zskins

NFL.com: Kirk Cousins tops biggest contracts (Special rule---you can refer to the Redskins in this thread---M.E.T.)

Recommended Posts

The Bears, Lions, and Vikings equal pretty much 4-6 games most years vs non winning teams during those years, for starters. The Packers play them twice.


Even if its just 4 a year vs non winning divisional opponents, Do you really think that the Packers play 8 of 10 vs non division opponents year to year with 9-7 or better records?

 

:blink:

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

Wonder why I laughed at this post?

 

You claim that Rodgers record over a 7 year span vs winning teams is 47-31? 78 games vs winning teams over 7 years?

 

I mean the first obvious mistake is that 2009-2016 is more than 7 years. 

 

But then 78 games vs winning, actual 9-7 or better teams over 8, yes 2009-2016 equals 8 seasons. That's just not possible. 10 of 16 a year? Come on man.

 

Hilarious.

 

You have to be employed by Dan Snyder.

 

It includes "foil wins"--teams that would have had a winning record if they did not lose to that QB.

 

Didn't you wonder what that column meant? Or were you too quick to dismiss anything that didn't prop up Kirk to even notice it or wonder what it meant...because you obviously didn't know.

 

And did you even bother to see if it's possible to have 10 games a season against teams that either had a winning record or "Foil" teams? (for the record, 8-7-1 is a winning record as well). Don't worry, I'll do the work for you:

 

2009 (9 games)

Wins (4):

Cowboys 11-5

49ers 8-8 (Foil Win)

Ravens 9-7

Cardinals 10-8

 

Losses (5):

Bengals 10-6

Vikings 12-4 (twice)

Steelers 9-7

Cardinals 10-6 (playoffs)

 

 

2010 (10 games)

Wins (8):

Eagles 10-6 (twice, once in playoffs)

Jets 11-5

Giants 10-6

Bears 11-5 (twice, once in playoffs)

Falcons 13-3 (playoffs)

Steelers 12-4 (Super Bowl)

 

Losses (2):

Bears 11-5

Falcons 13-3

 

 

 

2011 (9 games)

Wins (8):

Saints 13-3

Bears 8-8 (Foil Wins)

Broncos 8-8 (Foil Win)

Falcons 10-6

Chargers 8-8 (Foil Win)

Lions 10-6

Giants 9-7

Raiders 8-8 (Foil Win)

 

Losses (1):

Giants 9-7 (playoffs)

 

 

2012 (12 games)

Wins (6):

Bears 10-6 (twice)

Texans 12-4

Rams 7-8-1 (Foil Win)

Vikings 10-6 (twice, once in playoffs)

 

Losses (6):

49ers 11-4-1 (twice, once in the playoffs)

Seahawks 11-5

Colts 11-5

Giants 9-7

Vikings 10-6

 

 

2013 (5 games)

Wins (2):

Ravens 8-8 (Foil Win)

Chicago 8-8 (Foil Win)

 

Losses (3):

49ers 12-4 (twice, once in the playoffs)

Bengals 11-5

 

 

 

2014  (11 games)

Wins (6):

Dolphins 8-8 (Foil Win)

Panthers 7-8-1 (Foil Win)

Eagles 10-6

Patriots 12-4

Lions 11-5

Cowboys 12-4 (playoffs)

 

Losses (5):

Seahawks 12-4 (twice, once in playoffs)

Lions 11-5

Patriots 12-4

Bills 9-7

 

 

2015 (9 games)

Wins (4):

Seahawks 10-6

Chiefs 11-5

Vikings 11-5

Redskins 9-7 (playoffs)

 

Losses (5):

Broncos 12-4

Panthers 15-1

Cardinals 13-3 (twice, once in the playoffs)

Vikings 11-5

 

 

 

2016 (13 games)

Wins (8):

Lions 9-7 (twice)

Giants 11-5 (twice, once in playoffs)

Texans 9-7

Seahawks 10-5-1

Vikings 8-8 (Foil Win)

Cowboys 13-3 (playoffs)

 

Losses (5);

Cowboys 13-3

Falcons 11-5 (twice, once in playoffs)

Titans 9-7

Redskins 8-7-1

 

 

Grand Total: 78 games in 7--er, 8 seasons.

