Serious Question: Do you regret letting Cousins go?

[No Excuses]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

So I stick to my original point: would anyone have given Cousins a fully guaranteed contract the offseason the Vikings signed him? 

Yes. Managed well, we are a team that contends for the playoffs with Kirk. Having a reliable QB allows you to focus on other weak spots on the team. 
 

Instead we’ve wasted numerous draft picks trying to replace him. 
 

This team is in its current bad state for many reasons but losing Kirk is probably the most consequential one. Even with a bad Alex Smith, they were playing well last year.
 

We’ve somehow managed to go from good (Kirk) to bad (Alex Smith) to terrible (Johnson, Keenum, McCoy, Haskins) at QB. 

[Renegade7]

25 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Yes. Managed well, we are a team that contends for the playoffs with Kirk. Having a reliable QB allows you to focus on other weak spots on the team. 
 

Instead we’ve wasted numerous draft picks trying to replace him. 
 

This team is in its current bad state for many reasons but losing Kirk is probably the most consequential one. Even with a bad Alex Smith, they were playing well last year.
 

We’ve somehow managed to go from good (Kirk) to bad (Alex Smith) to terrible (Johnson, Keenum, McCoy, Haskins) at QB. 

 

Those contending for the playoffs and not getting in, 8-8, 7-9, 7-8-1, is where this "we're close" narrative came from.  Wed be mediocre at best with Kirk, him leaving proved how not close we are.  Keeping Kirk means keeping Allen, which means mediocre at best.

[No Excuses]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

 Keeping Kirk means keeping Allen, which means mediocre at best. 

 

There is something really circular and flawed with this argument. It's not a given that keeping Kirk would have meant that Allen has perpetual job security. Keeping Kirk would have meant that we get to build the team without wasting draft picks and money on much worse talent. The Bruce Allen problem is a completely separate issue.

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

There is something really circular and flawed with this argument. It's not a given that keeping Kirk would have meant that Allen has perpetual job security. Keeping Kirk would have meant that we get to build the team without wasting draft picks and money on much worse talent. The Bruce Allen problem is a completely separate issue.

 

In a logical way of looking at things, I agree with you.  But this guy seems as secure as hes ever been and this is as bad as theyve been.  Its Ernie all over again.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 minute ago, No Excuses said:

There is something really circular and flawed with this argument. It's not a given that keeping Kirk would have meant that Allen has perpetual job security. Keeping Kirk would have meant that we get to build the team without wasting draft picks and money on much worse talent. The Bruce Allen problem is a completely separate issue.

Kirk was the scapegoat when he was here, that he's a choker who can't get it done when it matters.  While there was some truth to that from a 10,000 foot view, most rational people could see a very flawed team that was primarily competitive as a result of the passing game, not the other way around.  All that said, to say that I think if Kirk was still around we'd obviously be better than we've been - it wouldn't be enough, and the majority of the fingers would be pointing at him.

 

[No Excuses]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

In a logical way of looking at things, I agree with you.  But this guy seems as secure as hes ever been and this is as bad as theyve been.  Its Ernie all over again.

 

If we assume that Bruce Allen has permanent job security, despite the record, then honestly I take a team with a ceiling of 10 wins flanked by some 6-9 win seasons with Kirk over the current unwatchable dumpster fire.

[Renegade7]

Just now, No Excuses said:

 

If we assume that Bruce Allen has permanent job security, despite the record, then honestly I take a team with a ceiling of 10 wins flanked by some 6-9 win seasons with Kirk over the current unwatchable dumpster fire.

 

I disagree because even though it took awhile, Ernie didnt have permanent job security, he eventually got fired. 

 

The fan experience is horrible eve with 6-9 win seasons, the fan base was dying off anyway.  Ernie got a chance at two rebuilds and failed at both, Bruce has mow done the same, is it enough to fire him? 

 

This is on the assumption the Kirk doesnt pull a Trent on us at some point.  He didnt want to be here, the damage was done, it was too late by time we started talking franchise tags, let alone LTDs that were never going to happen.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Kirk was the scapegoat when he was here, that he's a choker who can't get it done when it matters.  While there was some truth to that from a 10,000 foot view, most rational people could see a very flawed team that was primarily competitive as a result of the passing game, not the other way around.  All that said, to say that I think if Kirk was still around we'd obviously be better than we've been - it wouldn't be enough, and the majority of the fingers would be pointing at him.

