Let's All Get Behind Alex Smith! Or Not!! (M.E.T.) NO kirk talk---that goes in ATN forum

[RemoveSnyder]

I'll explain this once for anyone who hasn't gotten it yet. All the other narratives to the contrary are just bunkum. 

 

The only thing Cousins wanted from this organization was to be publicly endorsed. To have had his bosses and peers stand up and say he was the man, that they were behind him no matter what, that he was the future. 

 

And that didn't happen. 

 

What actually happened was Bruce Allen doing the exact opposite and trashing him publicly. But that only happened after Allen set into motion this cold heartless "business transaction" of unprecedented franchise tags. 

 

Nothing spells confidence and unity than your boss going into complete radio silence, ignoring pleasantries, then begrudgingly throwing franchise money at you with no communication, then trying to undersell you with a pay rate below what he had just established was your market, then going pubic and trashing you.

 

Yeah, I can't see why anyone would take offense to that ... 

 

 

"Cousins didn't want to be here." - Yeah, no ****, cold shouldered by the organization, I wonder why. 

 

Good organizations publicly endorse their QBs all time, even when they turn out to be one-year wonders, or pedestrian, or the eventual ticking time-bomb bust. Even Lovie Smith was able to stand up for and publicly endorse Going Deep Grossman, even though EVERYONE saw that he was a liability and the weak link on a Championship team.

 

 It's what competent organizations do, even when they realize the QB they are endorsing has "limitations," or "flaws." 

They at least pretend to gladhand the QB. 

 

Bruce couldn't help but continually make the Cousins thing an ongoing "prove yourself" toxic relationship. There has to be some Bruce Allen vs Shanny vitriol wrapped up in there too, somewhere. 

 

 

Just to be respected and backed, and or loved by the people you work for, that's worth more than any amount of money. Seriously. 

[I'm done with that tangent now]

[NoCalMike]

Here is the thing, Cousins was a .500 QB here.  His new team which is full of play makers and a better defense is 2-2-1.  He isn't the problem there, he wasn't the problem here, but at the end of the day Cousins made plenty of boneheaded throws and plays here that cost games.

 

The team as a whole looks about the same it did when Cousins was here.   Same garbage defense, same O-line that can't protect the QB consistently. 

 

It's the organization that is the issue, whether it is Cousins, Alex Smith, McCoy, etc etc......under center.

 

To pretend like Alex Smith is not a better QB then what he has shown on this team is being disingenuous.  The issue right now is that Alex Smith doesn't have the skillset to make chicken salad out of chicken ****.    Bad players will look bad with Smith as the QB where as under Cousins, he could at least seem to force feed the ball in there sometimes, but at the end of the day it didn't translate to wins anyway.  

[Skinsinparadise]

The offense was the strength when Kirk was here not the weaknesses.   The offense is ranked 29th right now in yards in the NFL. http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total

 

Kirk 10 TDs-2 INTs

Alex 4 TDS-2 INTs

 

Kirk ranked 8th in the NFL in QBR

Alex ranked 18th in the NFL in QBR

 

Kirk ranked 2nd in the league in yards

Alex ranked 22nd in the league in yards

 

Kirk has 6% better completion rate, too.

 

Kirk is eating Alex for lunch breakfast and dinner as for their performances so far.  But if people want to make the case that the season is young -- things can turn -- the Vikings tank, etc.  Sure, anything is possible.  Small sample.  But I am not pretending I am not seeing what I have and all stats are meaningless.   But I do agree that they deserve a break to see how things unfold. 

 

Lets see where the Vikings and for that matter Redskins finish IMO before we generalize their record.    And again to me its not about Kirk-Alex in a vacuum.  I just don't look at the whole thing as if there is no consequence to the bottom line of the decision makers in the FO.  It was a major major decision that is being watched and judged. And should be.  This isn't like hey lets see what Carlos Rodgers does in SF. and wow wouldn't it bother us if he succeeds there.  I get that mindset.  But this dynamic is apples to oranges to that stuff IMO and that opinion also of some beat guys who supposedly have contacts in the FO. 