 

My guess is, not only did you not understand what "foil wins" were (or even notice they were included), you also didn't consider playoff wins and losses in the equation...nor did you take into account that when you finish in either 1st or 2nd place as often as the Packers have, you will have a ****load of winning teams on your schedule. Nor did you bother to even see if it's possible for the Packers to have 10 games against winning teams in multiple seasons. You just got over-eager because you thought you would (finally) get to prove me wrong and posted before actually thinking anything through. Don't worry...it happens regularly with several others here on ES as well.

 

But I get it...my saying 7 years instead of 8 years and claiming I'm employed by Dan Snyder negates all of the above. So you got that going for ya.

 

Feel free to respond with the laughing reaction thing again lol...it never bothers me. When people who disagree with me do that, I usually take it as a sign that I've won the argument. 👍

 

 

 

Edited by Califan007
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 10:49 PM, NoCalMike said:

 

The defender made a nice play to secure the pick, but the WR was not open, especially in a situation where you are throwing to the sideline which gives the defender more time to recover and come back to the ball. 

It hit his receiver straight in both hands.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Feel free to respond with the laughing reaction thing again lol...it never bothers me. When people who disagree with me do that, I usually take it as a sign that I've won the argument. 👍

 

 

:rofl89:

 

The games in December will be the truer test for Kirk. This should be an interesting and fun month. :)

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Califan007 said:

But I get it...my saying 7 years instead of 8 years and claiming I'm employed by Dan Snyder negates all of the above. So you got that going for ya.

 

Feel free to respond with the laughing reaction thing again lol...it never bothers me. When people who disagree with me do that, I usually take it as a sign that I've won the argument. 👍

 

Cot daymn you a cold ass m'fer 🤣☠️

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zskins said:

 

:rofl89:

 

The games in December will be the truer test for Kirk. This should be an interesting and fun month. :)

 

 

Only two of the remaining 4 teams have wiing records )at the moment) so he should be good to go for a 10-6 record and a playoff birth.

 

Once he's in the playoffs, though lol...

 

giphy.gif

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

Only two of the remaining 4 teams have wiing records )at the moment) so he should be good to go for a 10-6 record and a playoff birth.

 

Once he's in the playoffs, though lol...

 

giphy.gif

 

0-3 vs Trubisky, tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

Only two of the remaining 4 teams have wiing records )at the moment) so he should be good to go for a 10-6 record and a playoff birth.

 

Once he's in the playoffs, though lol...

 

 

 

By the way it is berth and not birth. Unless that was a Freudian slip and you were thinking about God telling him to do stuff and Kirk being born again and stuff due to it ....lol

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 12/2/2019 at 8:55 AM, Califan007 said:

I need to get my "Kirk can't beat winning teams" posts quota filled before tonight lol...I get the feeling it will definitely be going the other way. at least for this week.

 

So...*ahem*...

 

Notice the "winning teams" Kirk had beaten this season are no longer winning teams.

 

Ok so Kirk has to actually beat winning teams but you bring out Aaron Rodgers stats that includes pretending that 8-8 teams are winning teams because they would have presumably beaten the Packers if anybody else was starting at QB? (Then act like I'm ignorant and not in the know about your misleading stats that make Rodgers barely .500 W-L look much better than reality)

 

8 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

It includes "foil wins"--teams that would have had a winning record if they did not lose to that QB.

 

Didn't you wonder what that column meant? Or were you too quick to dismiss anything that didn't prop up Kirk to even notice it or wonder what it meant...because you obviously didn't know.

 

 

 

 

I applaud your time spent calculating Rodgers "foil wins" (8-8 teams) into an otherwise barely winning record vs winning teams.

 

 

Why doesn't KC get the same consideration? Wasn't Dallas 5-3 when they played the Vikings at home and lost? Now you claim that one doesn't count but they are still 6-6 so it's a "foil win" which is apparently now an actual winning record. Same thing with the Raiders.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SkinsFTW said:

I applaud your time spent calculating Rodgers "foil wins" (8-8 teams) into an otherwise barely winning record vs winning teams.

