Stafford 92mg and 27m per season

[SteelersPride]

wiht the cap going up who cares if its a big contract, hes a franchise qb

just bringing logic into play, the caps going up big

 

[Yo Tee]

This ^^^^ leads me to believe you didn't see that Super Bowl for whatever reason. If you had, you wouldn't say something as blatantly off-base as the above statement. I'd even opine that New England's defense was a far bigger factor in NE winning that game than Brady.

And if you're using stats as your biggest argument for the opinion you presently hold for that game. I'd opine using the game stats from that game as opposed to stats from that entire season. Would serve you better.

Stats while useful and not a bad thing to have a grasp of. Aren't always the end all, be all to to a discussion and can at times. Instead of bringing clarity to a subject. They merely make it more murky.

For instance

In 2001 the Redskins defense stat-wise was the 10th best defense in football allowing 302.9 yards per game. The Pats, as you mentioned, were 24th in that category allowing 334.5 yards per game.

In points allowed in 2001 the Skins gave up 18.9 pt per game, good for 13th best in football.
In points allowed in 2001 the Pats gave up 17.0 pt per game, good for 6th best in football.

Now from the stats above. Which defense would you prefer. Its a no-brainer to me.

The argument wasn't that the defense sucked in the super bowl. Read it again. The Patriots defense in 2001 was ranked 24th in total yards allowed. No one ever said the Patriots defense sucked in the Super Bowl.

 

[Yo Tee]

here is my thing about wins . sonny jurgensen was a HOF qb . he had a losing record as a starter for the skins

jim plunket won 2 superbowls and had a career 72 -72 record

trent dilfer won a superbowl and had a 58-55 record barely above 500

3 of 4 seasons Drew brees has been 7-9 , does that mean he sucks ?

the idea that winning is on the qb soley is foolish and not very informed as a football fan

now KC was a part of a team that before he was a starter won 7 games in 2 seasons since then they have won 17.

if you follow this team you would know that we have had historically awful defenses

the talent was awful and we had cap issues/lack of draft picks do to bad trades

we are a 500 team because of the talent assembled prior to this up coming season . hopefully we added some defense to help us out and we can make a jump to maybe a playoff win . or at least an appearance

i still feel that we are another good draft away from being a consistent winner

but the nonsense that we are forever doomed to 500 because KC is the qb is just micro hate

is KC worth being the top paid player in the NFL ? no he is not based on talent, however he is a top 75 player, and supply and demand means it could take 24-27 mil to get him , wouldnt doubt 30 to 35 mil , but all that falls on the shortsighted FO

So you're telling me that if Tom Brady were the Redskins QB, the Redskins would still be a .500 team?

 

[Breed]

The argument wasn't that the defense sucked in the super bowl. Read it again. The Patriots defense in 2001 was ranked 24th in total yards allowed. No one ever said the Patriots defense sucked in the Super Bowl.

Word. I'm aware of what the argument was. Its just that I was also aware that you were using your argument if not outright incorrectly, in a very weak manner I'll say.

Handle your business though.

 

[Yo Tee]

Word. I'm aware of what the argument was. Its just that I was also aware that you were using your argument if not outright incorrectly, in a very weak manner I'll say.

Handle your business though.

How was it in a very weak manner? You can have a bad defense in the regular season and still win a Super Bowl. Hence the 2001 Patriots.

 

[Sharkinva]

So you're telling me that if Tom Brady were the Redskins QB, the Redskins would still be a .500 team?

I'll play.

If Brady were in Washington, they likely become a 10-11 win team as apposed to a 7-10 win team.

Flip side, put Kirk in NE, and they are still a 10-13 win team.

 

[Yo Tee]

I'll play.

If Brady were in Washington, they likely become a 10-11 win team as apposed to a 7-10 win team.

Flip side, put Kirk in NE, and they are still a 10-13 win team.