 

And to me its clear as a bell that this isn't some ordinary shrug our shoulders run of the mill move from the organization.  It's a defining one.  And i am surprised that some don't see that there are likely consequences if they get it wrong.

  

[JSSkinz]

49 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Chad also thinks Alex is trash and that he was wrong about him and ditto the team and there is no reason to have faith in its future.  ?

 

I'll get over Kirk when Bruce is out the door.  Until that happens he's relevant to me.  If that bothers you, sorry, but its how I feel and I've heard enough to believe that his performance is relevant to Bruce's future with the team. 

I've never stuck up for the Alex trade and I'm not an Alex fan but do you believe that Alex's or Kirk's performances are relative? I couldn't tell by the way you wrote your post.

 

Why would what Kirk does have any bearing on Bruce's existence unless Alex has a terrible season, that doesn't make sense to me.

 

You think Bruce is gonna catch heat if we have a playoff season? You need Alex to fail more than you need Kirk to succeed to get what you want, and I am very clear on what you want.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

 

Why would what Kirk does have any bearing on Bruce's existence unless Alex has a terrible season, that doesn't make sense to me.

 

 

 

Hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or actually asking?  If you are asking if I recall your position on the Kirk negotiation is centered on Kirk just not wanting to be here.  If that was my thought it wouldn't make sense to me either.  But I've explained my thoughts and what others who covered this story have said -- and its not some basic narrative of Kirk didn't want to be here.  Monk covered a lot of it in his post.  

[Morneblade]

4 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

You believe that Alex's or Kirk's performances are relative? I couldn't tell by the way you wrote your post.

 

Why would what Kirk does have any bearing on Bruce's existence unless Alex has a terrible season, that doesn't make sense to me.

 

 

 

It's really simple. If Kirk blows up and has a huge year (like he is on pace to do), and Alex falls down, it shows how absolutely incompetent the FO is.

 

And changes are much more likely to happen. This isn't rocket surgery. Or brain science.

[JSSkinz]

57 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

In the Greenbay game, the special teams missed 3 FG's, and gave up a punt block for a TD. That's 16 points. Stop being a putz and blaming the QB for a complete and utter special teams meltdown that got the kicker cut the next day.

 

The only reason Kirk didn't "want to be here" is because we showed zero interest. We completely blew that negotiation.

You just call me a putz, you can **** off, don't be throwing out verbal jabs unless you want them right back at ya.

3 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

It's really simple. If Kirk blows up and has a huge year (like he is on pace to do), and Alex falls down, it shows how absolutely incompetent the FO is.

 

And changes are much more likely to happen. This isn't rocket surgery. Or brain science.

That's what I just said idiot, it doesn't work unless Alex fails.

 

I think I might be going to war today, lets do it.

 

[Morneblade]

1 minute ago, JSSkinz said:

You just call me a putz, you can **** off, don't be throwing out verbal jabs unless you want them right back at ya.

 

Oh, Whaaaa. Then stop using completely idiotic logic then. "oh Kirk" couldn't beat a failing GB squad, it's all his fault". Even though the ST did everything they could to loose it. Your agenda is showing.

 

And I'm suppose to take that seriously?  Yeah, right.

[JSSkinz]

43 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

I'll explain this once for anyone who hasn't gotten it yet. All the other narratives to the contrary are just bunkum. 

 

 

1

The smart guy who said we were idiots for drafting Guice because of the way his leg kicks out when he runs, noticed you deleted that post.

 

I didn't miss it.

 

 

[skinny21]

Teams aren’t playing much man coverage against us, which reduces SmithÂ’s chances to really scramble.  

 

The oline isn’t pass blocking well, which brings out Smith’s happy feet.  I think they should try Dunn out (or switch Roullier and Bergstrom).  I also think they need to keep the back (Thompson) in more often to block when we’re struggling to protect Smith.  