 

 

I mostly agree with this.   Though there is one wildcard dynamic if he was here now which is the running game is actually decent compared to what he had.   It wouldn't shock me if they went 10-6 versus the 8-7-1, 9-7, 7-9 run with Peterson-Guice versus the jags he was playing with in Robert Kelley-Perine.

 

But agree with the overall point that there is no way our FO can compete with Minny or most good teams as for building a winning roster.  And yeah no doubt he would be scapegoated.  The passing game was arguably the strength of the team when he was here -- yet many blamed that same passing game for the team falling short.  I guess we got what we want now -- a crap passing game but hey at least our expectations are so low for it now that there isn't that same angst. 

[Darrell Green Fan]

If Kirk was still here I'm pretty confident this team would be in the 8/9 win territory while playing meaningful games this time of year.  They probably would come up short, it's Kirk's MO.  But I sure miss meaningful games in late November.  Now I am resigned to 4- 5 win seasons and mathematical elimination by Halloween for the next decade.  And it didn't have to be this way.

[OVCChairman]

17 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

If Kirk was still here I'm pretty confident this team would be in the 8/9 win territory while playing meaningful games this time of year.  They probably would come up short, it's Kirk's MO.  But I sure miss meaningful games in late November.  Now I am resigned to 4- 5 win seasons and mathematical elimination by Halloween for the next decade.  And it didn't have to be this way.

 

 

I respectfully disagree.  I don't think Kirk Cousins is worth 6-7 wins on this roster.  There are very few QBs in the league that are worth that much in the win column.  I will say he likely improves a few wins, maybe 3, but to expect any single player to come to any single roster and be able to improve that team by that many games is tough.  It's likely that the Pats would win without Brady, maybe step back a few games, but not 7.  The Saints won with Bridgewater while Brees was out, who is a sure-fire HOF QB.  Tannehill stepped in with Tennessee and has shown what a level of competent QB play can do with a team and we will see how sustainable that is.  I guess Cousin's could have the same type of impact, but i feel like that is a rare instance.  Most of the time 1 player cannot just do it all by themselves.  There is a whole team, and we have a lot of holes.  

[Veryoldschool]

Just now, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I respectfully disagree.  I don't think Kirk Cousins is worth 6-7 wins on this roster.  There are very few QBs in the league that are worth that much in the win column.  I will say he likely improves a few wins, maybe 3, but to expect any single player to come to any single roster and be able to improve that team by that many games is tough.  It's likely that the Pats would win without Brady, maybe step back a few games, but not 7.  The Saints won with Bridgewater while Brees was out, who is a sure-fire HOF QB.  Tannehill stepped in with Tennessee and has shown what a level of competent QB play can do with a team and we will see how sustainable that is.  I guess Cousin's could have the same type of impact, but i feel like that is a rare instance.  Most of the time 1 player cannot just do it all by themselves.  There is a whole team, and we have a lot of holes.  

 

Baloney.  The 2019 roster is more talented and healthier than the 2017 team he led to 7-9.   This team would be a .500 team with Cousins and maybe with Smith.

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

Baloney.  The 2019 roster is more talented and healthier than the 2017 team he led to 7-9.   This team would be a .500 team with Cousins and maybe with Smith.

 

Maybe on defense, but this offense, hell no.  Right now theres no CT, both Reed and Davis are out for the year, and our best WR is a rookie.  Do we even need to get to oline with or without Trent?  Does Guice count as healthy now because hes finally completing full games for the first time in his career?

 

This offensive roster is post-apocalyptic bad.

[Veryoldschool]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

 

Maybe on defense, but this offense, hell no.  Right now theres no CT, both Reed and Davis are out for the year, and our best WR is a rookie.  Do we even need to get to oline with or without Trent?  Does Guice count as healthy now because hes finally completing full games for the first time in his career?

 

This offensive roster is post-apocalyptic bad.

 

I guess you forget the bus station OL Cousins played behind in 2017, with Trent out most of the year.  Moses played on two bad ankles and everyone else was out.  Plus look at the improved backfield, the Skins have a HOF running back.  

