Post Draft...

[Sharkinva]

A player on the franchise tag is like a guy on a consultants contract. He will say all the right things, and he might like the money. But he is always looking for the next permanent job. Because lets face it, there is no job security if you are on a one year deal.

At the end of the day, if Kirk doesnt work out, we are once again fucked any way. If we have to tag him again next year, that will be $44 million over two years. And if we have to tag him next year, his asking price goes from $20 million a year to $25 million a year. At worst Kirk Cousins is another Joe Theisman. But yea why should we commit to a solid though not spectacular QB, when we can always chase the next great thing.

 

[ehb5]

"At worst Cousins is an MVP caliber quaterback"

 

[Caliskinsfan]

 

[Sharkinva]

"At worst Cousins is an MVP caliber quaterback"

Dude are you really trying to swing that line?? At worst Cousins is a solid starter which is what Thiesman was for the MAJORITY of his career. A single award, even for MVP, does not mean a guy is the end all be all. If it did, we wouldnt even be having the Cousins debate. But look at Thiesmans over all stats.. not just his MVP, or the Super Bowl for that matter. And before you go.. .well any old stiff could do that... if that were true... again Cousins wouldnt be the starter right now.

 

[ehb5]

Dude are you really trying to swing that line?? At worst Cousins is a solid starter which is what Thiesman was for the MAJORITY of his career. A single award, even for MVP, does not mean a guy is the end all be all. If it did, we wouldnt even be having the Cousins debate. But look at Thiesmans over all stats.. not just his MVP, or the Super Bowl for that matter. And before you go.. .well any old stiff could do that... if that were true... again Cousins wouldnt be the starter right now.

Hey I'm not the one who said it.

 

[ehb5]

Not to mention Cousins worst case is more like nick foles. That's the problem.

 

[Sharkinva]

Hey I'm not the one who said it.

Yea but you also cant realistically refute what I have said. Thiesmann was not some uberstud, neither was Williams or Rip for that matter. All were solid starters on good TEAMS. Each did his part and the team as a whole won those Super Bowls. And again I will say it, if Kirk had been the 2nd pick in 2012 instead of the 102nd pick... most people would be clamoring to pay him what ever he wants.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

Not to mention Cousins worst case is more like nick foles. That's the problem.

I see worse case as an average QB and that's not bad if the right talent surrounds you.

 

[Sharkinva]

Not to mention Cousins worst case is more like nick foles. That's the problem.

Cute... but have you ever actually LOOKED at Thiesmanns career stats??

56.7 career completion percentage 4.4% TD Ratio and a 3.8% INT ratio

So since you brought his name up... Foles 60.2 4.3 and 2.2.

 

[ehb5]

Yea but you also cant realistically refute what I have said. Thiesmann was not some uberstud, neither was Williams or Rip for that matter. All were solid starters on good TEAMS. Each did his part and the team as a whole won those Super Bowls. And again I will say it, if Kirk had been the 2nd pick in 2012 instead of the 102nd pick... most people would be clamoring to pay him what ever he wants.

Maybe some would maybe some wouldn't but that doesnt really matter. And you can't ignore Theismann winning a MVP and being a very good QB. Regardless, I'd take a solid QB who wins a super bowl witha stacked roster. 3 problems with that though. We don't know if kirk will even be that, we don't want to overpay for that, and people don't seem to realize how difficult it is to win a SB like that.

 

[ehb5]

Cute... but have you ever actually LOOKED at Thiesmanns career stats??

56.7 career completion percentage 4.4% TD Ratio and a 3.8% INT ratio

So since you brought his name up... Foles 60.2 4.3 and 2.2.

Ah shit you're right. I forgot Theismann played in the golden era of passing. /sarcasm

 

[Sharkinva]

Maybe some would maybe some wouldn't but that doesnt really matter. And you can't ignore Theismann winning a MVP and being a very good QB. Regardless, I'd take a solid QB who wins a super bowl witha stacked roster. 3 problems with that though. We don't know if kirk will even be that, we don't want to overpay for that, and people don't seem to realize how difficult it is to win a SB like that.

1. We will never win another Super Bowl if we are constantly changing QBs every 2-4 years
2. Thiesmann was in the league and with the Redskins for what nine years before he won that MVP??
3. Stability creates improvement.

 

[ehb5]

I see worse case as an average QB and that's not bad if the right talent surrounds you.

I think that's a very realistic scenario (most realistic maybe?) But definitely not worst case. The case for Cousins is essentially a9 game sample. We can't really be sure of anything. See: Foles, Nick.