I don't think Kirk in NE is a 13 win team, I'll agree that they would be a 10-11 win team. Look at the Steelers before Ben came in and after. Night and day. Look at the Colts when they had Peyton Manning and when they didn't have Peyton Manning. Then when they had a healthy Andrew Luck and now when they don't have a healthy Andrew Luck. Night and day. A QB 100% makes a difference in a team.

 

[Sharkinva]

I don't think Kirk in NE is a 13 win team, I'll agree that they would be a 10-11 win team. Look at the Steelers before Ben came in and after. Night and day. Look at the Colts when they had Peyton Manning and when they didn't have Peyton Manning. Then when they had a healthy Andrew Luck and now when they don't have a healthy Andrew Luck. Night and day. A QB 100% makes a difference in a team.

By that token, look at the Redskins in 2013 and 2014 compared to 2015-2016.

Bottom line, Kirk is NOT what ails this team. You can debate til you are blue in the face on what his worth is, but as i have said to others. I think his contract worth is being used and a side ways attempt to say, well he isnt a very good QB because if he was, he would be able to carry the team all on his own.

 

[j_y19]

By that token, look at the Redskins in 2013 and 2014 compared to 2015-2016.

Bottom line, Kirk is NOT what ails this team. You can debate til you are blue in the face on what his worth is, but as i have said to others. I think his contract worth is being used and a side ways attempt to say, well he isnt a very good QB because if he was, he would be able to carry the team all on his own.

This.

There are very few QBs that can carry a team on their own. In fact, I'll say there are none. The two closest are Rogers and Brady. Brees is mentioned as a franchise QB and future HOFer. But clearly he can't do it as evidenced by his record the last few years. SO why is KC held to this standard? Of course he needs support. Now since KC has been the starter, this team gone from a bottom dweller to a playoff contender. In just 2 years. And he was the only real change in those 2 years. So how again is he the issue for us not taking the next step?

 

[j_y19]

I don't think Kirk in NE is a 13 win team, I'll agree that they would be a 10-11 win team. Look at the Steelers before Ben came in and after. Night and day. Look at the Colts when they had Peyton Manning and when they didn't have Peyton Manning. Then when they had a healthy Andrew Luck and now when they don't have a healthy Andrew Luck. Night and day. A QB 100% makes a difference in a team.

By that some token, not having a QB guarantees you the basement, right? Your suggestion is that we low ball KC and let him walk. Then what do we have? No QB. How does that improve this team?

KC has proven that he can be a very effective passer in Jon Gruden's offense. I'm not sure anyone else could do much better. He set historic records with yards, % completion, etc. All while having no defensive support and very minimal run support. And he still got us to the playoffs one year and should have gotten us to the playoffs last year if not for a shitty defense that couldn't stop a 70 yd drive with only 65 seconds left. It makes more sense to secure that one aspect of your team that is functioning at a high level and use your draft picks and cap space to build those areas that aren't. It makes no sense to break the best part of your team and then have all aspects broken. Your logic makes no sense.

 

[Breed]

How was it in a very weak manner? You can have a bad defense in the regular season and still win a Super Bowl. Hence the 2001 Patriots.

The Pats didn't have a bad defense in 2001. They had a bend, but don't break defense that gave up some yards, but not a lot of points. They also out-turnovered their opponents by +7 and scored 7 non-offensive TDs including 5 by the defense so they were opportunistic as well that year.

 

[Stymietee]

I'm frankly surprised that these comparisons still go on. I know that there is a market at play and at first blush Kirk should be mentioned with these other QB's. However, first blushes aside,The real question has been and remains are these fair comparisons?

Before I go on, I want to thank @skinsdad62, @Sharkinva among others who continually asked the question...Who can we get that is as good or better than Cousins. This naturally led to the follow-up questions, who is Kirk Cousins?, what does he offer?, and what type of QB is he? Answering these key questions, will explain why we are, where we are right now.

OK Sty, you jackass, let's start with the often asked question, "why FT and pay Kirk all of this guaranteed money?"
The most obvious answer is, because, based upon what he offers and the type of QB that he is, Kirk Cousins is really a pretty good QB. Again, in order to stay on point, answering those 3 questions, is where the comparisons to Brady, Brees, Stafford, Carr and others FAIL and one year deals are better than anything long term.

