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

[Koolblue13]

I have no idea if the QB position is better or worse. I've got my opinion. I'm just glad the Kirk drama is over. 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

As far as "reputations being on the line" for the Cousins vs. Alex Smith thing. I think that is way over-conflating the situation for what it was.  Cousins wanted out AND the front office needed to find a way to not set the franchise in a backwards roll.  Those things happened simultaneously.  Once it was apparent that Cousins was leaving, the front office could have thrown their hands up and decided to take a chance at the draft, but they decided to bring in a solid veteran QB.

 

I don't think its lost though on guys like Schefter (who I mentioned in my point) about how the Redskins got to that point.  And the aggregate take about the contract the whole way according to most sources hasn't been positive as to how the FO played the contract with some occasional dissenting opinions on that front.  Even Scot admitted they blew it when he was there.  So the anchor point of the story about Kirk for most isn't how did they handle it in 2018 but its about the whole gig.

 

But don't want to go back and relive those arguments -- just saying they aren't forgotten by some who are covering this story, and I agree that they shouldn't be forgotten.

 

I agree with those that see the story as funky and interesting and I'd throw Keenum in the mix, too.  Granted the top 100 player program is a popularity contest in part but Keenum was top 50 in their list.   You got some who thinking highly of Keenum -- he was dumped after taking them to the championship for Kirk who they made at that time the highest paid player in the NFL.  The Redskins did their dance with Kirk and that ended up with his departure -- again plenty see it as odd to develop a franchise QB and then let him go.  Then you got Alex in house and the Chiefs traded up in the draft to land a replacement and then traded him.

 

I personally think the narrative that both the Vikings and the Redskins are on the spot for better or worse makes sense to me.  And yeah it could come out that both sides win or lose or one side, etc.   I don't think that we can call anyone a winner in this, yet.  It's TBD. 

[NoCalMike]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

.

 

I personally think the narrative that both the Vikings and the Redskins are in the spot for better or worse makes sense to me.  And yeah it could come out that both sides win or lose.   I don't think that we can call anyone a winner in this, yet.  It's TBD. 

 

I think the one stark difference though is, Cousins was signed and given all that guaranteed money to win a Superbowl NOW, with this current team.  All signs point to the Vikings being ready, and Kirk's contract also seems to suggest they are giving him the house to deliver a Superbowl ASAP and then in a couple more seasons they will deal with extending him or letting him walk.  If the Vikings stay in neutral or even go backwards a step or two over the next two seasons, Cousins is going to be targeted as a huge reason, even if his play overall isn't bad. His contract seems to suggest they are all in to win now, and if it doesn't happen Cousins will be on his way to the next team in a few seasons. 

 

Contrast that with Alex Smith.  Sure, we all want him to be a piece to transform this team to the next step, but despite what coaches say publicly, the Alex Smith signing is a win if this team makes the playoffs.  A Superbowl is still way out of the picture if we're being realistic, at least until the team shows it can be a consistent playoff threat.  Alex Smith is not walking into the same situation as Cousins is.  The expectations are not nearly the same.  If this teams wins a single playoff game in the next three seasons, he will have taken the team to a greater height than Cousins did during his time as a starter (and this is not a criticism of Cousins perse, just an acknowledgement of how things would look aesthetically if this team manages to win a playoff game with Smith).  Alex Smith's signing and contract extension seems to be every bit as much as holding down the fort while the 'Skins search for a long term replacement as it does for the sake of "winning now."  

[Skinsinparadise]

27 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I have no idea if the QB position is better or worse. I've got my opinion. I'm just glad the Kirk drama is over. 

 

Agree, it was exhausting.  Only upside of it for me was the Redskins were constantly part of the national news .  So it gave me some off season entertainment but at times stressful version of it.   Now, we are hardly mentioned.  But hopefully that's a good omen.  But yeah as for the national NFL/sports shows, you'd think the Redskins barely exist.  Giants/Eagles/Cowboys on the other hand get plenty of coverage.  All the Giants coverage is stunning to me -- the amount of love they get is weird, you'd think they made the Superbowl last year as opposed to being the 2nd worst team in the NFL.

[TSO]

1 hour ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

For me, I just don't buy that Cousins was seemingly detached and held himself apart from the team simply because he didn't have a long term deal. He was  on tags, but these were very VERY hefty tags. He couldn't find it in himself to be more of a leader? He was certainly making enough money that he could've tried.

 

He could’ve been paid a billion dollars and it’d still be for one year. I don’t see why the money here is the key while you ignore the time. If our HC was on the last year of his deal, you mean to tell me you’d think that’d be perfectly fine for him and that it’d depend on how much he was making? 

 

That’s an odd position to say the least. I think it’s common sense to understand the pitfalls inherent with being viewed as a lame duck or have questions surrounding you long term. It’s only natural that there’d be a detachment. 

 

1 hour ago, SkinsGuy said:

To me, I think Alex Smith will be a better leader here, and not just because he has a long-term deal. I think he has the better personality for it.

 

Well, I think I agree with this, but at the same time I don’t do so as some kind of indictment on Kirk. Alex, for one, has over a decade of starting experience. That’s kind of a big deal in terms of leadership. He’s seen a lot at this point. Secondly, he’s been committed to by the FO and they paid him his market worth. End of story. 

 

1 hour ago, SkinsGuy said:

 

It reminds me of back that season when Gibbs won his second Super Bowl. The Redskins had two QBs, Doug Williams and Jay Schroeder. The players could've rallied around either man. They ended up rallying around Williams because he was a natural leader and committed himself  to the team.