 

 

Why doesn't KC get the same consideration? Wasn't Dallas 5-3 when they played the Vikings at home and lost? Now you claim that one doesn't count but they are still 6-6 so it's a "foil win" which is apparently now an actual winning record. Same thing with the Raiders.

Did you even read the section of Cali's post that you quoted? "Foil wins" are teams that lost their starting QBs. Neither the Cowboys nor the Raiders have lost their starting QBs.

Edited by NickyJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NickyJ said:

Did you even read the section of Cali's post that you quoted? "Foil wins" are teams that lost their starting QBs. Neither the Cowboys nor the Raiders have lost their starting QBs.

 

Apparently you read something that didn't even exist in the post that you claim that I failed to read.

 

Nice!

13 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

It includes "foil wins"--teams that would have had a winning record if they did not lose to that QB.

 

 

 

 

 

Explain this to me Nicky...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

Apparently you read something that didn't even exist in the post that you claim that I failed to read.

 

Nice!

 

Explain this to me Nicky...

"teams that would have had a winning record if they did not lose to that QB." Meaning teams who lost their QBs to injury, and therefore were less likely to win because the backup is not as good. Neither the Cowboys nor the Raiders have lost their starting QBs to injury this season.

 

Edit: On my 8th re-reading of the post today, I think I can now apply for disability benefits. I can ace the "legally blind" test. I'm sorry.

 

Regardless of injured QBs or not, the Cowboys and Raiders aren't counted this season because the season isn't over yet. There's still plenty of time for both of them to lose out the rest of the way, like how the Cowboys are getting blown out tonight.

Edited by NickyJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dak entered the week leading the NFL in passing yards. I think that sounds a lot like a 4 year fully guaranteed contract is in order. Kirk had to go fully guaranteed because it wouldn't be fair to other QBs, and since Kirk took one for the team, it's time for Dak to shine.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 12:42 PM, zskins said:

 

:rofl89:

 

The games in December will be the truer test for Kirk. This should be an interesting and fun month. :)

 

Wait!?!?!? I thought November was going to be the test since Kirktober was over a month ago. The true test round here is wherever the goalposts have to be moved to make him a failure.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Very Kirk-esque performance from Dak last night.

 

#garbagetime

 

It's not garbage time if you complete the comeback. See the Broncos game a couple weeks ago, or 28-3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

 

It's not garbage time if you complete the comeback. See the Broncos game a couple weeks ago, or 28-3.

 

See Monday Night and Thursday Night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

See Monday Night and Thursday Night.

 

Monday night was close enough that I won't call it garbage time..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

Wait!?!?!? I thought November was going to be the test since Kirktober was over a month ago. The true test round here is wherever the goalposts have to be moved to make him a failure.

 

I personally don't care about Sept, Oct or Nov. It has always been December for me. So you obviously have me confused with others as far as the goal posting moving thing.  

I don't need to move any posts to make Kirk a failure. Kirk failure will be due to his own doing. Keep in mind Kirk is the one who bet on himself and wanted a bigger paycheck. If Kirk wants to shut people up then he needs to perform better than the avg. game manager type of QBs. 

 

So far Kirk is doing the same things he has always done, except he has more money in his bank account though.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, zskins said:

 

I personally don't care about Sept, Oct or Nov. It has always been December for me. So you obviously have me confused with others as far as the goal posting moving thing.  

I don't need to move any posts to make Kirk a failure. Kirk failure will be due to his own doing. Keep in mind Kirk is the one who bet on himself and wanted a bigger paycheck. If Kirk wants to shut people up then he needs to perform better than the avg. game manager type of QBs. 

 

So far Kirk is doing the same things he has always done, except he has more money in his bank account though.

 

Is Aaron Rodgers a failure because he has only won it once in his umpteen year career?  Cause he has failed to live up to his money and HOFer status every single year but one.

 

And Kirk is in the conversation for MVP. He is not an average game manager, that's ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fat Stupid Loser said:

 

And Kirk is in the conversation for MVP. He is not an average game manager, that's ridiculous.

 

He is the definition of a game manager. And that’s ok. Y’all need to come back to reality lol

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.