I Agree With Fred Smoot On Kirk Cousins

[Stymietee]

The day we traded him to you was my favorite day ever. So many laughs were had.

Two words top that..............Sonny Jurgensen!!

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Good approach. Whether you like Cousins or not you have to let this play out for at least the next few months. You don't give a guy a huge amt of money then bench him after one or even a few bad performance(s). Also anyone suggesting that the Redskins try to lose most/all of their games (to draft a QB early & hope that they won't fail) is not a fan & I suggest they go look for another team.

Even after he gambled and won, I've always felt Cousins should have taken the money...now I'm saying the same thing about Bell...should have taken the money!

Curt has proven he can move the ball and make plays so he's going to be in the stat range to make a lot of money next yr where ever that might be. But if the 'Skins struggle this season and he doesn't look as good, he probably won't get Stafford money.

 

[Stymietee]

I tend to agree with you after watching the collapse of Dec 2016 and last Sundays game. It is possible he could turn it around. You make valid points. On the flip side if he leads this team to a 10-6 season with a playoff win or not do you give him the LTD?

To answer your question, I'll defer to @Sharkinva who has stated that he believes that there won't be a LTD no matter what happens. He's also stated that it's now mostly about saving face after not getting a deal done in prior attempts.........I agree with all of this.

 

[gkekoa]

That might have to do with QBs on good teams being WORTH 15% of the cap.

Not saying Kirk isnt (Idk what 15% of the cap is off the top of my head) but I am saying paying players more than their worth seems like a bad idea.

Letting QBs good enough to win a SB walk out the front door also seems like a bad idea (idk if Kirk is that good or not).

Point is...its complicated.

It does seem like a bad idea. It depends on how you define worth. Should he make more than Rodgers? No. Rodgers contract is 4 or 5 years old though. In that time, the cap has gone to 167M from 120 million in 2012. Yes, KC should make more than Rodgers this season because the cap has gone up 47M.

Again, winning the SB is a silly reason to keep a QB. Trent Dilfer comes to mind.

 

[gkekoa]

Not all teams are built on the draft. New England Patriots.

You should probably look at the SB winning rosters of the Patriots. They were absolutely built via the draft.

 

[gkekoa]

If he improves the team and actually becomes a leader then definitely. 100% LTD with a division title. He needs to show that he can improve the team, not keep them as a consistent .500 or 1 game over .500 team who's always on the bubble of making the playoffs.

He has proven to improve the team. We were a three win team prior to KC being the starter.

 

[gkekoa]

Cousins has gotten no support because what has he done differently from RG3? What's he done differently from Mark Brunell? No matter who you root for, Robert Griffin III has had the same success with the Washington Redskins as Kirk Cousins. There's no denying that.

He has led the team t two winning seasons as a two year starter. RG3 and Brunel never did that. So yes...there is denying that.

 

[eaglesnut]

Cousins has gotten no support because what has he done differently from RG3? What's he done differently from Mark Brunell? No matter who you root for, Robert Griffin III has had the same success with the Washington Redskins as Kirk Cousins. There's no denying that.

No. Kirk has been a functional QB for multiple seasons. That tops all the other guys you've mentioned quite easily.

 

[BeaReylo]

He has led the team t two winning seasons as a two year starter. RG3 and Brunel never did that. So yes...there is denying that.

And Big Cuz was just one win shy of bringing The Skins to consecutive playoff berths.

 

[skinsdad62]

Crickets is the answer because you aren't willing to take a chance on a rookie QB. There are plenty of examples of a rookie QB making a difference either the same year or the following year. The Redskins level of sucking was so bad that you got a taste of the playoffs and you don't wanna look back. That's understandable. But SETTLING, and that's exactly what you are doing, for Kirk Cousins because there is no guarantee of someone better AND cheaper, is sad.

there is a 1 in 5 chance that drafting a rookie who will be equal to or better then what we have

 

[skinsdad62]

If hes not good enough - and im not saying thats the case but IF - then its unfair to expect somebody to find a proven better replacement (cheaper or otherwise).

why take a step back ? KC is a young qb entering his prime . why add 3 years to a rebuild with a rookie ?