A QB, is a QB, is a QB is not the reason why you pay equally in the NFL. Even when the numbers are similar to the ones that these guys now put up. You also pay for talent, so, let's examine that, still with an eye on getting answers to those 3 questions.

Kirk Cousins is and has always been a spot QB.....Receiver runs a pattern and is supposed to be at X spot, a quick release Kirk hits them there more often than not. First guy fails and because Kirk is not blind can get the ball to other open receivers. Like I said, he's pretty good at what he does.....but also pretty bad at what he doesn't or can't do.

.........And what he cannot do are things that Brady, Brees, Stafford, Carr and others do routinely. Namely improvise and throw a receiver open. Sure all of these players can also do what Kirk does in throwing to a spot or open guy. The adjustment that these guys do has more to do with anticipation. They know their guys, what they are likely to or can do when the timing is off, a play breaks down and even when faced with desperate circumstances. They also know the mark to hit in those instances where the ideal is not there and throwing to a spot where ONLY their guy can get to it becomes the option.

To be honest I'm not sure how to properly slot Cousins, maybe they will work that out in the new CBA come 2021. What I do know is this, if we are going to compare QB's based solely upon market forces, we had better be damned sure that we aren't paying Mercedes prices for Ford products. The one year deals are a puzzle ONLY to the extent that they have made NO....zero....nada , moves to get a similar or better guy on board.

 

[Yo Tee]

By that token, look at the Redskins in 2013 and 2014 compared to 2015-2016.

Bottom line, Kirk is NOT what ails this team. You can debate til you are blue in the face on what his worth is, but as i have said to others. I think his contract worth is being used and a side ways attempt to say, well he isnt a very good QB because if he was, he would be able to carry the team all on his own.

This.

There are very few QBs that can carry a team on their own. In fact, I'll say there are none. The two closest are Rogers and Brady. Brees is mentioned as a franchise QB and future HOFer. But clearly he can't do it as evidenced by his record the last few years. SO why is KC held to this standard? Of course he needs support. Now since KC has been the starter, this team gone from a bottom dweller to a playoff contender. In just 2 years. And he was the only real change in those 2 years. So how again is he the issue for us not taking the next step?

By that some token, not having a QB guarantees you the basement, right? Your suggestion is that we low ball KC and let him walk. Then what do we have? No QB. How does that improve this team?

KC has proven that he can be a very effective passer in Jon Gruden's offense. I'm not sure anyone else could do much better. He set historic records with yards, % completion, etc. All while having no defensive support and very minimal run support. And he still got us to the playoffs one year and should have gotten us to the playoffs last year if not for a shitty defense that couldn't stop a 70 yd drive with only 65 seconds left. It makes more sense to secure that one aspect of your team that is functioning at a high level and use your draft picks and cap space to build those areas that aren't. It makes no sense to break the best part of your team and then have all aspects broken. Your logic makes no sense.

I've never said Kirk Cousins wasn't a decent QB. I've simply said he's not worth the money he's making. I also stated, since y'all are cherry picking things I'm saying, that the BEST thing for Washington to do is to sign the guy because it's very very risky to go into the draft to try and find your next starting QB. With that said, that doesn't mean that I think Kirk Cousins should be paid that much. My debate is if you had a better QB, you wouldn't be a barely .500 team. The sucky part is, you have no options. Only free agent QB next year worth getting is Brees and that's not possible. Getting a QB in the draft and pushing him to be the starter right out of the gate is always risky.

 

[j_y19]

I'm frankly surprised that these comparisons still go on. I know that there is a market at play and at first blush Kirk should be mentioned with these other QB's. However, first blushes aside,The real question has been and remains are these fair comparisons?

Before I go on, I want to thank @skinsdad62, @Sharkinva among others who continually asked the question...Who can we get that is as good or better than Cousins. This naturally led to the follow-up questions, who is Kirk Cousins?, what does he offer?, and what type of QB is he? Answering these key questions, will explain why we are, where we are right now.

