Redskins' Kirk Cousins: Still far apart on extension terms

[Stymietee]

When did Joe Gibbs coach in the salary cap and free agency era?

Apples and oranges.

WOW!! Let's try this, answer a very basic question in logic. Ready?... Are you sure?....Well, what does the salary cap or lack thereof have to do with evaluating players, QB's or otherwise?

 

[Breed]

When did any of those QBs get a ton of wins with a defense that was historically bad?

I see what you did there.

Luck has played his entire career with a shitty defense. Rodgers, Romo and P Manning have also played with less than stellar defenses during their career.

 

[gkekoa]

I see what you did there.

Luck has played his entire career with a shitty defense. Rodgers, Romo and P Manning have also played with less than stellar defenses during their career.

Our defense wasn't just bad. It was historically bad. None of those guys had winning seasons with a defense as bad as ours.

 

[skinsdad62]

i think KC made a mistake and its part of his maturation process. i think moses made a poor play too

 

[Sportster 72]

WOW!! Let's try this, answer a very basic question in logic. Ready?... Are you sure?....Well, what does the salary cap or lack thereof have to do with evaluating players, QB's or otherwise?

As for the reference to the Gibbs era. NFL players were highly underpaid back then and it was easier to stash and/or keep players who now a days leave. Do you think the Redskins let Antonio Pierce and Brian Orakpo go during Gibbs era. Just two examples. The landscape of the game has completely.

Correct, you can win a Super Bowl with a superior team (defense) ala Ravens and Tampa Bay but we all know that the teams that win most often have a top QB.

As for you and Scot and your top scout company .... if being one of the top 10 QBs the last two years and being a record setting QB for the franchise the past two years I can live with his lack of upside. So if you and Scot are in lock step than you have to go back to my comment about money. Scot said you want a guy like Cousin's but Scot doesn't want to pay one position guy that much money. That can be a forever QB no matter who the QB is.

I have an idea, lets trade for a backup QB.

 

[Stymietee]

As for the reference to the Gibbs era. NFL players were highly underpaid back then and it was easier to stash and/or keep players who now a days leave. Do you think the Redskins let Antonio Pierce and Brian Orakpo go during Gibbs era. Just two examples. The landscape of the game has completely.

Correct, you can win a Super Bowl with a superior team (defense) ala Ravens and Tampa Bay but we all know that the teams that win most often have a top QB.

As for you and Scot and your top scout company .... if being one of the top 10 QBs the last two years and being a record setting QB for the franchise the past two years I can live with his lack of upside. So if you and Scot are in lock step than you have to go back to my comment about money. Scot said you want a guy like Cousin's but Scot doesn't want to pay one position guy that much money. That can be a forever QB no matter who the QB is.

I have an idea, lets trade for a backup QB.

Thank you....that was the most comprehensive non answer to a basic logic question that I have seen in a long time. You've earned my full support and trust_________Donald Trump.

 

[BeaReylo]

Correct, you can win a Super Bowl with a superior team (defense) ala Ravens and Tampa Bay but we all know that the teams that win most often have a top QB.

As for you and Scot and your top scout company .... if being one of the top 10 QBs the last two years and being a record setting QB for the franchise the past two years I can live with his lack of upside. So if you and Scot are in lock step than you have to go back to my comment about money. Scot said you want a guy like Cousin's but Scot doesn't want to pay one position guy that much money. That can be a forever QB no matter who the QB is.

I have an idea, lets trade for a backup QB.

I'm all for keeping Kirk but:
"Is Having a Great QB More Important Than Ever To Win It All?

If you’re short on time, let me save you a read: no.

And now for the long answer.

The graph below shows where each Super Bowl champion since the AFL/NFL merger ranked in Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt:



Of the last 10 Super Bowl champions, four of them ranked 14th or lower in ANY/A. That matches the number of champions in the previous 41 Super Bowls combined. The only teams to win a Super Bowl prior to 2007 with a passing attack that ranked 14th or lower in ANY/A were the ’74 Steelers (during the early days of the Terry Bradshaw era), the 1980 Raiders (Jim Plunkett was not good until the playoffs), and two teams that like the 2015 Broncos had dominant postseason runs on defense, the 2000 Ravens (also sporting a historically great defense during the regular season) and 2002 Bucs (with perhaps the best pass defense ever). The fact that it’s happened four times since then is evidence that having a great quarterback (or passing game) is less important than ever, even if last year pitted the top two quarterbacks in the Super Bowl.1

Yes, “Peyton Manning” was the quarterback of the 2015 Broncos, but he was no more Peyton Manning than Terry Bradshaw wasTerry Bradshaw during the ’74 Steelers run. That same Peyton Manning struggled mightily in the playoffs the year before and in that regular season, and wasn’t even particularly good in the postseason: Denver rode a great defense to the championship.

