zskins

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

Recommended Posts

Great OT drive by Cousins, doing what so many said he couldn't and putting his team on his shoulder and winning a huge game. First road playoff win for the Vikes in 15 years. Next week is going to be rough for the Vikes, but, hopefully, this helps get the monkey off of Kirk's back.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

 

Damn, Wentz is hurt...not surprised in the least lol...

 

Hate the Eagles but that injury wasn’t Wentz’s fault. Dirty hit from Clowney.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The choker narrative is such a tired concept. Kirk is a very good QB and today’s game was a good example that provided you have a team that can make the playoffs, a good QB like him will position you to win games. 
 

There are so many talented players and coaches who have gone through this franchise this past decade and it’s a really sad indictment of the team culture that most of them left on poor terms.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

The choker narrative is such a tired concept. Kirk is a very good QB and today’s game was a good example that provided you have a team that can make the playoffs, a good QB like him will position you to win games. 
 

There are so many talented players and coaches who have gone through this franchise this past decade and it’s a really sad indictment of the team culture that most of them left on poor terms.

It's not a tired concept but an extremely valid one borne out by performance in certain situations again and again.  However, because someone has problems with pressure for X amount of time doesn't mean they won't ever be in a position to overcome it.  It's a bit different but Rich Gannon wasn't a star in this league but eventually with enough baseline talent and hard work and it "clicking" (sometimes it never does or only occasionally---see Rypien) he was a great QB for a bit.  Randall Cunningham was talented but something was always missing in the moments that counted most (that and unfortunate injury.)  Some time spent building himself back up and he was actually a very good pocket QB, something he was derided for earlier in his career.

 

Sometimes players need to be in different situations to thrive.  Don't begrudge them that but the notion that somehow this was always what Kirk was is patently silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin said:

It's not a tired concept but an extremely valid one borne out by performance in certain situations again and again.  However, because someone has problems with pressure for X amount of time doesn't mean they won't ever be in a position to overcome it.  It's a bit different but Rich Gannon wasn't a star in this league but eventually with enough baseline talent and hard work and it "clicking" (sometimes it never does or only occasionally---see Rypien) he was a great QB for a bit.  Randall Cunningham was talented but something was always missing in the moments that counted most (that and unfortunate injury.)  Some time spent building himself back up and he was actually a very good pocket QB, something he was derided for earlier in his career.

 

Sometimes players need to be in different situations to thrive.  Don't begrudge them that but the notion that somehow this was always what Kirk was is patently silly.

I do think there's something to the concept of choking, but I also think it's hard to separate out in football because of sample size. 

If Kirk is always on mediocre, 8-8 teams, is it surprising that he frequently loses to good teams and feasts against really bad teams? That's what we'd expect from teams with .500 records. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved seeing Kirk succeed today but I don’t like Minnesota’s chances against the 49ers because I think Kyle Shanahan is better than Zimmer who is too conservative.  Zimmer almost lost the game today because he is so cautious, he tried to sit on a lead and he was fortunate Brees didn’t score down the stretch.  Zimmer was bailed out by the coin flip and a couple of bold throws by Cousins and a great catch by Thielen.  I hope he plays more aggressively in SF.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Damn, Kirk did it...definitely surprised.

He pulled it out and made plays when they needed it. 
 

Kudos to him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm eating my crow.  Kirk actually won the game for the Vikings.  He not only saved Zimmer's job but probably saved his job.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I know I've said it before, but some Skins fans definitely sound like Cowboys fans defending Romo lol... only at least Romo was still on the Cowboys while they were doing so. This is aimed at what I've read on twitter, by the way, not on this thread lol...

 

 

1 hour ago, Vilandil Tasardur said:

I do think there's something to the concept of choking, but I also think it's hard to separate out in football because of sample size. 

If Kirk is always on mediocre, 8-8 teams, is it surprising that he frequently loses to good teams and feasts against really bad teams? That's what we'd expect from teams with .500 records. 

 

The assessments of Kirk aren't just based on W/L records, though. you can actually tell if a QB is playing well even if he's surrounded by mediocre talent and the game results in a loss, just like you can tell if a QB is playing poorly but is surrounded by excellent talent and the game results in a win.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 

Hate the Eagles but that injury wasn’t Wentz’s fault. Dirty hit from Clowney.