 

Schroeder, meanwhile, according to players who were on that team, was aloof and detached. He kind of held himself above and away from the rest of the team (Bostic in the "America's Game" documentary referred to it as "Me, myself, and I" syndrome). This had nothing to do with money. It was just the very different personalities of these two players.

 

This just comes off like total Redskin fan fantasy. 

 

Kirk’s leadership, while here, was praised by players and coaches alike. This guy wasn’t fooling everyone. There is a reason Jay, Mike and Kyle Shanahan, Sean McVay, etc... all chose him as their guy. That wasn’t an accident. Trent Williams absolutely adored him, and he’s a big reason why Trent played injured all year. Moses, too. Long and Scherff both looked to him as their leader. Thompson openly tweeted his shock when the trade for Alex was made. This whole “players haven’t said anything after he left” stuff is funny to me. Of course it has nothing to do with a bitter FO trying to write a negative narrative about him no one wants to be seen as opposing since they’re still getting paid by the team, no, they suddenly hate him and have all along.  

 

At the same time, he was limited in that the FO was unwilling to commit long term, so it was never really “his team”. QBs who are committed to are even often involved in who they bring in and who they don’t. He never got that from this FO. The questions were always there. It’s only natural that he’d detach a bit. He admitted as much whenever asked this question, as does any QB who is being honest about it, including Alex. 

 

But I think we forget how many hits he took this year with as injury-riddled of an Oline we’ve ever seen (I think they were top 5 in pressures given up this year or something), and how he fought through it. There is something to be said for that. At the time, most Skin fans were giving him credit for it. Now? Lol. 

[volsmet]

19 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The more I think about it, I'll double down that the Alex Smith/Kirk Cousins narrative next year will be fascinating -- Adam Schefter was just talking about it last week and he did think some reputations are on the line for the decision makers on it.

 

You got some NFL observers that are hardcore that Kirk is the better QB and this is a downgrade

You got some NFL observers that are hardcore that Alex is the better QB and this is an upgrade

Plenty are in between the two thoughts -- but the ones who come down on a side typically come down hard

You got the normal infatuation with both fan bases about the new toy -- the dating early phase is typically the most fun time

You got the Redskins going on repeat for the 34 year old QB (3rd time) -- selling this time its different

You got the Vikings selling their fan base that Keenum had to go and Kirk is an upgrade

Vikings FO has kicked butt at building their roster -- now they think they got the missing piece -- will see.  They are on the spot. 

Some of the fans/media (in the Redskins case its more the fans) think neither guy can win the big one.

Some of these fans are also flat out relieved that their QB is gone (some of the Chief fans were so amped up to see Alex go they visited our web site to let us know) and I can tell some are amped here and on twitter that Kirk is gone.

Redskins have been almost as bad as the Browns at drafting QBs, its been a hallmark of Dan's tenure -- imagine if Alex is like Eli and fades in his mid 30s and they have to go back to that well again -- and imagine concurrently Kirk excels?

Imagine it goes the other way and Alex ends up like Brady -- a guy who can play until he's 40 like its nothing?

 

I don't buy the narrative that no matter what that the Redskins have a winning narrative here. I downgrade the Redskins for getting to this point but it is what it is now.  So thinking about the cards that are laid out now and forgetting how we got here:  It can definitely go south depending on what goes down.   But if could work out, too.  I feel the same about the Vikings -- the Vikings might not have as much riding but on their end its not just about the financial comittment but also about letting Keenum go.   Letting Keenum go after taking them to the Championship game?

 

I am not pro the current FO and hate how they dealt with Kirk as many know.    However, I do like Alex a lot not just as a player but as a person.  I like Kirk too as a person and I don't blame him for squat that went down.   My answer as to what happens in all of this?  I don't know.  I don't really have a strong opinion aside from this.  I think both Alex and Kirk (like just about every QB) needs a strong running game and supporting cast.  I think they are both playoffs QBs.  My gut is one isn't distinctly better than the other but I got no beef with anyone who picks one -- I'll disagree that either QB is distinctly better than the other one.   And I do think it can blow up on us because of his age -- I don't rule it out like some do. Conversely, maybe he ends up like Brady -- which would be awesome.  I don't know. 

 

Bringing this back to just Alex.  For those who are playing up the love, watch the NFL top players show tonight.  I am pretty sure he shows up in their top 20.  That's pretty cool.   My favorite narrative about Alex is at 34 he's just getting better.   It's hard for me to just accept that as a slam dunk truth -- QBs at 34 typically aren't at their peak or if are it isn't for a long run further.  But I agree that there are exceptions to this -- Brady, Brees being examples of it.  Some of it I think will be about pure luck -- a lot of what derails guys in their mid 30s centers on an injury.  The body typically doesn't recover as quick or the same way.  So hopefully we have some luck on that front.

 

 

Some guys have their best years after 33, Favre had his best season with Minnesota, but that was mostly due to the QB coach he had at the time. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I think the one stark difference though is, Cousins was signed and given all that guaranteed money to win a Superbowl NOW, with this current team.  All signs point to the Vikings being ready, and Kirk's contract also seems to suggest they are giving him the house to deliver a Superbowl ASAP and then in a couple more seasons they will deal with extending him or letting him walk.  If the Vikings stay in neutral or even go backwards a step or two over the next two seasons, Cousins is going to be targeted as a huge reason, even if his play overall isn't bad. His contract seems to suggest they are all in to win now, and if it doesn't happen Cousins will be on his way to the next team in a few seasons. 