[OVCChairman]

Just now, Veryoldschool said:

 

Baloney.  The 2019 roster is more talented and healthier than the 2017 team he led to 7-9.   This team would be a .500 team with Cousins and maybe with Smith.

 

 

Your point is hard to argue at the playmaking positions.  Reed only played in 6 games that year, i had to go back and look.  Vernon Davis played in 16 and that is a dynamic we simply do not have this season.  it's not world beating, but it's a factor.  I would agree that we have Terry McLaurin, and a better backfield, but as Renegade pointed out... we don't have one of the best tackles in football right now. 

 

I still have a hard time believing that we could simply put ANY QB on our roster and it become a playoff contender, because that's what a 9 win team is.

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

I guess you forget the bus station OL Cousins played behind in 2017, with Trent out most of the year.  Moses played on two bad ankles and everyone else was out.  Plus look at the improved backfield, the Skins have a HOF running back.  

 

I did not forget, and AP is 34 years old now.  Moses is always hurt or holding, but now Scherrf is not playing at 2017 level.  2017 also had Davis to pick up for Reed. He played all 16 games in 2017.

 

In 2017 we had 5 players with over 500 receiving yards, this year, in week 13 we only have one player with over 300 yards receiving.  Our second leading receiver is a RB who is hasnt played in month and a half.

[Veryoldschool]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I did not forget, and AP is 34 years old now.  Moses is always hurt or holding, but now Scherrf is not playing at 2017 level.  2017 also had Davis to pick up for Reed. He played all 16 games in 2017.

 

In 2017 we had 5 players with over 500 receiving yards, this year, in week 13 we only have one player with over 300 yards receiving.  Our second leading receiver is a RB who is hasnt played in month and a half.

 

The receivers don't have many yards because they don't have a 4K+ per year QB spreading the ball around.

 

You should be able to get this.  The 2 seasons before he started the Skins won 3 and 4 games respectively.  They played .500 ball the 3 years he started and have reverted to form after he left.  Smith was able to prop them up also.

[Renegade7]

17 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

The receivers don't have many yards because they don't have a 4K+ per year QB spreading the ball around.

 

You should be able to get this.  The 2 seasons before he started the Skins won 3 and 4 games respectively.  They played .500 ball the 3 years he started and have reverted to form after he left.  Smith was able to prop them up also.

 

You are arguing two different things at the same time they are the same thing.  The yardage alone is not an indicator of overall talent level. 

 

If you did a side by side comparison to the roster right now compared to any point in 2017, jus from a skill position standpoint, I cant with a straight face agree it's better then 2017.  Taking our TEs out the picture this year cannot be understated, is Harmon really better then Doctson, or is that missing the original point that that both rosters are garbage and neither would make the playoffs with Cousins here?

 

Hot take: Ryan Grant is better then Paul Richardson.  I'd take him in a heartbeat over this bum at a fraction of the price.

[KDawg]

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

Your point is hard to argue at the playmaking positions.  Reed only played in 6 games that year, i had to go back and look.  Vernon Davis played in 16 and that is a dynamic we simply do not have this season.  it's not world beating, but it's a factor.  I would agree that we have Terry McLaurin, and a better backfield, but as Renegade pointed out... we don't have one of the best tackles in football right now. 

 

I still have a hard time believing that we could simply put ANY QB on our roster and it become a playoff contender, because that's what a 9 win team is.

 

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I did not forget, and AP is 34 years old now.  Moses is always hurt or holding, but now Scherrf is not playing at 2017 level.  2017 also had Davis to pick up for Reed. He played all 16 games in 2017.

 

In 2017 we had 5 players with over 500 receiving yards, this year, in week 13 we only have one player with over 300 yards receiving.  Our second leading receiver is a RB who is hasnt played in month and a half.

 

1 hour ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

The receivers don't have many yards because they don't have a 4K+ per year QB spreading the ball around.

 

You should be able to get this.  The 2 seasons before he started the Skins won 3 and 4 games respectively.  They played .500 ball the 3 years he started and have reverted to form after he left.  Smith was able to prop them up also.

 

It's probably important to note that the Redskins got McLaurin on their radar because they were scouting Haskins. If we had Cousins, there is a fairly decent chance that the Skins wouldn't have McLaurin, either.