The same generally goes for 2008 Ben Roethlisberger, who had the second-worst season of his career that year. He played well (but not notably well, and still below average for a Super Bowl winning passer) in the playoffs, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was not good during the regular season.

And while yes, Eli Manning and the Giants have won two Super Bowls, that also doesn’t change the fact that he led the NFL in interceptions in 2007 and played poorly for large stretches during the season. And we all recall what happened with Joe Flacco, and how his scorched earth performance in the 2012 playoffs stands as a severe outlier compared to the rest of his career.

When analysts say that you need a great quarterback (or a great passing game) to win it all, that’s simply not true unless they are using the phrase in a big tent sort of way: if a mediocre quarterback who plays well for four games qualifies as a great quarterback, then yes, you probably do need a great quarterback to win (except for, you know, the 2015 Broncos). But in general, far too much deference is given to the phrase “you need a great quarterback to win.”

Two years ago, a survey of ESPN insiders ranked Matt Ryan as the 11th best QB in the NFL; last year, he ranked 13th in the same study. Would anyone have labeled Ryan as a QB on the verge of producing one of the best seasons in NFL history this time a year ago?

Passing has always been important. Otto Graham reached the title game in 10 straight seasons in large part because he was one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history. Bart Starr, Joe Namath, and Len Dawson won the first four Super Bowls. Terry Bradshaw and Roger Staubach each made four Super Bowls in the ’70s. Joe Montana did that in the ’80s. Hall of Fame passers won eight straight Super Bowls in the ’90s, starting in ’92: Troy Aikman, Aikman, Steve Young, Aikman, Brett Favre, John Elway, Elway, and Kurt Warner. Having a great passing game has always been important, but it’s not more important now than ever.

Want more proof that passing isn’t more important now than ever? The graph below shows the average winning percentage of the bottom 5 teams in ANY/A for each year since the merger. As you can see, there isn’t a sharp decline — which would indicate that passing efficiency is more important than ever — but rather a chart with a bunch of year-to-year variance with a average of about 0.310.



Next time you here the claim that passing is more important than ever, you should probably ignore their comment. Or, if you like being confrontational, ask them what makes passing more important in 2017 than in 1977 (when Roger Staubach and the Cowboys had the number one passing offense in the NFL and won the Super Bowl) or 1987 ((when Gary Clark, Ricky Sanders, and Art Monk helped the Redskins finish with the third-most efficient passing offense) or 1997 (when Elway’s Broncos ranked 3rd in ANY/A and won the Super Bowl). Although maybe don’t ask them about 2007."
Is Having a Great QB More Important Than Ever To Win It All?

 

[Sportster 72]

I never said having a top flight QB was more important now than ever. I never said Sty was wrong. It has certainly been proven that an all around great team (Green Bay Packers, 70s Steelers, Ravens etc.) can win the Super Bowl. I have no issue with the premise at all.

I got the old WTF when I mentioned salary cap and free agency before. They go hand in hand. Lets keep all the good players and make a great team ala the Seahawks a few years ago. Or say Denver's team with an older Manning. How are those teams doing at staying together? Not so good huh? Now there is one exception ... the NE Patriots. What is their formula? I don't have that answer. Apparently either does anyone else.

Do the Redskins NEED to keep Cousins .. no. Do they have an answer if he leaves? I have no clue and either does any of the rest of us. Sty's model can work although it is about as difficult a model as finding a top notch QB. You have to get how many .... 8 - 13 very good players and a bunch of those need to be on their first contract so you can keep them in tact for 3 or 4 years to make it work. Or figure out what they are doing in New England.

You have to remember that Sty has downplayed Cousins success since he turned things around in the middle of the year two years ago. He said he has the same mind as Scot. Both see Cousin's as topped out. I have seen watched every angle he can present inregards to Cousins. He is entitled to his opinion. I am entitled to mine. Would I like to sign him for $14 million, of course. Is it going to happen no.