 

Contrast that with Alex Smith.  Sure, we all want him to be a piece to transform this team to the next step, but despite what coaches say publicly, the Alex Smith signing is a win if this team makes the playoffs.  A Superbowl is still way out of the picture if we're being realistic, at least until the team shows it can be a consistent playoff threat.  Alex Smith is not walking into the same situation as Cousins is.  The expectations are not nearly the same.  If this teams wins a single playoff game in the next three seasons, he will have taken the team to a greater height than Cousins did during his time as a starter (and this is not a criticism of Cousins perse, just an acknowledgement of how things would look aesthetically if this team manages to win a playoff game with Smith).  Alex Smith's signing and contract extension seems to be every bit as much as holding down the fort while the 'Skins search for a long term replacement as it does for the sake of "winning now."  

 

I think this is close and you explain it well.

 

It's cut and dry for Minnesota...if they don't at least win the NFC in the next couple years, then the move was a failure. They signed Cousins to upgrade at QB and put them over the hump. 

 

Even though Smith doesn't have those same expectations, I would argue that he's going to be expected to do more than "hold down the fort" in Washington. Otherwise, what was the point of giving up a draft pick, young controllable CB, and a still relatively high annual salary? I think what constitutes success is murkier and more up for interpretation, but it's more than 9-7 and winning one playoff game. Otherwise, it was a bad move (to me). 

[volsmet]

5 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I think this is close and you explain it well.

 

It's cut and dry for Minnesota...if they don't at least win the NFC in the next couple years, then the move was a failure. They signed Cousins to upgrade at QB and put them over the hump. 

 

Even though Smith doesn't have those same expectations, I would argue that he's going to be expected to do more than "hold down the fort" in Washington. Otherwise, what was the point of giving up a draft pick, young controllable CB, and a still relatively high annual salary? I think what constitutes success is murkier and more up for interpretation, but it's more than 9-7 and winning one playoff game. Otherwise, it was a bad move (to me). 

 

Kirk is in Minnesota to win it all, Alex is here to get us into the dance. Less, for either, is failure for the FO.

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

4 minutes ago, volsmet said:

 

Kirk is in Minnesota to win it all, Alex is here to get us into the dance. Less, for either, is failure for the FO.

 

 

More or less - I think winning the conference is a milestone and something to be celebrated. Although it would be a large price tag for that incremental step up for the Vikings, it would be hard to call winning the NFC with teams like the Eagles, Packers, Saints, Rams, etc. a failure. 

 

For the Redskins, I don't think you pay what we paid and traded what we traded to be a wild card team and lose on the road in the first week of the playoffs. I think they are expecting to challenge for the division and win a couple playoff games. Otherwise, they overpaid both in the trade and the extension. If you were OK with treading water and "waiting for the next guy" then you should have retained your assets and looked for the next guy in the draft. You could have signed a caretaker for much less. 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I think the one stark difference though is, Cousins was signed and given all that guaranteed money to win a Superbowl NOW, with this current team.  All signs point to the Vikings being ready, and Kirk's contract also seems to suggest they are giving him the house to deliver a Superbowl ASAP and then in a couple more seasons they will deal with extending him or letting him walk.  If the Vikings stay in neutral or even go backwards a step or two over the next two seasons, Cousins is going to be targeted as a huge reason, even if his play overall isn't bad. His contract seems to suggest they are all in to win now, and if it doesn't happen Cousins will be on his way to the next team in a few seasons. 

 

Contrast that with Alex Smith.  Sure, we all want him to be a piece to transform this team to the next step, but despite what coaches say publicly, the Alex Smith signing is a win if this team makes the playoffs.  A Superbowl is still way out of the picture if we're being realistic, at least until the team shows it can be a consistent playoff threat.  Alex Smith is not walking into the same situation as Cousins is.  The expectations are not nearly the same.  If this teams wins a single playoff game in the next three seasons, he will have taken the team to a greater height than Cousins did during his time as a starter (and this is not a criticism of Cousins perse, just an acknowledgement of how things would look aesthetically if this team manages to win a playoff game with Smith).  Alex Smith's signing and contract extension seems to be every bit as much as holding down the fort while the 'Skins search for a long term replacement as it does for the sake of "winning now."  

 

 

I get your point.  But there is the underpinning of this point that's really simple but obvious.  It's something that a national reporter who is a KC fan mentioned and he's not the only one.  What if Kirk indeed finds his stride in an even bigger way in Minny -- and he's 4 years younger so in theory you got him in his prime and for longer.  Conversely, what if Alex isn't as good and is one of those guys who fades in his mid 30s.  So the Redskins develop a QB, let him go elsewhere (which is unheard of) he proves to be a top 10 type QB and Alex is a top 15 type and then fades after a couple of years and the Redskins are back in the mode of we don't have a QB after two seasons?  Not saying it goes down that way but I don't think its some absurd scenario.  It's been brought up in this narrative.   

 

Like I said there are some pundit types who are hardcore on Alex being better and some hardcore on Kirk being better.  if the Kirk people are right and Alex isn't all he's cracked up to be.  Heck yeah the Redskins will have egg on their face.  The narrative about the Redskins would be about how they played the contract the whole way and let the guy they developed go to a potential NFC rival.  I don't see the Redskins having the more relaxed outcome if it doesn't go well versus the Vikings.  The Vikings narrative to me is Keenum versus Kirk?  And do you win a SB eventually with Kirk?   To me its about equal.