 

[Sharkinva]

Ah shit you're right. I forgot Theismann played in the golden era of passing. /sarcasm

NAh.. .he was just an average QB on a solid roster and the coach, GM, owner and fanbase werent ready to go after the next sexy pick every two years.

 

[ehb5]

1. We will never win another Super Bowl if we are constantly changing QBs every 2-4 years
2. Thiesmann was in the league and with the Redskins for what nine years before he won that MVP??
3. Stability creates improvement.

1. You're right we should find a QB who can stay long term. The question is whether kirk is that QB.
2. Why does it matter how long it took him to win his MVP.
3. I'm not sure what your point is here or what this really means.

 

[Sharkinva]

1. You're right we should find a QB who can stay long term. The question is whether kirk is that QB.
2. Why does it matter how long it took him to win his MVP.
3. I'm not sure what your point is here or what this really means.

If you dont realize that stability creates improvement... then i can see why you are so quick to say that Kirk needs to either perform to super levels this year, or we should move on. The players that continue to improve are more often than not the guys who are on the same roster and playing in the same system for years. You really think most of the FRANCHISE QBs would be where they are if they didnt ave years in their respective systems.

At the end of the day, we can keep burning draft picks in droves HOPING to hit on the next Manning, Luck or Brady. Or we can commit to some one and say this is who we are going to build around and develop. Every one wants to say wel we only have 9 games to evaluate Cousins on, but he has played more than nine games, And the only real issue he had was forcing throws and getting picks. If he is past that whats the hold up. But yea, you are right.. its much safer to play him on the tag, and if he only turns out ot be average... start chasing the next new thing.

See at the end of the day I think Kirk will turn out to be an average/solid QB. But I dont think thats going to be sexy enough to commit to this time next year.

 

[ehb5]

If you dont realize that stability creates improvement... then i can see why you are so quick to say that Kirk needs to either perform to super levels this year, or we should move on. The players that continue to improve are more often than not the guys who are on the same roster and playing in the same system for years. You really think most of the FRANCHISE QBs would be where they are if they didnt ave years in their respective systems.

At the end of the day, we can keep burning draft picks in droves HOPING to hit on the next Manning, Luck or Brady. Or we can commit to some one and say this is who we are going to build around and develop. Every one wants to say wel we only have 9 games to evaluate Cousins on, but he has played more than nine games, And the only real issue he had was forcing throws and getting picks. If he is past that whats the hold up. But yea, you are right.. its much safer to play him on the tag, and if he only turns out ot be average... start chasing the next new thing.

See at the end of the day I think Kirk will turn out to be an average/solid QB. But I dont think thats going to be sexy enough to commit to this time next year.

I'm sure stability helps foster improvement but that doesn't do you any good if you dont have good players. It's not like the Seahawks one day were like hey! Let's just keep all our players! And bam they were good. No - they got good players and so they kept them. And did they improve? Yea. Did the stability help them? I would guess so. But the most important part is that they had good players.

And thank you for reminding me that there's more than a 9 game sample to evaluate. The rest of the games weren't good! So yes the case for Cousins is essentially 9 games.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

NAh.. .he was just an average QB on a solid roster and the coach, GM, owner and fanbase werent ready to go after the next sexy pick every two years.

Not trying to badmouth that era or excuse some of the Snyder mistakes pre-SM, but that is a completely different era which cannot be compared to this era. There was no salary cap & you could pretty much stockpile your roster. You could also rely predominately on your running game which is almost unheard of in today's NFL. You also have to remember that Beathard screwed up a ton of draft picks especially the early ones (though he excelled w/ the later picks).

Forget about what any fans think (including us) - I feel very confident that this front office will do the rt thing w/ Cousins. You appear to be worrying about something that IMO just won't happen. HTTR - let's just focus on Cousins & the team this season & have fun with it.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

BTW - when Beathard was the GM for the Chargers he made exactly the type of sexy pick that you alluded to in your reply (Leaf) & it was a complete disaster. Just about all GMs make mistakes.

 

[Sharkinva]

I'm sure stability helps foster improvement but that doesn't do you any good if you dont have good players. It's not like the Seahawks one day were like hey! Let's just keep all our players! And bam they were good. No - they got good players and so they kept them. And did they improve? Yea. Did the stability help them? I would guess so. But the most important part is that they had good players.

And thank you for reminding me that there's more than a 9 game sample to evaluate. The rest of the games weren't good! So yes the case for Cousins is essentially 9 games.

I call Bullshit. Cousins more often than not has had a better than 60% completion percentage. And until recently he has NOT had a good team around him. Until last year, the line he played behind was a joke more often than not, and aside From Garcon and an off and on Jackson he has had suspect WRs at best. Or does the excuse that no one could have done well behind that line not count for him??