[OVCChairman]

19 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

 

 

It's probably important to note that the Redskins got McLaurin on their radar because they were scouting Haskins. If we had Cousins, there is a fairly decent chance that the Skins wouldn't have McLaurin, either.

 

 

there are a lot of factors that would be different.  Draft position changes based on 1 win, so it's all speculative as to what the talent level would be, because we likely don't have the same draft picks over the last 2 drafts.  Kirk, in Jay's offense, was not one to take a lot of shots, so even if we did have McLaurin, would we have seen some of the same stuff we did when he was here.  Open receivers downfield that he did not target.  I'll freely admit that he has opened up his arm quite a bit since in Minnesota, but that likely is the offense that they are running, matched with the tools they have.  Neither of which we have here in Washington.  

[CjSuAvE22]

12 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

there are a lot of factors that would be different.  Draft position changes based on 1 win, so it's all speculative as to what the talent level would be, because we likely don't have the same draft picks over the last 2 drafts.  Kirk, in Jay's offense, was not one to take a lot of shots, so even if we did have McLaurin, would we have seen some of the same stuff we did when he was here.  Open receivers downfield that he did not target.  I'll freely admit that he has opened up his arm quite a bit since in Minnesota, but that likely is the offense that they are running, matched with the tools they have.  Neither of which we have here in Washington.  

Did u watch redskins football during the gruden cousins era??? You dont throw for over 4k yards and almost 5 k in one season by not taking shots, also ill agree with you Minnesota is way more talented than us offensively however there are many other teams that stack up way better than minnesota offensively in terms of talent, thielen has been hurt for the past 5 weeks rudolph is below average, diggs is solid and cook is a beast but i think cousins at qb has helped him a lot

[OVCChairman]

4 minutes ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

Did u watch redskins football during the gruden cousins era??? You dont throw for over 4k yards and almost 5 k in one season by not taking shots 

 

 

I absolutely did, and one of the biggest complaints was that there were open receivers downfield and Kirk missed them.  That's not just my narrative, there was open frustration in the locker room, as well as frustration from Gruden and the staff.  

 

https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/redskins/so-what-exactly-jay-gruden-saying-about-kirk-cousins

 

Nov, 3 2017

 

 

Quote

He's smart and methodical, highly efficient and capable as a passer. But he does seem to be wary of going after big plays that aren't completely wide open. 

 

"I think there is going to be a point in time where he is going to have to give some receivers some chances that maybe look a little covered, but give them a chance to uncover or give them a chance to make a play," the coach said. "That’s probably the one area that we can force the issue on a little bit to give these receivers chances down the field."

Watching Redskins games, it certainly seems Cousins is hesitant to take big shots, especially if a wideout is covered. That's not just the most recent loss to the Cowboys either, which was played in a downpour for much of the second half. Washington's passer seems content in taking chunk yardage on underneath and shorter throws, getting his team down the field over time. 

 

Quote

Simple truth: Cousins completes a lot of passes, so his stats will usually look good. And for anybody wondering, that's a good thing.

"When the ball is complete, I never criticize," Gruden said. "We just always talk about other options possible for the next time we call it. That’s all, but he is doing good."

 

Watch enough game film of the Redskins, and yes, Cousins is missing chances down the field. It happens with most QBs in the NFL, but maybe it happens with Cousins a little bit more. 

 

[CjSuAvE22]

8 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I absolutely did, and one of the biggest complaints was that there were open receivers downfield and Kirk missed them.  That's not just my narrative, there was open frustration in the locker room, as well as frustration from Gruden and the staff.  

There are open players down the field all the time do u think even the most elite qbs hit them every single time?? The reality is they dont, you have to ask yourself if kirk cousins can play qb at a high level in the nfl if the answer is yes then you cant let a player of his caliber at his position walk for free you simply cant, if the answer is no then you are stuck drinking coors lite with bruce allen waiting for alex smiths leg to heal so you can trot him out as the starter since we are so damn close or maybe give haskins 5 years to develop

[OVCChairman]

2 minutes ago, CjSuAvE22 said:

There are open players down the field all the time do u think even the most elite qbs hit them every single time?? The reality is they dont, you have to ask yourself if kirk cousins can play qb at a high level in the nfl if the answer is yes then you cant let a player of his caliber at his position walk for free you simply cant, if the answer is no then you are stuck drinking coors lite with bruce allen waiting for alex smiths leg to heal so you can trot him out as the starter since we are so damn close

 

Thats not what we were talking about, but i'll elaborate on your points.  