 

The Minny FO isn't one of those FOs that is mocked -- its considered one of the sharpest in the business.  They just took a chance here.  If it goes wrong, does that damage their rep?  Probably.  Especially if Keenum takes Denver further.   The Redskins FO on the other hand is often mocked.  Do Bruce/Dan vindicate themselves and show they are smarter than some think they are or does it become just another in a series of QB gaffes by this team that has gone down for over two decades plus?  Adam Schefter who is far from a flame thrower type thinks the pressure is on the Redskins FO first and foremost.  But I see the point that it could be on both.  I don't see the point that Minny is the team more on the spot.  

 

I agree with your point that the goals here need to be more modest.  But its a sad commentary in a way.  Zimmer and Jay both started their jobs the same year -- both team stunk previously.  The Vikings are a now a Superbowl or bust team and our standards are a one playoff win in three years team?    I think you are right but it shows to me why Kirk wasn't crazy as for at one point he had enough and likely wanted to leave for greener pastures.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Imagine this scenario:

 

The Case Keenum-led Broncos defeat the RG3-led Ravens in the AFC championship game after Flacco goes on IR mid-season...while the Alex Smith-led Redskins defeat the Jimmy Garappolo-led 49ers in the NFC Championship...

 

 

 

 

[volsmet]

1 hour ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

More or less - I think winning the conference is a milestone and something to be celebrated. Although it would be a large price tag for that incremental step up for the Vikings, it would be hard to call winning the NFC with teams like the Eagles, Packers, Saints, Rams, etc. a failure. 

 

For the Redskins, I don't think you pay what we paid and traded what we traded to be a wild card team and lose on the road in the first week of the playoffs. I think they are expecting to challenge for the division and win a couple playoff games. Otherwise, they overpaid both in the trade and the extension. If you were OK with treading water and "waiting for the next guy" then you should have retained your assets and looked for the next guy in the draft. You could have signed a caretaker for much less. 

 

You don’t pay or play for moral victories, it’s fine as a fan, but they made the decision to move on from Keenum to Cousins to win a SB. Less is a failure. Failing doesn’t mean you don’t take pride in whatever you accomplished, but investing that much money in Cousins, while letting a proven commodity walk, is pushing your chips all in on Kirk being the difference between conference title contender & SB champion. That’s the move. Success is a SB victory, less is a failure, but still a nice story.

 

Washington paid to get to the playoffs, that’s what determines if the move was worth it, Kirk failed, they need Smith to shine where Kirk choked miserably. Kirk  freezes mentally, he just chokes. If Washington makes the playoffs twice with Alex Smith, zero national people will say we made a bad trade. That’s the entirety of his bar.

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

I get your point.  But there is the underpinning of this point that's really simple but obvious.  It's something that a national reporter who is a KC fan mentioned and he's not the only one.  What if Kirk indeed finds his stride in an even bigger way in Minny -- and he's 4 years younger so in theory you got him in his prime and for longer.  Conversely, what if Alex isn't as good and is one of those guys who fades in his mid 30s.  So the Redskins develop a QB, let him go elsewhere (which is unheard of) he proves to be a top 10 type QB and Alex is a top 15 type and then fades after a couple of years and the Redskins are back in the mode of we don't have a QB after two seasons?  Not saying it goes down that way but I don't think its some absurd scenario.  It's been brought up in this narrative.   

 

Like I said there are some pundit types who are hardcore on Alex being better and some hardcore on Kirk being better.  if the Kirk people are right and Alex isn't all he's cracked up to be.  Heck yeah the Redskins will have egg on their face.  The narrative about the Redskins would be about how they played the contract the whole way and let the guy they developed go to a potential NFC rival.  I don't see the Redskins having the more relaxed outcome if it doesn't go well versus the Vikings.  The Vikings narrative to me is Keenum versus Kirk?  And do you win a SB eventually with Kirk?   To me its about equal.

 

The Minny FO isn't one of those FOs that is mocked -- its considered one of the sharpest in the business.  They just took a chance here.  If it goes wrong, does that damage their rep?  Probably.  Especially if Keenum takes Denver further.   The Redskins FO on the other hand is often mocked.  Do Bruce/Dan vindicate themselves and show they are smarter than some think they are or does it become just another in a series of QB gaffes by this team that has gone down for over two decades plus?  Adam Schefter who is far from a flame thrower type thinks the pressure is on the Redskins FO first and foremost.  But I see the point that it could be on both.  I don't see the point that Minny is the team more on the spot.  

 

 

Denver v Minny v Washington v KC will be very interesting to follow.

27 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Imagine this scenario:

 

The Case Keenum-led Broncos defeat the RG3-led Ravens in the AFC championship game after Flacco goes on IR mid-season...while the Alex Smith-led Redskins defeat the Jimmy Garappolo-led 49ers in the NFC Championship...

 

 

 

 

 

Lamar Jackson with the SB winning catch.

[HardcoreZorn]

9 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

I'd bet every last penny I have that if Alex Smith was on this list, particularly in the top 20, you'd be picking up your Dan and Bruce cape from the dry cleaners and flying into this thread wearing it.  Telling us about how great it is that we exchanged a top 70 or 80 ranked guy for a top 20, that's a better leader and player than the old guy and much more respected by his peers. 

 

You'd be absolutely correct in that if I read bad news about Dan or Bruce, I'd be inclined to believe it.  Because history tends to repeat itself.  The history there isn't good for either man.  However, if I read something terrible about Jay Gruden, Jim Tomsula, Bill Callahan, Ryan Kerrigan, Morgan Moses, <insert X player here>, I'd be less inclined to believe it.  Because they don't have a long history of being total F-ups.  To take it one point further, if I read that Trent Williams was rumored to have failed another drug test for marijuana - I'd be inclined to believe it.  Because the history is there.  It would kill me, as I absolutely love Trent Williams.  If I read that Jordan Reed is rumored to not be able to play in 2018 due to injury - I'd be inclined to believe it.  Because the history is there.  I'd hate it, because I love Jordan Reed as a player. 