OK Sty, you jackass, let's start with the often asked question, "why FT and pay Kirk all of this guaranteed money?"
The most obvious answer is, because, based upon what he offers and the type of QB that he is, Kirk Cousins is really a pretty good QB. Again, in order to stay on point, answering those 3 questions, is where the comparisons to Brady, Brees, Stafford, Carr and others FAIL and one year deals are better than anything long term.

A QB, is a QB, is a QB is not the reason why you pay equally in the NFL. Even when the numbers are similar to the ones that these guys now put up. You also pay for talent, so, let's examine that, still with an eye on getting answers to those 3 questions.

Kirk Cousins is and has always been a spot QB.....Receiver runs a pattern and is supposed to be at X spot, a quick release Kirk hits them there more often than not. First guy fails and because Kirk is not blind can get the ball to other open receivers. Like I said, he's pretty good at what he does.....but also pretty bad at what he doesn't or can't do.

.........And what he cannot do are things that Brady, Brees, Stafford, Carr and others do routinely. Namely improvise and throw a receiver open. Sure all of these players can also do what Kirk does in throwing to a spot or open guy. The adjustment that these guys do has more to do with anticipation. They know their guys, what they are likely to or can do when the timing is off, a play breaks down and even when faced with desperate circumstances. They also know the mark to hit in those instances where the ideal is not there and throwing to a spot where ONLY their guy can get to it becomes the option.

To be honest I'm not sure how to properly slot Cousins, maybe they will work that out in the new CBA come 2021. What I do know is this, if we are going to compare QB's based solely upon market forces, we had better be damned sure that we aren't paying Mercedes prices for Ford products.

Sty, I pretty much agree with your assessment, KC is not as effective when the play breaks down. And he may never be. But he is pretty darn effective when it holds up. Should we strive to find better? Always. But until we do, we need to make sure that the rest of the team is capable of keeping the play on track as much as possible to keep KC in his effective range. We also need to build up our defense so that its is not incumbent for our offense to score 30 points every game to win. And we need to improve our running game (and use it) so that it is a legitimate threat to keep defenses honest and not always bringing the house on obvious passing plays. BTW, this is also true for the vast majority of all other QBs not named Brady or Rogers. The only slight disagreement I have with your post is that Stafford is not that great in improvisation, either. Carr, in that sense, is better.

 

[Yo Tee]

I'm frankly surprised that these comparisons still go on. I know that there is a market at play and at first blush Kirk should be mentioned with these other QB's. However, first blushes aside,The real question has been and remains are these fair comparisons?

Before I go on, I want to thank @skinsdad62, @Sharkinva among others who continually asked the question...Who can we get that is as good or better than Cousins. This naturally led to the follow-up questions, who is Kirk Cousins?, what does he offer?, and what type of QB is he? Answering these key questions, will explain why we are, where we are right now.

OK Sty, you jackass, let's start with the often asked question, "why FT and pay Kirk all of this guaranteed money?"
The most obvious answer is, because, based upon what he offers and the type of QB that he is, Kirk Cousins is really a pretty good QB. Again, in order to stay on point, answering those 3 questions, is where the comparisons to Brady, Brees, Stafford, Carr and others FAIL and one year deals are better than anything long term.

A QB, is a QB, is a QB is not the reason why you pay equally in the NFL. Even when the numbers are similar to the ones that these guys now put up. You also pay for talent, so, let's examine that, still with an eye on getting answers to those 3 questions.

Kirk Cousins is and has always been a spot QB.....Receiver runs a pattern and is supposed to be at X spot, a quick release Kirk hits them there more often than not. First guy fails and because Kirk is not blind can get the ball to other open receivers. Like I said, he's pretty good at what he does.....but also pretty bad at what he doesn't or can't do.

