Alex Smith Trade Thread (Details Inside)

[Skinsinparadise]

Dan and Bruce have bad-losing records during their tenures.  Parcells liked to say you are your record.  And their record isn't good.  Average = the glory years under Dan.  If I recall the Redskins are the only team in the NFL not to win 11 games in decades and one of the handful of teams in decades not to make the championship game.

 

This new golden age (As to Dan's era) of average play from Redskins IMO is largely due to Jay.  He's been the X factor along with having a franchise QB for a change.  

[TSO]

3 hours ago, wit33 said:

Its incredibly difficult and almost a certainty there will be up and down years. The Skins are average and will most likely remain this way unless Gruden continues to make progress (not innovative enough for me, but I like his ability to lead a lockeroom and scheme) or an elite QB. 

 

 

Not to sound harsh, but this is the naive fan view that we're trying to combat. You also said in another post you need an "elite coach or elite QB".

 

Those don't happen in vacuums. They don't wake up and just are "elite". Yes, there needs to be a baseline of skills/talent for it to occur, but then it's about environment. Otherwise, it doesn't happen. That is the fallacy most fans fall into believing as they overvalue what can be done by those positions without the proper FO structure above them placing them in an environment they can thrive in. A quality hiring process at the highest levels (ownership/top exec) is key. Resource management by that leadership is key (in the NFL, "resources" mainly revolves around personnel acquisition). Understanding and implementing team-building philosophies that recognizes the inter-dependency of various positions and roles within the organization is key. 

 

Without the above properly executed with any consistency, no coach or QB or player will truly thrive and overcome the limitations thus created. They will always have a ceiling provided for them by the top brass regardless of their own limitations (which everyone has). In many ways, this has a lot to do with social psychology and some of the soundest theories that exist in that field. 

      

This is an extremely nuanced topic that requires more than a couple paragraphs to get into. I've linked above to some research I've done on this in the past. I don't blame anyone for not understanding this or putting the various roles we're discussing in their proper places... it's just not something fans should even be privy to. Honestly, a big part of me wishes I can go back to not even knowing this stuff because it was much easier to be a fan before I did. 

[purbeast]

18 hours ago, Bonez3 said:

So, nothing is official with the Smith deal... nothing, right??

 

The Skins could simply rescind. I would, I never understood how this leaked, its completely unofficial.

 

I would tag Kurt. Tell the league our intention all along was to keep him, circumventing the CBA rule around misuse of the tag. Next, i would trade Kurt for a 1st or a 2nd. Lastly, renegotiate with KC and keep Fuller.

 

problem solved

Who the **** is Kurt?

[Thinking Skins]

4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Dan and Bruce have bad-losing records during their tenures.  Parcells liked to say you are your record.  And their record isn't good.  Average = the glory years under Dan.  If I recall the Redskins are the only team in the NFL not to win 11 games in decades and one of the handful of teams in decades not to make the championship game.

 

This new golden age (As to Dan's era) of average play from Redskins IMO is largely due to Jay.  He's been the X factor along with having a franchise QB for a change.  

 

How true is this though? What does t matter about the last decade or last 27 years? Does that have any bearing on 2018? And this goes back to my arguments in support of Bruce (which I readily admit look less significant and possibly have hints of false to them but may still be true in some fashion. The baseline is that the Skins sucked in the Casserly era post Gibbs, the pre-Allen era and the Allen era, but each for different reasons.

 

Maybe you don't see it as too different reasons, but Casserly was a guy who made his way though scouting departments and was a hero of mine as what I wanted to do for my career but ultimately he bombed as our GM. Ceratto was another guy who (supposedly) made his name as a scout, but was unsuccessful.

 

Why were these guys unsuccessful? Well, with Casserly a big problem was the inability to hit on first rounders. This was supplemented by his successes late in the draft, but another part of that was his inability to find defensive linemen and Norv's inability to find a defensive coordinator. 

 

Contrast that with Vinny and we get some of the same things, but instead of hitting late and bombing on first it was the opposites - success in the first, but little elsewhere in the draft/UDAF department. Add to that the fact that he and Snyder seemed to get excited about free agents and the legendary Redskins One stories and its a different philosophy from that of Casserly. 

 

Fast forward to Allen. And we can group it all as one period but I really think Allen's regime could be divided into two areas with Shanahan and without Shanahan. With Shanahan, it seemed that he (the team) placed little value on the draft, weren't really trying to get FAs (probably because we were still cap-strapped by Vinny's contracts). That said, we brought in lower priced FAs to complete the roster. 