 

Gruden has a lot of plays installed, and I believe that volume is making it tougher for Smith to get comfortable.  

 

 

 

[JSSkinz]

1 minute ago, Morneblade said:

 

Oh, Whaaaa. Then stop using completely idiotic logic then. "oh Kirk" couldn't beat a failing GB squad, it's all his fault". Even though the ST did everything they could to loose it. Your agenda is showing.

 

And I'm suppose to take that seriously?  Yeah, right.

SIP said he would have beaten the Colts, I said I disagree because he got rolled by the Bills and lost (we know what should have happened) to a flailing GB team.

 

That's idiotic logic? Its observation based on the games he lost, I wasn't looking to make excuses for him because his kicker missed some FG's.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

From you or from me?  confused by the response.

 

The question I was answering was if this season would have gone any differently had we not acquired Smith and just rolled with Colt. 

[Skinsinparadise]

6 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

The question I was answering was if this season would have gone any differently had we not acquired Smith and just rolled with Colt. 

 

ok, got it, sorry, thought you were talking Kirk.  Agree probably 2-2 with Colt.

[Veryoldschool]

People say last night wasn't typical Alex and Alex is still adjusting to his new team, I sure hope so because thus far Alex is a huge dropoff from Cousins.   I hadn't really seen Alex play much before the trade so I didn't have really any thoughts about him other than relief that the Skins opted for a successful veteran instead of playing the QB lottery in the draft.  You know for sure Snyder would pick the worse in the class if they drafted a guy but oh my Alex has been a huge disappointment thus far.

[Darrell Green Fan]

1 hour ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

I'll explain this once for anyone who hasn't gotten it yet. All the other narratives to the contrary are just bunkum. 

 

The only thing Cousins wanted from this organization was to be publicly endorsed. To have had his bosses and peers stand up and say he was the man, that they were behind him no matter what, that he was the future. 

 

And that didn't happen. 

 

What actually happened was Bruce Allen doing the exact opposite and trashing him publicly. But that only happened after Allen set into motion this cold heartless "business transaction" of unprecedented franchise tags. 

 

Nothing spells confidence and unity than your boss going into complete radio silence, ignoring pleasantries, then begrudgingly throwing franchise money at you with no communication, then trying to undersell you with a pay rate below what he had just established was your market, then going pubic and trashing you.

 

Yeah, I can't see why anyone would take offense to that ... 

 

 

I agree with every word of your post, the team did not make him feel wanted. But this is about dollars and had they offered him what the Vikes did I think it's fair to say he would have strongly considered it rather than move his family. Players tend to overlook hurt feelings when they get paid. 

 

As for Kirk's record and screw ups at the worst times nobody said he was Brady. But with the identical offensive cast as Smith, and saddles with Fat Rob over AP, Kirk played far better than what we have seen from Smith to date.  It's not even close.   

[Playaction2Sanders]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The offense was the strength when Kirk was here not the weaknesses.   The offense is ranked 29th right now in yards in the NFL. http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total

 

Kirk 10 TDs-2 INTs

Alex 4 TDS-2 INTs

 

Kirk ranked 8th in the NFL in QBR

Alex ranked 18th in the NFL in QBR

 

Kirk ranked 2nd in the league in yards

Alex ranked 22nd in the league in yards

 

Kirk has 6% better completion rate, too.

 

Kirk is eating Alex for lunch breakfast and dinner as for their performances so far.  But if people want to make the case that the season is young -- things can turn -- the Vikings tank, etc.  Sure, anything is possible.  Small sample.  But I am not pretending I am not seeing what I have and all stats are meaningless.   But I do agree that they deserve a break to see how things unfold. 

 

Lets see where the Vikings and for that matter Redskins finish IMO before we generalize their record.    And again to me its not about Kirk-Alex in a vacuum.  I just don't look at the whole thing as if there is no consequence to the bottom line of the decision makers in the FO.  It was a major major decision that is being watched and judged. And should be.  This isn't like hey lets see what Carlos Rodgers does in SF. and wow wouldn't it bother us if he succeeds there.  I get that mindset.  But this dynamic is apples to oranges to that stuff IMO and that opinion also of some beat guys who supposedly have contacts in the FO. 