 

yeah, but Wentz and Injury/not playing in the playoffs has become a trend now. Much like with Jordan Reed seemingly injured every season...even if the injuries were not his fault, it's still an issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin said:

Sometimes players need to be in different situations to thrive.  Don't begrudge them that but the notion that somehow this was always what Kirk was is patently silly.


I think Kirk thrived in DC as well. Retroactively looking at the state of the Redskins right now, he likely was the difference between a 4-5 win team and elevated it a roughly 7-8 win team. 
 

Ultimately, I don’t think the choker label can be applied to a QB who is good but not elite. The scale on which he’s judged has always been disproportionate to his ability.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
2 minutes ago, No Excuses said:


I think Kirk thrived in DC as well. Retroactively looking at the state of the Redskins right now, he likely was the difference between a 4-5 win team and elevated it a roughly 7-8 win team. 
 

Ultimately, I don’t think the choker label can be applied to a QB who is good but not elite. The scale on which he’s judged has always been disproportionate to his ability.

 

Without him and with Alex Smith, Colt McCoy, Mark Sanchez, and Josh Johnson instead, the Skins were a 7-win team...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Without him and....

 

 

10-22 record since his departure, so an average of five wins per season. 
 

It really is ok to admit that Kirk made this team better and his departure made it worse.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

10-22 record since his departure, so an average of five wins per season. 
 

It really is ok to admit that Kirk made this team better and his departure made it worse.

6 of those 10 wins came from his replacement though, before getting injured. Who knows what would’ve happened had that injury not happened 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

10-22 record since his departure, so an average of five wins per season. 
 

It really is ok to admit that Kirk made this team better and his departure made it worse.

It’s some sick **** that folks around here can’t admit this. 

7 minutes ago, Cooleyfan1993 said:

6 of those 10 wins came from his replacement though, before getting injured. Who knows what would’ve happened had that injury not happened 

Idk but I’m pretty confident the offense would still continue to crater from where it was when 8 was around. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

10-22 record since his departure, so an average of five wins per season. 
 

It really is ok to admit that Kirk made this team better and his departure made it worse.

 

You said his presence made the team a 7-8 win team. I said even with his absence last year, the team was a 7 win team.

 

You are a perfect example of a Skins fan acting like a Cowboys fan defending Romo lol...their argument at the time was that it was Romo's brilliance that raised the lowly Cowboys team and coaches to 8-8 records, and that without him they would be 4-12. Of course, there were some Cowboys fans who pointed out that, in 2010, the Cowboys were 1-7 before Romo got hurt, and 5-3 after Kitna replaced him. For the more intelligent Cowboys fans (oxymoron, I know lol), they understood that to mean claiming Romo alone elevated the team to mediocrity is questionable at best, and most likely not true...and that it did not mean they felt Kitna was a better QB...just that since teams win and lose games, not QBs, it's very possible that a wide assortment of QBs out there could have done enough to guide a team to a 7-8 win season. Just like a wide assortment of QBs out there could guide the 2016 and 2017 Redskins to a 7-8 win season. Alex Smith guided the team to a 6-3 record before breaking his leg, and with practically the same roster surrounding him that Kirk had.

 

Having a carousel of FIVE different QBs since then (not including Smith) and two different coaches probably played a larger role in the Skins going on a losing streak than Kirk being gone did.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Having a carousel of FIVE different QBs since then 


Today Califan came to the incredible realization that instability at the QB position, which could have been avoided by keeping Kirk, is bad for the team.

 

8 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

You are a perfect example of a Skins fan acting like a Cowboys fan defending Romo lol..

 

 

Ok whatever this means. I’m not the weirdo spinning a 10-22 record since Kirk’s departure into the narrative that the Redskins are just fine without him. To anyone who isn’t a delusional homer, it is obvious that anyone would rather watch Kirk win us playoff games in OT than the raging dumpster fire of the past two seasons.

 

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, No Excuses said:


Today Califan came to the incredible realization that instability at the QB position, which could have been avoided by keeping Kirk, is bad for the team.