 

Post 2014, we have had success in the draft like I haven't seen for this team in a while. Not just that, but we're seeing both an increase in the number of picks and where we're seeing the returns. 

 

Consider this table where the slope column represents the slope of the linear regression line through the Carrer AV of the picks that year.  The Slopes of these lines begin to show the shift in our draft strategies. Maybe its a coincidence, but the lines (with the exception of 2010) are a lot more flat than the previous 10 years. Those 10 years (2000 - 2009) generally have a lot more value in the top picks and trail off. The rare times where its a smaller slope, it signifies a really poor draft (Rod Gardner, Patrick Ramsey, and Devin Thomas). What we almost never saw out of those drafts was a lower pick becoming someone with a significant AV. The best we saw was Golston with a 26 under Gibbs. Going back to Casserly and we see the variety in the drafts. One draft is really skewed in the negative because we drafted Champ Bailey. One draft is skewed in the positive because our last pick was Gus Ferotte. Otherwise we were just able to find good players. 

 

2011	-2.93	11.08	52	22	12	13	5	6	4	10	1	6	0	2
2010	-11.17	15.50	61	30	0	1	1	0
2009	-8.03	9.83	54	3	2	0	0	0
2008	-0.18	8.33	4	14	3	22	7	0	8	9	8
2007	-7.40	9.20	37	0	9	0	0
2006	-6.60	16.50	39	14	20	26	0	0
2005	-11.03	16.00	49	47	0	0	0	0
2004	-12.40	16.50	31	34	0	1
2003	-1.00	15.33	2	44	0
2002	-1.58	7.30	14	32	3	0	4	8	0	2	0	10
2001	-8.00	17.00	25	39	13	7	1
2000	-7.45	14.25	46	63	1	1	0	0	3	0
1999	-20.49	27.83	111	55	0	0	1	0
1998	-3.14	13.14	21	9	39	7	0	16	0
1997	-4.89	24.63	54	16	61	24	2	4	6	30
1996	-5.00	12.50	0	56	13	6	0	0
1995	-3.62	16.75	38	36	9	0	12	29	0	10
1994	2.86	19.71	6	40	4	25	0	7	56
1993	-0.12	14.44	35	13	3	0	17	1	12	43	6

 

 

But getting back to my point, I'd argue that we shouldn't still be punishing Allen for Casserly's mistakes. And I see a clear difference from Allen's style and Vinny's, so I'm not going to say that he'll face the same problems as Vinny. Ultimately I think that the 2018 year is a new event and we see every year with a new team going from worse to first, its not always about this structure or what's been being done the last 35 years. A lot of the time its about who's hot and who's not injured and who has the luck of things going their way. 

 

Add to that the fact that we're bringing back a head coach who has a system in place and a core of players and a winning record over the last 3 years and its not like we're at the bottom of the barrel. Everybody's got something to harp on, and ours is not going to a conference championship game, but that doesnm

 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

14 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Contrast that with Vinny and we get some of the same things, but instead of hitting late and bombing on first it was the opposites - success in the first, but little elsewhere in the draft/UDAF department. Add to that the fact that he and Snyder seemed to get excited about free agents and the legendary Redskins One stories and its a different philosophy from that of Casserly. 

 

Fast forward to Allen. And we can group it all as one period but I really think Allen's regime could be divided into two areas with Shanahan and without Shanahan. With Shanahan, it seemed that he (the team) placed little value on the draft, weren't really trying to get FAs (probably because we were still cap-strapped by Vinny's contracts). That said, we brought in lower priced FAs to complete the roster. 

 

Post 2014, we have had success in the draft like I haven't seen for this team in a while. Not just that, but we're seeing both an increase in the number of picks and where we're seeing the returns. 

 

 

I've debated The pro-Bruce-FO people for months.  You are the most interesting poster among them to me because IMO you put in serious work and detail into the discussion.  

 

While I disagree with your general take of the FO, I do understand the want to believe they know what they are doing.   And one of your core philosophies is identical to mine -- go young, hold your draft picks.  So we aren't that different as to what it takes to build a good team for the long run. 

 

And even though I seem tough on Bruce.  If you trace my posting history, I gave him some slack on the Scot situation and the Kirk contract until July 17th, 2017.  He had to really work his way into my dog house.  