 

For some reason, you can't separate Dan and Bruce from 'the Skins'.  I've defended both Jay and Kirk among others, both of whom were Redskins at the time to 'Skins fans' on this very site on too many occasions.  'Skins fans' that can't wait to take a dump on a player or coach without acknowledging the environment created by those guys in the suite.  Or even if they do acknowledge it, they gloss over it because they'd prefer to take out their anger on the easy targets.

 

 

You’d lose all your money then. The list is trash, always has been. There could be 7 Redskins on it and Alex number 1 and I would say the same thing.

 

You must not be a very good investor then. Sounds like you avoid anything that hasn’t already boomed. Any stock that hasn’t already caught fire you’ll ignore because it hasn’t taken off yet? Invest all your money in stocks that have already peaked and watch it barely grow or dip below the buy price? Sounds about how you would go about business.

 

History is great, it ain’t everything. That is true of anything, sports as well. 

 

You can’t separate a different take from your own without equating someone as being a Dan and Bruce fanboy.

 

Im not dumping on anybody, let’s be clear about that. I said something because very few of your posts contribute anything to the discussion other than, “well yeah, but here’s why you’re not right and the Redskins stink.” It colors your view on everything, since in your mind they have their hands on everything. The evidence suggests otherwise.

 

Seriously, I could picture you saying if the Redskins win the Super Bowl, “I mean yeah they won, but it was a down year for the league and Dan was dancing like an asshat afterwards.” Maybe you don’t realize, but that’s how you come across. You must have a severe case of battered fan syndrome. 

 

Now excuse me while I hit the cleaners and pick up my Bruce and Dan cape!!!

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, volsmet said:

 

You don’t pay or play for moral victories, it’s fine as a fan, but they made the decision to move on from Keenum to Cousins to win a SB. Less is a failure. Failing doesn’t mean you don’t take pride in whatever you accomplished, but investing that much money in Cousins, while letting a proven commodity walk, is pushing your chips all in on Kirk being the difference between conference title contender & SB champion. That’s the move. Success is a SB victory, less is a failure, but still a nice story.

 

Agree.  I'd feel different if they didn't have Keenum in house last year but they did.  I think an under the radar narrative in all of this is Keenum versus Kirk.

 

2 hours ago, volsmet said:

 

Washington paid to get to the playoffs, that’s what determines if the move was worth it, Kirk failed

 

Kirk got them to the playoffs.  So for Alex to go a step above is win a playoff game.  The new version of the Superbowl during the Dan era is to actually win a playoff game.   though i see this as a bit of a false narrative because I don't buy that the QB singly handily brings a team to the playoffs -- a supporting cast matters IMO a lot.  Team effort -- not just one guy.

 

For example, as much as you love Da'Ron Payne -- I love Guice.  So for me for example is it relevant that Guice is in the backfield for Alex Smith versus Kirk playing with Robert Kelley/Perine?  Yeah.  Just a little relevant?  Nope to me its very relevant.  Does Alex Smith have a healthy Jordan Reed -- is that relevant to the playoff hunt?  To me yeah big time.  

 

2 hours ago, volsmet said:

Kirk failed, they need Smith to shine where Kirk choked miserably. Kirk  freezes mentally, he just chokes. If Washington makes the playoffs twice with Alex Smith,

 

Couldn't disagree more on this point but to each their own.

 

2 hours ago, volsmet said:

If Washington makes the playoffs twice with Alex Smith, zero national people will say we made a bad trade. 

 

Maybe.  It really depends on what goes down too in Minny.  If Kirk emerges as a top 5 type QB and Minny wins the Superbowl -- don't see the pats on the back for how the Redskins dealt with the issue unless they have unprecedented success.  Kirk's performance is relevant to the how the Redskins dealt with it -- just as Keenum's performance is to the Vikings.    It kind of makes me legitimately sad to see multiple people double down on goals that are modest at best by the good teams standards like the Vikings but for us its the holy grail.   

 

But I think you are right but much of that has to do with the view about the Redskins around the league -- the Redskins the team with one of the worst records in the NFL in the last two decades so make the playoffs 2 years in the Alex Smith era, wow, what an accomplishment!  I agree actually.  But for a guy growing up as a fan in the 80s -- its a sad reality for me.  But each time I read somewhat hitting that point hard it hits home.  

[NoCalMike]

I probably set the bar too low when I suggested Alex Smith is here to hold the fort.  I think what I was trying to say is that I don't feel this franchise was choosing Alex Smith over Kirk Cousins so much as they knew Cousins was gone. End of story. Nothing they could do it about it in 2018.  Yes, we can rehash what led to the situation (and I am sure the DC media still does daily) but that doesn't fix the situation at the present time.  

 

From what I have seen Cousins has excelled as a QB in a lot of situations, but the one situation he seems to meltdown in is the exact situation the Vikings signed him for, and that is to win the big games in January.  They didn't sign him to pile on the routs against inferior opponents in October & November.  They paid Kirk a ton of money to do something he has never done thus far in his career.  They took a high risk/high reward chance on Kirk.  It could pay off, it could bite them in the butt come playoff time. Cousins is in Minnesota to get an already-built Superbowl Contender to the promised land. If he can't get it done on THAT team.....?

