for, no?

 

2016:

 

Jackson and Garçon had over 1000 each.

 

Davis and Reed combined for 1100 yards.

 

Crowder had 847 and Thompson nearly had 400.

 

Reed started 8 and played in 12. Jackson missed one game. Am I missing something?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

18 minutes ago, KDawg said:

@Wyvern surprised to see what from me? Objective truth?

I think you tend to paint it that way but that's not really what it is.  It comes off like Redskins fan first, objective second. 

 

I get the parallel that both Griffin and Kirks dad are looked to for something to say, but that's where it ends. I don't get how they are smug or agenda driven.  I mean is how Bruce and the team have handled this whole ordeal going back to last summer not the definition of smug and agenda driven?  Do we need to rehash all that?  The press release, "Skins need to see more", tag and trade, sending DHall out on a media blitz to control the story, Doug doubling down on it all every time a mic is in his face.

 

Like I said before, Kirk's side got exactly what they wanted.  It doesn't even make sense for them to be carrying out an agenda.  It makes total sense for Bruce and the gang to do so.

 

I can understand not liking his dad saying that as it obviously makes the FO look bad.  But if somebody calls me fat - I don't like it, but it doesn't make it untrue.

[KDawg]

11 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I think you tend to paint it that way but that's not really what it is.  It comes off like Redskins fan first, objective second. 

 

I get the parallel that both Griffin and Kirks dad are looked to for something to say, but that's where it ends. I don't get how they are smug or agenda driven.  

Unless I totally missed it, that reply wasn’t in regards to that post. Sooooo not sure why you brought it up.

 

its not objective fact that he’s smug. That’s subjective opinion. 

 

Cousins having better weapons at receiver in 15 and 16 is objective fact. Smith having a better team in those years is also objective fact.