 

Now to Bruce today.   I am going to be harsh and none of it is directed at you.  I used to tell you that I don't want him canned.  That's changed for me.  The FO is now considered a laughing stock by the national media -- very much like the Vinny years.  I again have to sheepishly explain to people sometimes why I am a Redskins fan.  Old school just like the Vinny years. 

 

The one thing I liked about Bruce when he arrived was the team gave the vibe of being professional.  Well, it doesn't IMO anymore.  The Redskins are lampooned all over the place.  Just google it.  And Bruce is the lead jester.  If you told me after they canned Cerrato that Bruce would turn into a similar lightening rod and would also end up a punch line -- I'd say no way.  But we are there.  It's all over the place. 

 

I turn on the radio last night and the broadcaster is talking about being friends with a prominent-ex GM who is telling him --I don't know how that dude, Bruce, still has a job. We got an ex-player calling into that same station saying how Bruce is vindictive and petty.   We got Evan Silva saying people around the league tell him, yeah Bruce is a dumb guy.  We got LaConfora piling on.  PFF Talk.  On and on.  And they aren't just criticizing Bruce but they talk about him being either a dummy, a stooge of Dan, incompetent or just a mean spirited dude.

 

Does that mean its all true?  Who knows.  But Bruce has found his way to become a punchline.  And to me I can't really let that go.  That was one of the biggest things I wanted to change when Vinny left.  And it did change initially.  But we are back to square one.

 

Now the counter argument is well even if Bruce is mocked and the Redskins are goofed on -- these guys are simply missing the boat.  It's like critics panning your favorite restaurant but you don't care because you like their food anyway.  And I get some people are in that category.  That's cool.  But that's not me.  I don't like the cook in the restaurant and I don't care for the food either.  I love the Redskins but the FO to me right now is at a low not that far off from the Vinny years.

 

As I've told you before do I think Bruce is a dummy and the FO is full of incompetents?  No, I don't feel that extreme about it.  But I think its a mediocre bunch which have been hampered even worse by a bad culture set at the top.  And I am getting a strong feeling from a gazillion sources that Bruce is a key player in the bad culture. 

 

And I do think if enough people complain about it -- it might change.  By that I don't mean on this message board.   So I have a glimmer of optimism.  Because on twitter on other forums I've noticed some people are mobilized on this stuff.  Heck I saw a Fire Bruce Allen petition that already had 6000 electronic signatures locked in. 

 

As for your specific point -- this is the first Scot free draft.  And while I love the draft it isn't every piece of the pie when it comes to running a team.

 

 

 

 

 

[wit33]

@thesubmittedone

 

The reality is 24-28 franchises will have new head coaches or GMs in 5 years. Would you agree with this? The NFL is designed to allow for parody (it does) to take place from year to year. The truly elite are able to circumvent this more than others, but even for them it’s incredibly difficult, especially when excluding the Patroits (or even Steelers to lesser degree) from any argument. 

 

I was crushed when losing Scott and have voiced this consistently, loved how the culture appeared to be shifting within the organization, so I’m not underestimating the value in having a well run organization, but it’s one pillar (kind of like your previous post points out) and these pillars have different value within each organization depending on many different variables. 

 

The elite QB can turn around a franchise and provide stability— Bad drafts, assistant coach hires, disappointing free agent signings etc.. 

 

In my view, the innovative coach with an ability to maximize the talents of his QB is becoming increasingly more valuable as the NFL continues to go in the direction of scoring, scoring and more scoring. 

 

Cherry picking an example (due to never wanting to spend time doing research), but the Rams all of sudden didn’t become a well run organization in one season. A young talented coach turned around the organization. 

 

The gap between “good and bad” FOs has decreased as most teams put resources into scouting, draft and are fiscally more responsible/knowledgeable. In no way am I suggesting gaps don’t still exist and advantages can still be had, but just not to the same degree as 10-20 years ago. 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

I was just listening to Cooley's film breakdown of Alex Smith.   Highlights:

 

Alex Positives

Throws a good deep ball

Does a good job throwing catchable balls which lead the receiver well

Is slippery and can scramble well

He doesn't make mistakes often

 

Alex Negatives

Doesn't go far into his progressions, if the 2nd read isn't open, he tends to take off and leave the pocket

He's not a great intermediate thrower (medium passes)

Gets sacked more than he should in that system

 

Alex Versus Kirk

Kirk is the better QB but not by a mile.  Kirk is a B + QB.  Alex is a B level QB.