 

For Alex Smith, yes I think he is here to help the team get better, and I think he has enough mileage left to where by the time his days are over, be it 3 seasons from now or after the full contract, the team could be in a better spot to facilitate a young and/or rookie QB to take the helm.  I think my main point is that despite the dream scenario that Alex Smith comes in here and suddenly the team is a contender, the reality is still that he is joining a perennial .500ish team that is still trying to find it's identity.  

 

For the 2 QB's it is an apples & oranges comparative situation, but the media isn't going to let it be.  

[bh32]

The way i see it is if this team dosen't make the playoffs than someone needs to be fired..So much money and draft resources invested in players at just about every positon group  for them not to make the playoffs..No excuses

[skinny21]

4 hours ago, bh32 said:

The way i see it is if this team dosen't make the playoffs than someone needs to be fired..So much money and draft resources invested in players at just about every positon group  for them not to make the playoffs..No excuses

The one viable excuse is injuries.  Specifically, if we lose Smith.  If the team is decimated by injuries again, I’d say it’s still a reasonabl excuse, but then someone needs to be fired from the training staff.  

 

I have to say though, even if the team doesn’t reach the playoffs, I’ll be bummed if Gruden is fired.  Not because I believe he’s a great coach, but because 1) he’s the best we’ve had in a long while, 2) he fits in with our ‘unique’ FO situation and 3) there’s a legitimate chance that we lose excellent coaches like Tomsula, Gray and Callahan.  That last point, coupled with ‘starting over’ on O and D would likely set us back, perhaps significantly.  

[volsmet]

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Agree.  I'd feel different if they didn't have Keenum in house last year but they did.  I think an under the radar narrative in all of this is Keenum versus Kirk.

 

 

Kirk got them to the playoffs.  So for Alex to go a step above is win a playoff game.  The new version of the Superbowl during the Dan era is to actually win a playoff game.   though i see this as a bit of a false narrative because I don't buy that the QB singly handily brings a team to the playoffs -- a supporting cast matters IMO a lot.  Team effort -- not just one guy.

 

For example, as much as you love Da'Ron Payne -- I love Guice.  So for me for example is it relevant that Guice is in the backfield for Alex Smith versus Kirk playing with Robert Kelley/Perine?  Yeah.  Just a little relevant?  Nope to me its very relevant.  Does Alex Smith have a healthy Jordan Reed -- is that relevant to the playoff hunt?  To me yeah big time.  

 

 

Couldn't disagree more on this point but to each their own.

 

 

Maybe.  It really depends on what goes down too in Minny.  If Kirk emerges as a top 5 type QB and Minny wins the Superbowl -- don't see the pats on the back for how the Redskins dealt with the issue unless they have unprecedented success.  Kirk's performance is relevant to the how the Redskins dealt with it -- just as Keenum's performance is to the Vikings.    It kind of makes me legitimately sad to see multiple people double down on goals that are modest at best by the good teams standards like the Vikings but for us its the holy grail.   

 

But I think you are right but much of that has to do with the view about the Redskins around the league -- the Redskins the team with one of the worst records in the NFL in the last two decades so make the playoffs 2 years in the Alex Smith era, wow, what an accomplishment!  I agree actually.  But for a guy growing up as a fan in the 80s -- its a sad reality for me.  But each time I read somewhat hitting that point hard it hits home.  

 

Whether in agreement or not, your thoughts, views, passion, & presentation of those things has made you an invaluable asset to this site I have read for many many years. I am genuinely grateful for your presentation & the time you invest here sharing your love of the Redskins & the game in general. 

 

My uncle/godfather coached QBs in the NFL & my cousin is the dir of pro personnel with Indi, they each agree with you on Kirk, but I struggle to let go of certain moments, perhaps its the fan in me that fails to see him objectively. You are in far better company in agreement with them than you'd be with myself, there is no doubt. The knee/spike thing v Philly is what first comes to mind when I think of Kirk in the clutch; Entirely unfair. I actually wagered on him to win the mvp in 2016, the things I heard about Mcvay made me lose my mind a bit. 

 

If everyone disagreed & expressed their views in the manner you do here, the world would be a far better place. 

 

Httr

[TSO]

51 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

 

I have to say though, even if the team doesn’t reach the playoffs, I’ll be bummed if Gruden is fired.  Not because I believe he’s a great coach, but because 1) he’s the best we’ve had in a long while, 2) he fits in with our ‘unique’ FO situation and 3) there’s a legitimate chance that we lose excellent coaches like Tomsula, Gray and Callahan.  That last point, coupled with ‘starting over’ on O and D would likely set us back, perhaps significantly.

 

I’d also add to this excellent post that, were it to come to that, I would’ve really loved to see Jay get to develop a high draft pick at QB, as well. Would be such a shame if he never gets that chance here. 

[Skinsinparadise]

4 hours ago, volsmet said:

 

Whether in agreement or not, your thoughts, views, passion, & presentation of those things has made you an invaluable asset to this site I have read for many many years. I am genuinely grateful for your presentation & the time you invest here sharing your love of the Redskins & the game in general. 

 

My uncle/godfather coached QBs in the NFL & my cousin is the dir of pro personnel with Indi, they each agree with you on Kirk, but I struggle to let go of certain moments, perhaps its the fan in me that fails to see him objectively. You are in far better company in agreement with them than you'd be with myself, there is no doubt. The knee/spike thing v Philly is what first comes to mind when I think of Kirk in the clutch; Entirely unfair. I actually wagered on him to win the mvp in 2016, the things I heard about Mcvay made me lose my mind a bit. 