 

1.  Do I think Kirk Cousins can play QB at a high level in the NFL?  Yes I do.  That does not mean HERE was the right fit for him to do so.  Schematically in this offense, with this roster, i don't think Cousins is as successful.  He may have some good years statistically, but we don't have Adam Theilan, Stephon Diggs, or Dalvin Cook.  Guice MIGHT reach that level but we can't come to that conclusion yet.  

 

2.  you're right, we cannot let a player of his caliber walk for free.  That was a bad mistake, but that does not mean you have to regret letting him go.  I regret the fact that we did not get something for him when it was clear that he was not coming back.   I regret the fact that it got bad enough that we would have over paid to keep him here.  I regret the fact that we played the franchise tag game and set the team back so far with the knowledge that we never were actually going to retain him.  In fact you could argue that I regret the fact that we didn't let him go 2 years earlier, or trade him in the final year of his rookie deal when we could have gotten value, AND avoided spending that much money.  The other part of this is that we didnt just let him go... he wanted to leave.  We cannot force him to stay here, so ultimately he was going to be wearing a different uniform, regardless of what we tried to do the last year he was here... i'm convinced of that.  Even if we had offered the same deal Minn did, I don't think he stays.  

 

3.  The Alex Smith injury was one that you could not have seen coming.  There is a conversation to be had about how much we paid Smith, but nobody could have seen Smith going down with a potential career ending injury.  The contract with injury has now hurt us because of that fact, and its arguable that Smith was even an effective QB when he was playing, but that's a whole other point that I don't think matters when we're talking about what we were actually talking about regarding Kirk Cousins being effective in this offense, with this roster, with these playmakers around him.  

 

 

You quoted me rebutting my point about Kirk taking shots, I provided evidence to contradict that.  Yes, QBs miss open WR downfield all the time, but not QBs who get fully guaranteed contracts.  It was a very well known narrative that Kirk simply chose to take the easy, or wide open throws, instead of looking to push the ball downfield.... when speaking to one of the few playmakers we have on offense, Terry McLaurin, we NEED to be able to push that ball downfield to take advantage of his skillset.   That would leave me with some doubt as to if Kirk could be effective enough in this offense to make this team a contender, which is what was being suggested earlier, and was the point I was responding to.  

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

I guess you forget the bus station OL Cousins played behind in 2017, with Trent out most of the year.  Moses played on two bad ankles and everyone else was out.  Plus look at the improved backfield, the Skins have a HOF running back.  

 

Yeah I was at the last game so to speak when the last wheel fell off which was the New Orleans game.  The last wheel being Chris Thompson lost for the year.    Perine was the lead back and was stuffed on 3rd and 1 and there went the game.  Reed was banged up that year.  Ryan Grant played plenty.  By mid season, it was as a banged up roster as anyone we've had.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2017/11/05/i-cant-believe-the-redskins-just-won-in-seattle/

I can’t believe the Redskins just won in Seattle with a starting offensive line of T.J. Clemmings, Arie Kouandjio, Chase Roullier, Tyler Catalina and Morgan Moses.

In Seattle.

I can’t believe the Redskins just won in Seattle without not just 80 percent of their offensive line, but also Jamison Crowder, Jordan Reed, Jonathan Allen, Matt Ioannidis, Mason Foster and so many other players that they had to activate men who were too injured to play.

[SkinFanInMinn]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

It's probably important to note that the Redskins got McLaurin on their radar because they were scouting Haskins. If we had Cousins, there is a fairly decent chance that the Skins wouldn't have McLaurin, either.

We'd also have Fuller because we wouldn't have traded him as part of the Alex Smith trade.  Also, from my understanding, McLaurin was not drafted for his receiving skills.  He was drafted to be a special teams player.  It wasn't until he got into camp and they saw what he could do that they held him back from teams.  So it's not like the scouts had this great idea what they were getting in a receiver, they more lucked into it (at least based on what I've heard).

It's really hard to start playing the what-if game because there are so many variables.