I know one thing, Cousins is the best QB since at the very least Trent Green. Is that worth $24 million. It depends on who you ask.

Just so you know I love great defense. Figure out how to build one and keep it here for 15 years and I will be impressed.

 

[Sharkinva]

For the record guys, I think Kirk is either going to stay about where he is, or improve.

This time next year the Skins will once again be faced with tagging him, and will likely use the exclusive tag again.

Now if the team actually improves as well... thats when shit gets interesting. I have said I dont know how Bruce and Dan are going to fuck this up, but ts starting to take shape.

 

[deanpet21]

For the record guys, I think Kirk is either going to stay about where he is, or improve.

This time next year the Skins will once again be faced with tagging him, and will likely use the exclusive tag again.

Now if the team actually improves as well... thats when shit gets interesting. I have said I dont know how Bruce and Dan are going to fuck this up, but ts starting to take shape.

It would be pretty hard to screw this up. If the team makes the playoffs KC will get his long term deal. If the team struggles b/c of KC he wont get his long term deal. If Kc wants more money than Carr and Stafford assuming they sign before the season starts I will have a problem.

There is no excuse of KC this year. Better all around offense and an improved defense.

 

[Sharkinva]

It would be pretty hard to screw this up. If the team makes the playoffs KC will get his long term deal. If the team struggles b/c of KC he wont get his long term deal. If Kc wants more money than Carr and Stafford assuming they sign before the season starts I will have a problem.

There is no excuse of KC this year. Better all around offense and an improved defense.

So what if the team struggles.. and its not Cousins fault?? Say the defense despite all the players brought in, still struggles?? Then what?

 

[deanpet21]

So what if the team struggles.. and its not Cousins fault?? Say the defense despite all the players brought in, still struggles?? Then what?

Depends on his contract demands.

 

[Sharkinva]

Depends on his contract demands.

True. But I really think his contract demands have been reactive to what the team has done. So I dont blame him one bit.

 

[deanpet21]

True. But I really think his contract demands have been reactive to what the team has done. So I dont blame him one bit.

Well we don't know what his contract demands are. We can only speculate on rumors. I just hope he doesn't get a big head when Carr and Stafford sign their deals. Carr will get money b/c of his age and Stafford is just a warrior. If he wants more than these two guys right now I will call foul.

 

[Sportster 72]

I have a pretty fair football background but I know Scot forgot more football in the past hour than I know. What I don't understand about his comment that Kirk has hit his ceiling is this. He has most certainly reached the ceiling of his physical skills or very close to it. But to say he has hit the ceiling as far as his learning the game and becoming a better player between the ears is ludicrous.

 

[Breed]

i think KC made a mistake and its part of his maturation process. i think moses made a poor play too

Fair enough. This is how I saw/see the play.

Moses did get beat inside and usually that would be very bad news for KC or any QB. Moses was still, pretty much head up and in front of his man though so he didn't full on whiff or flat-out get smoked to the inside.

I thought KC could've made a better decision than moving up in the pocket the way he did. Easy for me to say I know, but the biggest threat far as a pass rush on the play was coming from Moses' man. But with Moses still between his man and KC it wasn't a big or in KC's face threat. KC moving up in the pocket the way that he did basically took away all and any advantage Moses had in the situation. At this point. I was fearful KC was gonna be strip-sacked, but after that didn't happen, and kudos to KC for getting out of that, he should've just tucked the ball and ran..........or as he showed he could've done, thrown the ball away. Instead he tried making an ill advised play that turned into a disaster for the Skins.

 

[skinsdad62]

Fair enough. This is how I saw/see the play.

Moses did get beat inside and usually that would be very bad news for KC or any QB. Moses was still, pretty much head up and in front of his man though so he didn't full on whiff or flat-out get smoked to the inside.

I thought KC could've made a better decision than moving up in the pocket the way he did. Easy for me to say I know, but the biggest threat far as a pass rush on the play was coming from Moses' man. But with Moses still between his man and KC it wasn't a big or in KC's face threat. KC moving up in the pocket the way that he did basically took away all and any advantage Moses had in the situation. At this point. I was fearful KC was gonna be strip-sacked, but after that didn't happen, and kudos to KC for getting out of that, he should've just tucked the ball and ran..........or as he showed he could've done, thrown the ball away. Instead he tried making an ill advised play that turned into a disaster for the Skins.

sometimes you have to make big mistakes in big games to learn . but you have to let your guy grow and sometimes its painful

 

[Breed]

sometimes you have to make big mistakes in big games to learn . but you have to let your guy grow and sometimes its painful

True, but I was hopeful KC had overcome certain parts of the process already. There were a couple plays in a couple games last year that say otherwise.