 

If everyone disagreed & expressed their views in the manner you do here, the world would be a far better place. 

 

Httr

 

Thanks and likewise/same to you as for your style of debating.  That's really cool about your family ties to the NFL.  As for Kirk in the clutch, I was at the game against Philly the first one in 2015 where he drove the ball down the field in the waning moments and grabbed the lead. That stuck with me.  If I recall last year he led the league for a time in 4th quarter comebacks.  Yes, he's had some bad moments too -- most QBs do.  I do think Kirk has something to prove in Minny though because the narrative about him pro and con would be imagine the dude with a really good supporting cast -- critics say that sets himself up to fail, the ones who like him think he will soar.  Will see.

 

One break probably Alex and Kirk deserve is to heat up during the season.  Mastering a new offense and getting off to a hot start isn't always easy right off the bat.  Granted Jay said recently the team has to win now.  But I'll give Alex a break for the first few games at least. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

13 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

You’d lose all your money then. The list is trash, always has been. There could be 7 Redskins on it and Alex number 1 and I would say the same thing.

Considering the list historically doesn't contain many Redskins, I'm not shocked that you find it to be trash.  Personally, I don't watch it and find it to merely be something for the NFLN to pass time through the offseason.  It can certainly be a popularity contest but at the same time - these votes are made by guys who actually play the game of football, unlike me or you. 

 

13 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

You must not be a very good investor then. Sounds like you avoid anything that hasn’t already boomed. Any stock that hasn’t already caught fire you’ll ignore because it hasn’t taken off yet? Invest all your money in stocks that have already peaked and watch it barely grow or dip below the buy price? Sounds about how you would go about business.

 

History is great, it ain’t everything. That is true of anything, sports as well. 

The Redskins stock peaked in 1992.  It's been steadily plummeting for 25 years.  Poor analogy, not shocked.  It also doesn't fit the context of anything that I was talking about, again - not shocked.

 

13 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Im not dumping on anybody, let’s be clear about that. I said something because very few of your posts contribute anything to the discussion other than, “well yeah, but here’s why you’re not right and the Redskins stink.” It colors your view on everything, since in your mind they have their hands on everything. The evidence suggests otherwise.

You constantly do this thing where you say 'You're not doing X' when you're doing just that.  Just like you'd like the Kirk discussion to cease, yet still find reasons to post your Kirk analysis for the umpteenth time that nobody reads or cares about.  Just like you're not a Bruce and Dan fan but the overwhelming majority of your posting history is saying 'Look, I'm not a Bruce fan, but look at X, Y and Z reasons why he's awesome.'.  For you of all people to have the audacity to question my contributions to this site is sad.  What's sadder is you trying to play keyboard psychologist about why I am the way I am.  Please leave talking investments and psychology to the folks that actually study those things.

 

13 hours ago, HardcoreZorn said:

Seriously, I could picture you saying if the Redskins win the Super Bowl, “I mean yeah they won, but it was a down year for the league and Dan was dancing like an asshat afterwards.” Maybe you don’t realize, but that’s how you come across. You must have a severe case of battered fan syndrome. 

This is another staple of your posting - THE BIG 'IF'.  IF. IF. IF. IF.  You like doing this thing where IF the Redskins win 11 games, or win a Super Bowl or whatever.  How about we just let them go ahead and do that and then we find out how I'll react to it?  I'll wait.

 

In conclusion and let me be clear here, IF the Redskins win the Super Bowl - I'd be ecstatic for the actual coaches and players of this team that I do like, which are plentiful.  I'd also be indebted to them forever for making it happen given the environment they've been provided.  If Jay Gruden can win a Super Bowl here with this organizational structure - he deserves a freaking monument.

 

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

11 hours ago, bh32 said:

The way i see it is if this team dosen't make the playoffs than someone needs to be fired..So much money and draft resources invested in players at just about every positon group  for them not to make the playoffs..No excuses

 

I think it depends on circumstances. Would you "fire someone" if we go 10-6 but miss out? 

 

I also don't quite understand the part I underlined above...most teams spend just about the same amount of money each season, so by your definition there should be 20 firings every January by all the teams who missed the playoffs. 

 

Edit: My point is this...for the first time since the mid-1990s it feels like we're building a young nucleus and making incremental progress. I realize that Turner never got us over the hump despite 7 years on the job, but I also feel like that was our best chance to turn into the type of contending team that could stick around (a coach in his prime with a youngish team). I would hate to pull the plug on something a year or two too early especially when it feels like we're doing it right. 

 

[bedlamVR]

On 6/19/2018 at 12:29 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I hate playing devil's advocate because my comments are often then taken out of context and then I get labeled by it.  But I'll risk it.  Let me start with repeating what I've said a zillion times.  I like Alex Smith.  I think he's a good QB.  

 

The idea that a 34 year old QB who relies a lot on his legs is only getting better -- is a wild card, not a slam dunk of course he is type of comment. Even his coach referred to his age when asked about why draft someone let alone trade up in the draft to make it happen.  I get the whole Andy spin later about the cap but that's like him, he's all class. 

 

If you got cap issues you don't dump your 18 million a year QB, you dump some of their supporting cast.  That's how other teams roll.  I think we'd be condemning Alex not praising him by saying hey Reid felt that Alex was the guy who had to go to make cap room, not the other guys.  So I'd take Andy at his most honest when asked about the drill initially where he cited Alex's age -- that narrative IMO is much nicer to Alex IMO. 