 

And to me its clear as a bell that this isn't some ordinary shrug our shoulders run of the mill move from the organization.  It's a defining one.  And i am surprised that some don't see that there are likely consequences if they get it wrong.

  

 

 

Lets not forget the Vikings got smoked by the BILLS, we got smoked by a Saints team that should have been the championship game last year.. And we beat GB and they didn't. I just really wanna forget this game and really hope this was just a terrible game, but dammit the signs have been there since week 1. But we didnt care to point out captain check down because we beat Arizona and then finally sorta went downfield vs GB. Our receiving corp might be the worst its been in a long time like '93 bad..At least in Norv's first year he had Ellard who was a threat everywhere but was Mr. Reliable. 

 

If Smith shows a hint of struggling like that again during a home game the boo birds are gonna come out circa..

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

21 minutes ago, Playaction2Sanders said:

 

 

Lets not forget the Vikings got smoked by the BILLS, we got smoked by a Saints team that should have been the championship game last year.. And we beat GB and they didn't. I just really wanna forget this game and really hope this was just a terrible game, but dammit the signs have been there since week 1. But we didnt care to point out captain check down because we beat Arizona and then finally sorta went downfield vs GB. Our receiving corp might be the worst its been in a long time like '93 bad..At least in Norv's first year he had Ellard who was a threat everywhere but was Mr. Reliable. 

 

I haven't forgotten that Kirk had a bad game against the Bills.  But I don't care.  I don't care that Alex had a bad game yesterday either in terms of judging it as the definitive brush.  Crap happens.  QBs have bad games.  But on the aggregate as to my eyes and stats wise (where its not even close) Kirk has easily been the better QB in the first 4 games.

 

I gave Kirk more leeway before the season for success because of the better supporting cast he has.  But thats closer than I expected.  We have the better RB.  We have the better O line.  Maybe even the better defense so far sans yesterday.  The Vikings have the better receivers by far.  Kirk has traditionally been a slow starter, Alex a fast starter so I expected that Alex might have been hotter out of the gate.  

 

Alex's two best games were largely about monster running performances.  I've been on the aggregate underwhelmed.  But I've seen some good things in the mix.  I think its crazy to say the book is written.  So i am opened minded about Alex still.  This team tends to come back well from losses.  I watched Carolina's game last week and i wasn't impressed by them.  The Alex love might return in force next week.  The season is still young. 

 

 

[cakmoney61]

I've seen enough.  Kirk Cousins is better than Alex Smith and it doesn't appear to be close.  Cousins throws the football better and apparently can find open receivers better.  Also, I'm fearful that Smith is going to get several people killed with his untimely passes.  It's like things are happening faster than Smith is able to process, thereby hindering his ability to make the best decision possible.

 

Sadly, he really is Captain Checkdown.

 

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

2 hours ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

I'll explain this once for anyone who hasn't gotten it yet. All the other narratives to the contrary are just bunkum. 

 

[JSSkinz]

47 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or actually asking?  If you are asking if I recall your position on the Kirk negotiation is centered on Kirk just not wanting to be here.  If that was my thought it wouldn't make sense to me either.  But I've explained my thoughts and what others who covered this story have said -- and its not some basic narrative of Kirk didn't want to be here.  Monk covered a lot of it in his post.  

Your absolutely right with my position on Kirk, it was never about the talent and I wasn't being sarcastic at all.

 

I really don't want to debate this again but I will say if I'm looking at Kirks 3 year production from 2013 - 2015 I see a trend upward but only in the 2nd half of the 2015 year, that's 1/6 of the total data showing an upward trend and no consistency to lean on when making a decision.