 

[Stymietee]

OK, let's talk about Cousins' growth as a QB. While there is no doubt that we all generally learn something new everyday, that does not apply here. Let's start with the belief that Kirk will learn from his mistakes and that is what some here are referring to in relation to that growth. Even if that holds true, those mistakes will likely be replaced by others, the game being what it is.

If that is not the reference point then let's try improving his ability to improvise when things break down. It is possible but highly unlikely as there has been little evidence of that thus far. This is especially noteworthy in big games where defenses are either near or in playoff form. If I had to compare him to another good Washington sports player, I would say that he is the Alex Ovechkin of Washington Football. Good during the season and not so much when the games mean more.

As mentioned, there is no more room to grow from a physical standpoint, so where does that leave us? Well, in the only other place that we can go in order to become more than mere qualified for the playoffs, and that's to use the Gibbs model i.e. strong team around average QB. It is after all, the only successful model that this team has ever known in the Super Bowl era. BTW: For those of you who want to argue that point, ask yourself, When it comes to great NFL QB's (not SB ) how many names will roll off of your tongues before you get to the names Theismann, Rypien or Williams?

I'll concede all of the accolades that you all have placed upon and earned by Kirk Cousins, and give you all an extra "best that we've had in many many years here" to boot...but honestly, all he's actually done is to be competent in a system that fits him. Some will say that this is downplaying Kirk, I disagree, What it is...is not overplaying him. It is, unfortunately, the one thing in life that we humans do when we come across the best that we've ever had, after not having much beforehand. While it's wonderful to imagine what he COULD become, I'll stick to what he currently is as a player, pretty good, and something that is emininently more easilly replaceable.

Should we keep him? Absolutely, but to me that's not likely at this point, especially if the organization is placing a value on him in line with their evaluation, and not what that market determines. (the Sm and Sty reference) If that's the case, he's on a one year rental. The interesting thing is, we all now know that Gruden has a system where the QB needs not be great, but just above average or better (I call it pretty good) which by chance is a double bonus for us. Let me finish by saying that I don't give a peanut filled shit if Dan Snyder offered him half ownership in the team in order to sign him, it's not my money, however if Kirk is not here beyond this upcoming year, the formula for finding his replacement has nothing to do with "elite," "super studdom" or the "next best thing" we don't have that in Kirk and it works the way that it does, why should we look for that in his replacement if the need arises?


SN to @Sportster.....N.E does not have nor had great defenses, you don't need that, their formula was and is simple, and as old as the game itself. It's called execution at a higher level than your opponents. Belichick demands it and will replace anyone who doesn't measure up. He comes from that Parcell's line which was part of the best division in the game's history. (NFCE) Yes it's old school, but it works every time. Couple that with a great front office and a extremely supportive owner and that's all to it. Funny that the current mindset is to look for this or that in a player or players that will take them into the playoffs and beyond when the championship standard has been and remains...... high level execution. Doc (Walker) often relays stories of them lining up and telling their opponents which play was coming, whether that's just another storied retelling or true, fact was, when they executed properly, nobody stopped them or beat the defense.

 

[j_y19]

Sty, I understand what you are saying and agree with most of it. However, this is the statement that you have made a couple of times that many take issue with: "and something that is emininently more easilly replaceable." If KC is so easily replaceable, why haven't we had a QB that is better in the last 20 years? The reality is that a "pretty good" QB is not easily replaceable. Should we always have our eye out for a better talent? Of course. At every position. But if we lose KC next year, we will most definitely be taking a step BACK in production at the most important position on the field. Not only will we be taking a step back, but we will also see the tenures of some of our best players expire as we search and groom KC's replacement. Players such as Williams, Reed, and Kerrigan.

The reality is that KC is more than pretty good in Gruden's offense. He has proven to be very good over the last 2 years, but not without mistakes. He is good enough that with a supporting cast around him, which we are surely building, we can make a run. Maybe as soon as this year. But if we have to restart next year with a new QB at the helm, we have realistically delayed that run by a few years assuming we find the right guy next year. SO the supporting cast we have built starts to crumble and we need to rebuild that again. Wash, rinse, repeat. We never get there.