 

I give some leeway to loving the new toy because when we acquire new players I like, I get overly effusive too.  I bought into the McNabb narrative and most of the new guys acquired.   For me of course Paul Richardson will be great (feel invested in the dude since I touted him before we took him in FA).  We can ignore the 2 ACL injuries.  And focus on how he was emerging last year and he's young.  You cling on to the positive narrative.

 

For Alex, I'dd add, I noticed some overlap with the Kirk critics and Alex love so yeah I can get that too from that perspective. Ditto he's cool guy.  So how can't you root for him.  You add a little off season hoopla which is common at this time of the year and it all feels great.   And I hope the narrative does turn out great.  I think at least for a season or two it will be good. 

 

But I can't help noticing how Alex's critics say almost the identical thing Kirk's critics say about him -- almost word for word.  There is an odd relief by some in both fan bases that both are gone.   The two are actually even similar people IMO -- Scot himself talked about that in an interview last year.  Alex being the more mellow of the two.  And personally I like both QBs -- as players and personalities.   

 

But both QBs are wild cards as to answering their critics.  For Kirk the narrative is he's been considered a guy who has done well without a great supporting cast -- lack of defense/running game.  The people who like him say imagine if he had a well rounded team?  Well, now he's got it.  And he's on the spot.  For Alex for his long career its he never had a 4000 yard season until last year (and he's almost always had top 10 running games) -- does he need the best deep threat in the league, one of the best RBs, and TEs to succeed at that scale -- or can he do it without all of that?  To your point, is he really just getting better and better in his mid 30s?  The answer IMO we don't know. 

 

I like both QBs but IMO neither of those answers are self evident -- for either guy.   I got my theories for how it will go down.  But that's all it is a theory.   They both have something to prove IMO for different reasons.

 

 

I think Alex and I would imagine Kirk are very similar QBs in the grand scheme of things.

 

I think both QBs are potentially good - but not great QBs - and they are both difficult to part with but you just have the feeling both teams could do better... time will tell if thats right..

 

It is just about what the respective teams need right now - the Cheifs are a youngish team with an establish coach who isn't going anywhere and they wanted to refresh their roster to start another push with Mahomes 

 

The Skins desperately need some stability at the most important position on the field - but not stability at any cost . 

 

I give the rest of the roster a whole lot more credit than some  - and i have grown to really like Jay  

 

 Kirk when equipped with DeSean Jackson (best deep threat in the game) Garcon, and a healthy Jordan  Reed gave us - not much in terms of wins - and that is with the GENIUS mcvay running the offense 

 

People blame the rest of the team for losses (the defense the lack of running game) and i see the point but Kirk himself came up small in very important games - and made more than his share of bone headed mistakes - People blame the D for the loss against the saints but lets not forget  the intentional grounding that pushed us out of FG range in the dying moments of regulation... ( reminisent of the end of the half mistakes such as taking a knee instead of spiking the ball to stop the clock) 

 

I would be uncomfortable going ALL  in with the Kirk Cousins level of QB. 

 

I would be uncomfortable going all in with a 34 year old Alex smith - too - and we aren't really, not in the same way - As people keep saying our aspirations are for the playoffs - ( i can guarantee no player is thinking like that) 

 

And if we can go from a perennial 8-8 team to a 10-6 team - a competitor then who knows what can happen - once you get to the playoffs players get hot, there is a run of good luck - bang your in a superbowl and an unheard of WR is catching a TD with his helmet and the team of destiny is going home 18-1  

 

Smith doesn't need to carry the team - he, just like kirk needs to stablize it 

 

 

 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

5 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I think it depends on circumstances. Would you "fire someone" if we go 10-6 but miss out? 

 

I also don't quite understand the part I underlined above...most teams spend just about the same amount of money each season, so by your definition there should be 20 firings every January by all the teams who missed the playoffs. 

 

Can't speak for him, but from my perspective - given the amount of resources Bruce has devoted to the QB position alone over the last 3 seasons, salary and trades included, for a team that still misses the playoffs should be the final nail in his coffin.  Unfortunately, it could end up being the nail in the wrong coffin - Jay.

 

If the Skins miss the playoffs at 10-6 coming off of the injury plagued season last year, JKC really did put a curse on this organization.  I don't think you can end up being that unlucky two years in a row.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just now, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

Can't speak for him, but from my perspective - given the amount of resources Bruce has devoted to the QB position alone over the last 3 seasons, salary and trades included, for a team that still misses the playoffs should be the final nail in his coffin.  Unfortunately, it could end up being the nail in the wrong coffin - Jay.

 

If the Skins miss the playoffs at 10-6 coming off of the injury plagued season last year, JKC really did put a curse on this organization.  I don't think you can end up being that unlucky two years in a row.

 

It was just one of many examples I could think of demonstrating that dealing in absolutes may be a mistake. 

 

I edited my above post with this point, but it finally feels like we have guys in their prime (both coaches and players) and a chance to sustain some semblance to contending or competing. Everything else since Snyder has been here has been 2-3 years spurts and rebuilds. We've either gotten legendary coaches on their farewell tour or unproven guys who were incompetent. 

 

This might not turn into a great team, but it feels like we're building something with the same leaders year in and year out. If the Caps have shown us ANYTHING this year, it's that sometimes great teams need time. Well, if a team built like that (with the best player in the league and other consensus stars) then why wouldn't a football team (much harder to build and keep together) be afforded that same patience. 

 

Unless we absolutely tank, I want to ride this out with this core and this coach at least until Smith has played three years. By then, Williams and Kerrigan will be getting to the end of their careers and our QB will be in his late-30s. If it hasn't worked by then, we can blow it up.