Kirk has the higher ceiling. He will have A plus games.  Alex will have good, A level games, but his best games typically aren't as good as Kirk's best

Alex has the higher floor. Kirk can have some D level games.  Alex's worst games aren't as bad as Kirk.  His worst are C level games.

Kirk statistically speaking is better in the red zone

Alex is more mobile and if Jay is creative he can use that to aide the running game

 

 

 

[mistertim]

29 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I was just listening to Cooley's film breakdown of Alex Smith.   Highlights:

 

Alex Positives

Throws a good deep ball

Does a good job throwing catchable balls which lead the receiver well

Is slippery and can scramble well

He doesn't make mistakes often

 

Alex Negatives

Doesn't go far into his progressions, if the 2nd read isn't open, he tends to take off and leave the pocket

He's not a great intermediate thrower (medium passes)

Gets sacked more than he should in that system

 

Alex Versus Kirk

Kirk is the better QB but not by a mile.  Kirk is a B + QB.  Alex is a B level QB.

Kirk has the higher ceiling. He will have A plus games.  Alex will have good, A level games, but his best games typically aren't as good as Kirk's best

Alex has the higher floor. Kirk can have some D level games.  Alex's worst games aren't as bad as Kirk.  His worst are C level games.

Kirk statistically speaking is better in the red zone

Alex is more mobile and if Jay is creative he can use that to aide the running game

 

 

 

 

Thanks, good breakdown. I generally think Cooley is pretty spot on in his analysis there. However, I question the assertion that Kirk is statistically better in the red zone. If anything it may be a wash. This past season Kirk had a 52.4% completion rate from inside the 20 and a 36.0 % completion rate from inside the 10. Smith was at 44.9% and 52.4% respectively. Kirk had 3 more TDs inside the 20 but Smith had 3 more TDs inside the 10 so I think they balance out a bit.. One area where they do differ in the red zone is that Kirk had 4 INTs and Smith had 0, but Smith being a bit more careful with the ball is something that's already been mentioned. 

[Skinsinparadise]

19 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Thanks, good breakdown. I generally think Cooley is pretty spot on in his analysis there. However, I question the assertion that Kirk is statistically better in the red zone. If anything it may be a wash. This past season Kirk had a 52.4% completion rate from inside the 20 and a 36.0 % completion rate from inside the 10. Smith was at 44.9% and 52.4% respectively. Kirk had 3 more TDs inside the 20 but Smith had 3 more TDs inside the 10 so I think they balance out a bit.. One area where they do differ in the red zone is that Kirk had 4 INTs and Smith had 0, but Smith being a bit more careful with the ball is something that's already been mentioned. 

 

I saw a stat somewhere that Alex Smith is ranked 32nd in the league from the 20 yard line/end zone during the last 3 years.  If I recall he was better last year then the previous 2 years though.

[mistertim]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I saw a stat somewhere that Alex Smith is ranked 32nd in the league from the 20 yard line/end zone during the last 3 years.  If I recall he was better last year then the previous 2 years though.

 

Oh I don't think anyone would mistake Smith for a great red zone QB. It just seems like the statistics between him and Kirk aren't all that much different. Though Kirk was excellent in the red zone in 2015 so if we're doing a 3 year average that will certainly skew it towards Kirk.

[Skinsinparadise]

19 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

Oh I don't think anyone would mistake Smith for a great red zone QB. It just seems like the statistics between him and Kirk aren't all that much different. Though Kirk was excellent in the red zone in 2015 so if we're doing a 3 year average that will certainly skew it towards Kirk.

 

I like Alex Smith so I don't like beating him up. On red zone, Kirk was good in 2015.  Average at it in 2017.  He had a bad year at it in 2016 -- and some pounded him so hard and relentlessly about 2016, you'd think it was a 20 year sample.  So I get the reluctance to agree with Cooley-Sheehan on the red zone stuff.  Kansas City was bad 2 years in a row at Red Zone, 29th, 26th.   But people can believe whatever they want -- just saying what Cooley thought.  He didn't really harp on the red zone, they just went over the stats on that one. 

 

Just like Kirk I don't think Alex Smith is stuck in time when it comes to the red zone.  It's usually a fickle stat that changes.  For example he was better at it in 2015.  So I am not worried about it.

 

[OlufemiBiz]

*I thought this, regarding Our NEW 'Signal-Caller (& Other Related Things)', was 'QUITE INTERESTING'! Hail!