 

[gkekoa]

I've said this before the season started. If you're okay with always being on the edge of making the playoffs and 1 game over .500, then Kirk Cousins is your guy. If you want a chance at something better, you gotta take a chance at the draft. Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, Dak Prescott, Russell Wilson, Derek Carr, Jameis Winston, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Andrew Luck...they have all made an IMMEDIATE change in the team within 1-2 years of being drafted.

New England had already began the improvement because of their defense. They were six in scoring for Brady his first season. I have shown you before what his defenses were. You just want to give credit to the QB, unless it is Dilfer.

Roethlisberger's defense was #1 in scoring when Pittsburgh made their turnaround and Ben was garbage.

NYG were 8-8 in year 3 of Eli and 6-10 year 1.

Russell Wilson had the number 1 defense and Seattle was already a good team.

Has Cam really changed Carolina? They are good some years and crappy others.

Matt Ryan? Look at his years. Some good, some bad.

Really on Winston?

 

[ehb5]

It does seem like a bad idea. It depends on how you define worth. Should he make more than Rodgers? No. Rodgers contract is 4 or 5 years old though. In that time, the cap has gone to 167M from 120 million in 2012. Yes, KC should make more than Rodgers this season because the cap has gone up 47M.

Again, winning the SB is a silly reason to keep a QB. Trent Dilfer comes to mind.

Yup. Im with ya. Contracts go up over time. Thats pretty clear.

And yea its more the ability to win a SB than having one won already. Like Flacco is awful now but hes one a SB. Rivers meanwhile has been great but hes never won one before.

 

[ehb5]

why take a step back ? KC is a young qb entering his prime . why add 3 years to a rebuild with a rookie ?

If hes not good enough...

If hes not good enough you have to move on. That seems obvious to me.

 

[gkekoa]

Can anybody say he isn't good enough?

Honestly. Our defense has been atrocious in our two most successful seasons in 20 years and we want to give up on the most important position player on the team after two seasons as a starter?

 

[Stymietee]

New England had already began the improvement because of their defense. They were six in scoring for Brady his first season. I have shown you before what his defenses were. You just want to give credit to the QB, unless it is Dilfer.

Roethlisberger's defense was #1 in scoring when Pittsburgh made their turnaround and Ben was garbage.

NYG were 8-8 in year 3 of Eli and 6-10 year 1.

Russell Wilson had the number 1 defense and Seattle was already a good team.

Has Cam really changed Carolina? They are good some years and crappy others.

Matt Ryan? Look at his years. Some good, some bad.

Really on Winston?

I agree with this, your numbers don't lie, however, considering what you've just written, why do you suppose it is that there are some here who continue to proclaim that the team will suffer a setback or face a rebuild if, as is evident by your facts, our team also has a top defensive team in place when we get the new QB? (As was the case for N.E., Pittsburg, and Seattle)

 

[gkekoa]

I agree with this, your numbers don't lie, however, considering what you've just written, why do you suppose it is that there are some here who continue to proclaim that the team will suffer a setback or face a rebuild if, as is evident by your facts, our team also has a top defensive team in place when we get the new QB? (As was the case for N.E., Pittsburg, and Seattle)

What? Because we don't have a top defense in place.

If you get rid of KC, because we don't have a top defense, then we will suffer a setback, likely.

 

[Rowdy]

I agree with this, your numbers don't lie, however, considering what you've just written, why do you suppose it is that there are some here who continue to proclaim that the team will suffer a setback or face a rebuild if, as is evident by your facts, our team also has a top defensive team in place when we get the new QB? (As was the case for N.E., Pittsburg, and Seattle)

I can answer this. Because you'll end up using all your resources trying to find one competent enough, therefore you can't fix the other area of needs you have. That's been the problem for years now with this team

 

[Yo Tee]

why take a step back ? KC is a young qb entering his prime . why add 3 years to a rebuild with a rookie ?

Why do people gamble? Because of the chance at something bigger and better.

 

[skinsdad62]

Why do people gamble? Because of the chance at something bigger and better.

why gamble when you dont need to ? we have a qb we can win with if we continue to build