 

 

 

Ok whatever this means. I’m not the weirdo spinning a 10-22 record since Kirk’s departure into the narrative that the Redskins are just fine without him. To anyone who isn’t a delusional homer, it is obvious that anyone would rather watch Kirk win us playoff games in OT than the raging dumpster fire of the past two seasons.

 

 

Yet another person who has a problem identifying logic lol...

 

And wasn't it you who chalked up the Skins' lousy record was due to Kirk's absence, and mentioned nothing at all about any other factors that would have played a role??...I could have sworn that was you. Lemme go check again...

 

(pleasant musak plays...)

 

Yep, that was you...go back up and re-read your post so you'll know I'm not lying.

 

And to use your own argument against you, if Alex Smith had not broken his leg, we would have avoided instability at the QB position as well...and just a reminder, the Skins were 6-3 when his stability was behind center. Which would seem to contradict your conclusion that Kirk "likely was the difference between a 4-5 win team and elevated it a roughly 7-8 win team."

 

So which was it: instability at the QB position, or Kirk's amazing QB play? Or is your stance that terrible QB play will make a mediocre 7-8 win team become a 4-5 win team?

 

Was the team so terrible that only a QB of Kirk's level could bring it to 7-8 wins...or was the team a 7-8 win team as long as the QB play wasn't gawd-awful and the coaching staff wasn't in flux?...because that second point is the only real logical conclusion anyone can draw from what occurred both here and with the Vikings.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

Califan, finding new ways to deny the obvious since 2015....lol...

 

As I've said before, I like it when a good outing by Kirk inflates your arrogance lol...it always comes back to bite you in the ass, without fail. You're like the Redskins fans version of Westy.

Now here's where you say "blah blah blah" or something like that there--oops, sorry guys: spoiler alert.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

As I've said before, I like it when a good outing by Kirk inflates your arrogance lol...it always comes back to bite you in the ass, without fail. You're like the Redskins fans version of Westy.

Now here's where you say "blah blah blah" or something like that there--oops, sorry guys: spoiler alert.

 

Do you hate Cousins succeeding because it makes Bruce Allen look like an even bigger idiot for trading and extending Alex Smith?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

yeah, but Wentz and Injury/not playing in the playoffs has become a trend now. Much like with Jordan Reed seemingly injured every season...even if the injuries were not his fault, it's still an issue.

 

With Reed, the concussion he got this season wasn't his fault but he already had a ton of concussions s it added to the pile.  Wentz's situation on that front different.  Sometimes, you can just be unlucky.  For example, Guice is now labeled by most as injury prone and we can't trust him now but his last injury was a dude who just hit him in his knee with his helmet.  So luck sometimes weighs in.  Wentz has had his shares of injuries don't get me wrong but tough for me to give him a hard time for that one. 

Share this post


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

And to use your own argument against you, if Alex Smith had not broken his leg, we would have avoided instability at the QB position as well...and just a reminder, the Skins were 6-3 when his stability was behind center. Which would seem to contradict your conclusion that Kirk "likely was the difference between a 4-5 win team and elevated it a roughly 7-8 win team."

 

So which was it: instability at the QB position, or Kirk's amazing QB play? Or is your stance that terrible QB play will make a mediocre 7-8 win team become a 4-5 win team?

 

Was the team so terrible that only a QB of Kirk's level could bring it to 7-8 wins...or was the team a 7-8 win team as long as the QB play wasn't gawd-awful and the coaching staff wasn't in flux?...because that second point is the only real logical conclusion anyone can draw from what occurred both here and with the Vikings.


The denial of reality is amazing.
 

We have been over this before. Alex Smith was not a suitable replacement for Kirk and a replacement for Smith, likely through the draft, in the following year would have been warranted. Before he was hurt, he was playing like a below average QB and there was already frustration building with his dink and dunk nonsense. 
 

Cherry picking a 6-3 start to make your point is silly. We had an entire seasons worth of evidence this season that this team was really bad, that the hot start from the previous season was an overachieving team and that none of the QBs, including Alex Smith, have been able to replace Kirk’s production at the position. The 10-22 record since Kirk’s departure speaks for itself.
 

Extremely silly argument. No one is saying that we lost Tom Brady in his prime. But we did lose a good player, who made this team better and every shred of evidence, our record and the performance of all of his replacements, points to the fact that we are worse without him.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.