 

Check it out!

 

 

[JoeJacobyHOForRIOT]

16 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I was just listening to Cooley's film breakdown of Alex Smith.   Highlights:

 

Alex Positives

Throws a good deep ball

Does a good job throwing catchable balls which lead the receiver well

Is slippery and can scramble well

He doesn't make mistakes often

 

Alex Negatives

Doesn't go far into his progressions, if the 2nd read isn't open, he tends to take off and leave the pocket

He's not a great intermediate thrower (medium passes)

Gets sacked more than he should in that system

 

Alex Versus Kirk

Kirk is the better QB but not by a mile.  Kirk is a B + QB.  Alex is a B level QB.

Kirk has the higher ceiling. He will have A plus games.  Alex will have good, A level games, but his best games typically aren't as good as Kirk's best

Alex has the higher floor. Kirk can have some D level games.  Alex's worst games aren't as bad as Kirk.  His worst are C level games.

Kirk statistically speaking is better in the red zone

Alex is more mobile and if Jay is creative he can use that to aide the running game

 

 

 

I think cooleys assessment is pretty spot on. What bothers me most about losing Cousins is like Cooley said his "ceiling" I feel like Cousins is so close to becoming ELITE. I Also agree with Cooley in regards to Alex Smith's "worst" is nowhere near Cousins lvl of bottom play. When Cousins stinks he really stunk, but that was becoming less & less as seasons went on.

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, JoeJacobyHOForRIOT said:

I think cooleys assessment is pretty spot on. What bothers me most about losing Cousins is like Cooley said his "ceiling" I feel like Cousins is so close to becoming ELITE. I Also agree with Cooley in regards to Alex Smith's "worst" is nowhere near Cousins lvl of bottom play. When Cousins stinks he really stunk, but that was becoming less & less as seasons went on.

 

Yeah Cooley said in a different segment that he thinks if Kirk has the right coach with his next team, he will be elite or close to it.

[wit33]

Tell Cooley to make up his mind lol

[Skinsinparadise]

2 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Tell Cooley to make up his mind lol

 

Not sure what you are getting it -- you think Cooley is a Kirk critic?

[TSO]

19 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

The reality is 24-28 franchises will have new head coaches or GMs in 5 years. Would you agree with this? The NFL is designed to allow for parody (it does) to take place from year to year. The truly elite are able to circumvent this more than others, but even for them it’s incredibly difficult, especially when excluding the Patroits (or even Steelers to lesser degree) from any argument. 

 

I’m not sure I buy your numbers, and it’s entirely too simplistic and narrow of a way to look at it since each case is unique, but what point are you trying to prove? That we should be among teams that don’t know how to find a consistent model for success? I’m not sure I can get any kind of argument that has you exclude models of consistency (of which you omit quite a few there, as well, it’s not just the Pats and Steelers).

 

That one is weird to me. 

 

19 hours ago, wit33 said:

The elite QB can turn around a franchise and provide stability— Bad drafts, assistant coach hires, disappointing free agent signings etc.. 

 

In my view, the innovative coach with an ability to maximize the talents of his QB is becoming increasingly more valuable as the NFL continues to go in the direction of scoring, scoring and more scoring. 

 

Cherry picking an example (due to never wanting to spend time doing research), but the Rams all of sudden didn’t become a well run organization in one season. A young talented coach turned around the organization. 

 

 

I have to say, it is absolutely maddening to me that you find one example, admit to cherry picking and not wanting to spend time to research, while ignoring he case study I did which provides a myriad of examples that contradict you here. 

 

Granted, that’s probably the only solid example you’ll find because I believe Jeff Fisher was just that bad at his job, but it ignores one thing that fans with the simplistic “new coach, quick turnaround” view always miss; and that is the stable FO that they almost always walked into. So, yeah, I fundamentally disagree that they didn’t have a well run organization before that. McVay walked into what most considered a stacked roster with a talent-evaluator at GM that had been building it for years. There wasn’t a major upheaval in the personnel department, nor with the roster itself. They added solid pieces at their weakest spots (WR and Oline) during the same offseason. Their resource management previous to that was solid, especially defensively.  

 

So that example arguably goes both ways. It’s not as obvious as you think and that hits the heart of my point. Fans are too surface-oriented and lack the ability to recognize the significance of the least visible members operating at the highest levels (especially regarding personnel acquisition). 