 

So when was the FO supposed to embrace Kirk, was it after the 2015 season, the 2016 season?  When was this supposed to happen for Kirk to feel wanted?

 

Personally, if I was the GM or owner there is no way in hell I would be able to commit/embrace Kirk being my franchise QB until I watched that 2016 season, so the question is was it too late by then? Based on what I've heard from Kirk and his father and other local radio personalities and reporters it was too late by then and for me, that's my issue.

[Veryoldschool]

 

Big Lead:  Redskins Badly Miss Kirk Cousins

 

Quote

Week 5 served as a nice example of how opposite the two parties are doing after their breakup. Cousins is like the more attractive, more accomplished member of the couple who finds a more attractive and more accomplished partner immediately. (The Minnesota Vikingswere the team Cousins told the Redskins not to worry about.) The Redskins, meanwhile, had to settle for a lesser parter (see: Alex Smith) who seems like a lesser person now than when they first had a spark and traded for him this offseason.

 

https://thebiglead.com/2018/10/09/the-redskins-badly-miss-kirk-cousins/

 

It is just week 5 so things could change for the better although I am not hopeful I think an early season meltdown and 4-12 or 5-11 season is more likely.  Right now I think the Big Lead guy is right.

[skinny21]

@JSSkinzI think, to @Monk4thaHALL‘s point, you praise him consistently, or at the least say that you’re happy with him publicly, and you don’t treat him as your enemy at the negotiating table (and/or in the media).  

 

From lowballing him early on, to not negotiating for a period of time, (essentially) trashing him in the media - blaming failed negotiations on him, getting rid of both his top targets, franchising him twice... the whole thing felt like it was handled poorly.  

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

1 hour ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

The question I was answering was if this season would have gone any differently had we not acquired Smith and just rolled with Colt. 

 

Colt is awful. We would be bad. Very bad.

 

Which might be good.

 

But, yes, bad.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

3 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

Colt is awful. We would be bad. Very bad.

 

Which might be good.

 

But, yes, bad.

 

I am not at the point where I think he's as good as Smith...but don't you think we'd still have won the Arizona and Green Bay games? Those had much more to do with a running game, defense, and a care-taker at QB. Also, if this team with Colt is 5-11 but only 8-8 with Smith then, as you imply above, that might actually be better long-term. 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

35 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Your absolutely right with my position on Kirk, it was never about the talent and I wasn't being sarcastic at all.

 

I really don't want to debate this again but I will say if I'm looking at Kirks 3 year production from 2013 - 2015 I see a trend upward but only in the 2nd half of the 2015 year, that's 1/6 of the total data showing an upward trend and no consistency to lean on when making a decision.

 

So when was the FO supposed to embrace Kirk, was it after the 2015 season, the 2016 season?  When was this supposed to happen for Kirk to feel wanted?

 

Personally, if I was the GM or owner there is no way in hell I would be able to commit/embrace Kirk being my franchise QB until I watched that 2016 season, so the question is was it too late by then? Based on what I've heard from Kirk and his father and other local radio personalities and reporters it was too late by then and for me, that's my issue.

 

You had a choice: Sign him long term or Franchise him and lose him eventually.

 

There was no in between. Kirk happily took the franchise tag money, because, it was a lot of damn money. He took it again, because, of course. But he was never committing here after that.

 

If you weren't ready to sign him before 16, you should have just let him go.

 

We'd probably be playing a second year guy, like, I dunno MAHOMES right now had we just done that.

4 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I am not at the point where I think he's as good as Smith...but don't you think we'd still have won the Arizona and Green Bay games? Those had much more to do with a running game, defense, and a care-taker at QB. Also, if this team with Colt is 5-11 but only 8-8 with Smith then, as you imply above, that might actually be better long-term. 

 

We'd be a 4 win team. Smith is light years better than Colt.

 

I mean, if you want to build through the draft, that may be a good thing. I don't really think tanking works in football.

 

But, how freaking empty would FedEx be if they had put the season in Colt's hands? Yeesh.