.........And what he cannot do are things that Brady, Brees, Stafford, Carr and others do routinely. Namely improvise and throw a receiver open. Sure all of these players can also do what Kirk does in throwing to a spot or open guy. The adjustment that these guys do has more to do with anticipation. They know their guys, what they are likely to or can do when the timing is off, a play breaks down and even when faced with desperate circumstances. They also know the mark to hit in those instances where the ideal is not there and throwing to a spot where ONLY their guy can get to it becomes the option.

To be honest I'm not sure how to properly slot Cousins, maybe they will work that out in the new CBA come 2021. What I do know is this, if we are going to compare QB's based solely upon market forces, we had better be damned sure that we aren't paying Mercedes prices for Ford products. The one year deals are a puzzle ONLY to the extent that they have made NO....zero....nada , moves to get a similar or better guy on board.

By paying Kirk Cousins over $23-25 mil a year, that's exactly what you are doing.

 

[Stymietee]

Sty, I pretty much agree with your assessment, KC is not as effective when the play breaks down. And he may never be. But he is pretty darn effective when it holds up. Should we strive to find better? Always. But until we do, we need to make sure that the rest of the team is capable of keeping the play on track as much as possible to keep KC in his effective range. We also need to build up our defense so that its is not incumbent for our offense to score 30 points every game to win. And we need to improve our running game (and use it) so that it is a legitimate threat to keep defenses honest and not always bringing the house on obvious passing plays. BTW, this is also true for the vast majority of all other QBs not named Brady or Rogers. The only slight disagreement I have with your post is that Stafford is not that great in improvisation, either. Carr, in that sense, is better.

So, let me ask, do you believe that this question ( how to tier QB's and pay them) will be answered in the next CBA?

 

[Stymietee]

By paying Kirk Cousins over $23-25 mil a year, that's exactly what you are doing.

I just asked this question to @j_y19 so I'll ask you as well... do you believe that this question ( how to tier QB's and pay them) will be answered in the next CBA?

 

[Yo Tee]

So, let me ask, do you believe that this question ( how to tier QB's and pay them) will be answered in the next CBA?

I have no idea. Probably not. If you're not confident in your 2nd and 3rd string QBs, and you don't have a top 10 draft pick to get a decent prospect QB in the draft, you gotta sign the guy, unfortunately.

 

[Breed]

This.

There are very few QBs that can carry a team on their own. In fact, I'll say there are none. The two closest are Rogers and Brady. Brees is mentioned as a franchise QB and future HOFer. But clearly he can't do it as evidenced by his record the last few years. SO why is KC held to this standard? Of course he needs support. Now since KC has been the starter, this team gone from a bottom dweller to a playoff contender. In just 2 years. And he was the only real change in those 2 years. So how again is he the issue for us not taking the next step?

A Saints defense that has allowed an average of 26.5 points per game for the last 3 seasons in a row and for 4 of then last 5 seasons isn't doing Brees any favors either. The one year in the last 5 years the Saints held teams to under 26.5 pt per game. Was 2013 when teams only scored 304 points on the Saints defense, 19 pt per game. The Saints won 11 games and a playoff game that year before falling to eventual SB champ, Seattle. Bad mouthing Brees isn't making Cuz look anymore attractive.

How was Kirk an issue last year? Seriously? He came up small, very small, at critical times last year and for all his passing yardage, gaudy ypa, impressive comp% and team records set. He was exactly average when it came to chunkin TD passes and he left way too many TDs in the red-zone settling instead for FGs.

And getting ass paddled out of the playoffs in week one of the postseason after winning the worst division in football that year. All while not beating a single team with a winning record. Than not making the playoffs altogether the very next year. Does not qualify the Redskins as playoff contenders.

 

[Stymietee]

I'll play.

If Brady were in Washington, they likely become a 10-11 win team as apposed to a 7-10 win team.

Flip side, put Kirk in NE, and they are still a 10-13 win team.

Agreed, Brady in DC and they are a 10-12 win team......disagree Kirk in N.E. and they become a 7-10 win team. Kirk has limitations that Brady does not, that alone accounts for the differences. It doesn't matter if the defenses (or coaches) are better if your QB cannot improvise/ convert at important moments.