 

But if I were to cherry pick like you with something recent, how about Ben McAdoo? What’s the difference betwen him being an 11-5 coach his first year with the Giants and a 3-13 coach the very next year? Did he suddenly forget how to coach in one offseason? Lol, heck no, the difference is one offseason saw his personnel department (structured properly, btw) hit on a bunch of FAs while remaining relatively healthy throughout the season. The next saw them miss, and then have their best pieces (especially on offense) get hit with season ending injuries. That’s the difference, and it’s mostly personnel-related. 

 

19 hours ago, wit33 said:

The gap between “good and bad” FOs has decreased as most teams put resources into scouting, draft and are fiscally more responsible/knowledgeable. In no way am I suggesting gaps don’t still exist and advantages can still be had, but just not to the same degree as 10-20 years ago. 

 

I can’t disagree with this more. Just...  

 

I mean, I don’t know how to say it nicely so I’m going to leave it at that. 

[JSSkinz]

 

Kirk is younger and at this point and he's a better passer than Smith so Cooley was spot on as usual.

 

Let's hope Smith's career mimics the end of Rich Gannon's career and he finds a way to elevate his game from ages 34 - 37, it's not likely but its happened before.

 

 

 

[mistertim]

38 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

 

Kirk is younger and at this point and he's a better passer than Smith so Cooley was spot on as usual.

 

Let's hope Smith's career mimics the end of Rich Gannon's career and he finds a way to elevate his game from ages 34 - 37, it's not likely but its happened before.

 

 

 

 

I'd agree that Kirk is generally a better passer, but I don't think it's by a huge margin. I say that not because I think Kirk is bad but mostly because of costly mistakes he has a tendency to make sometimes. His lows can be really low (as Cooley alluded to), whereas Smith's highs may not be as high but he's more efficient and less mistake prone. Then again, Smith also had better weapons so that comes into play as well. But he's generally been a pretty efficient passer for a while now. I think each guy has things he does better than the other, really. But Kirk being younger is also a valid point and comes into play.

[wit33]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Not sure what you are getting it -- you think Cooley is a Kirk critic?

 

No, I think he’s moved back and forth and overall has been in the middle about Kirk. 

[Skinsinparadise]

18 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

No, I think he’s moved back and forth and overall has been in the middle about Kirk. 

 

If that's your takeaway, you are missing the large majority of Cooley's segments.  If you listen to Cooley's general take he would drive the Kirk critics on this thread  nuts.  He's about as hardcore of a Kirk homer as it gets.

 

He thinks he's a very good QB and he doesn't think he's hit his ceiling.  Cooley saying recently that Kirk is on the verge of elite and he thinks he will be elite isn't a new thought from him. Weeks back, he talked about it will be a disaster if Kirk goes to another team and is wildly successful -- and said he thinks it will happen.  He is pretty extreme pro Kirk. 

 

I think the only problem that lends to confusion about Cooley for some is they get excited when he criticizes a player they are likewise critical of.  The thing is Cooley criticizes EVERY player.  All of them.  He talks about what he likes and then eventually hits what he doesn't like.  He doesn't think any player is some perfect paragon with no flaws.  He does it in his film study of other teams too including guys he loves like Wentz, he talks about their flaws as part of the soup.

 

[HigSkin]

The opinions KC vs Alex Smith definitely vary.  Hope this link shows all tweet comments!

• So, I've watched a lot of Kirk Cousins tape over the last few days, and I'm pretty confident that although the Redskins gave up a lot for Alex Smith, they've made a fairly significant improvement at the most important position. Smith and Cousins aren't the same player.

  45 replies248 retweets502 likes

  Reply

• Doug Farrar‏Verified account @BR_DougFarrar Feb 16

  
  

  Both Smith and Cousins benefited a ton in 2017 from their receivers being schemed open. And though it's a legitimate argument that Smith had a better cadre of receivers, he also made life easier for those receivers with his processing speed & ability to make tight-window throws.

  4 replies46 retweets86 likes

   

• Doug Farrar‏Verified account @BR_DougFarrar Feb 16

  
  

  Anyone insisting Smith leaves plays on the field because he's afraid to make tight downfield throws is living in an old story. Smith was one of the league's most prolific downfield throwers in 2017. So, let's put that to rest. Smith also has the internal clock to know when...

  11 replies58 retweets113 likes

   

•  

  Doug Farrar‏Verified account @BR_DougFarrar Feb 16

  
  

  ...to let the ball go. Smith has learned, late in his career, to throw his receivers open in small spaces. It's an incredibly valuable skill, and most quarterbacks don't have it.

  5 replies46 retweets71 likes

   

•  

  Doug Farrar‏Verified account @BR_DougFarrar Feb 16

  
  

  Now, on to Cousins. To his credit, I think he's maxed out fairly limited physical abilities regarding functional mobility and productive velocity. He's far better than he was when I watched him at Michigan State and thought he was Matt Flynn 2.0. That said, there are issues.

  3 replies48 retweets66 likes

   

• Doug Farrar‏Verified account @BR_DougFarrar Feb 16

  
  

  Primary issue I see with Cousins in his 2017 tape is his processing speed and ability to adjust. It's not that he's hopeless in this regard, but he doesn't seem to have that in-play adjustment level to veer off his original palette of reads and make the better call on the fly.

  4 replies51 retweets81 likes

   

•  

  Doug Farrar‏Verified account @BR_DougFarrar Feb 16

   

  A lot of his interceptions come from this processing speed issue. He's just a tick off, and that's all it takes. Especially if he's thrown out of rhythm with a blitz he doesn't see or disguised coverage. He benefits a ton from scheme. Huge marks to Jay Gruden here.

  7 replies53 retweets88 likes

   

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

That Doug Farrar assessment has already been posted.  I'm sure it got lost in the abyss that are these threads, so no harm no foul.  But you can go ahead and figure if there is any negative assessment on Kirk, it's been posted.

[wit33]

@thesubmittedone

 

The NFL isn’t “designed” to allow for consistent winning to take place, unless you have an elite QB or to lesser degree a coach. This is my point. If you have a QB somewhere between 7 to 25, you will experience up and down seasons. So much right has to go on around these guys to win a few more games than they lose. 

 

A sport with so many variables involved makes it difficult to win “consistently” (even 3 years in a row... only 4 teams (stat heard from Cooley :/) accomplished this over the last 3). 

 

In my view its unrealistic (not impossible) for teams to sustain success for more than a 3 year window (unless you have an elite QB or coach).

 

Mcadoo—-

 

Yes, I believe the NFL is incredibly fickle and McAdoo was a below average coach and benefitted from a Spags led defense that meshed together. Mcadoo was suppose to be an offensive coach and the Giants were horrible offensively during the 11-5 and this past season. 

 

FOs——

 

Just look at week to week scores, most games come down to a score or less. There isn’t much difference from many of the teams. I do believe teams begin to separate themselves towards the end of the season, usually done by the elite QBs and coaching staffs (though, I believe innovative offensive coaching is closing the gap between the other QBs (7-25) and the elites in certain games). 

 

Like many discussions in here, I’m arguing one point while appearing to totally disregard another (value of a Front office), but that’s not the case. We don’t disagree on this point. 

 

——I believe the Skins continue to value the draft, being fiscally responsible, resigning their own and continue to maintain stability with coaches/scheme. I’m also a fan who believes the roster is stronger than most on here, so time will tell if I’m accurate. A poor season this year will be tough to defend. It’s time!

[skins island connection]

4 hours ago, JSSkinz said:

 

Kirk is younger and at this point and he's a better passer than Smith so Cooley was spot on as usual.

 

Let's hope Smith's career mimics the end of Rich Gannon's career and he finds a way to elevate his game from ages 34 - 37, it's not likely but its happened before.

 

 

 

 

 I wouldn't get my hopes up.

 When a team acquires a new QB who had proven himself, it doesn't always equate winning.

 Sure, a new QB will have different things about him that couldn't be done by the previous QB, but the flip-side is the new QB most likely cannot do a few things the previous one could. I wouldn't say its a wash, but by the time Smith gets accustomed to the offense, he will be on the decline.

 

Now, Cousins new team will have their learning curves too, so anyone who thinks he will walk onto the field this year and tear up the league is reaching, unless he gets onto a team that has a good offense already established. He will need a couple good WRs and a running game to be successful, but moreso a good HC/OC who knows what his limitations are and using his strengths to their advantage.

 

Smith will be frustrated by week 9, as well as the team. A lot of second-guessing will be all over the message boards, mostly from hindsight arguments, nevertheless right.  Gruden should see this coming from a mile away and hopefully will convince the FO to scout a good college QB to groom; but the entire reason why this team is IN the position they are in now is because of the FO and their inability to take care of business.