Holy Moly! Give it a REST!!!

[redskinsfan]

There's nothing wrong with being a 2nd year starter or setting franchise records. But saying he's only in his second year he's going to get better is a bad reason to extend him. Saying well he broke a record is a bad reason to extend. It seems you misunderstood my original post as usual.

Read Mike Jones' response that was quoted by Shark. That's but a partial rebuttal to what otherwise are pretty obvious points. Care to argue with him / me? Love to hear it.

 

[Stymietee]

Wow so Jason Campbell still gets a pass despite never proving anything?

And for the last part I don't see any QB having that much success without a running game (though Capt Kirk still put up outstanding numbers without one); organizational stability; or a defense.

I'm not sure but I believe that you've not taken this response in context. Jason Campbell is NOT getting a pass I called him middle of the road which is really not bad for a guy who managed to stay in the league for 10 years. Just in case, the whole point was referencing the indisputable dysfunction during the time frame where the talk of poor QB play has been referenced.

 

[redskinsfan]

And Luck still has more of everything, talent, ability, skillset, reg season wins, playoff wins, and wins against teams with winning records...in spades across the board than Kirk.

Luck also has leadership qualities, something that's been called into question by some concerning Kirk. Considering how lax and nonchalant the Redskins have played in various games over the last 6 weeks. The opinion seems to have some plausibility.

So, what's your point, then? Do we not re-sign Kirk? If we should, is it the form of a tag? If it's a long term deal, how much do you give him?

And let's hear it if you believe that there are any viable replacements to Kirk.

I've heard both in the past and now names like Matt McGloin, Tom Savage, and other people like them.

 

[redskinsfan]

Wow so Jason Campbell still gets a pass despite never proving anything?

And for the last part I don't see any QB having that much success without a running game (though Capt Kirk still put up outstanding numbers without one); organizational stability; or a defense.

In Campbell's full three seasons with the Redskins, he had Clinton Portis as his RB and a defense that ranked 8th (2007), 4th (2008), and 10th (2009). If Cuz had anything resembling that, he's bucking for MVP and we're challenging the Cowboys for the division title and top spot in the NFC.

 

[Sharkinva]

So, what's your point, then? Do we not re-sign Kirk? If we should, is it the form of a tag? If it's a long term deal, how much do you give him?

And let's hear it if you believe that there are any viable replacements to Kirk.

I've heard both in the past and now names like Matt McGloin, Tom Savage, and other people like them.

As I said in another post... the replacement for Kirk should be ABC

Anyone
But
Cousins

Will do apparently.

 

[Sharkinva]

In Campbell's full three seasons with the Redskins, he had Clinton Portis as his RB and a defense that ranked 8th (2007), 4th (2008), and 10th (2009). If Cuz had anything resembling that, he's bucking for MVP and we're challenging the Cowboys for the division title and top spot in the NFC.

As Kelso would say.... BURN

 

[ehb5]

Read Mike Jones' response that was quoted by Shark. That's but a partial rebuttal to what otherwise are pretty obvious points. Care to argue with him / me? Love to hear it.

I did. And it has nothing to do with what you and I have been (trying) to talk about. I don't have any problem with anything mike jones said. The fact that you read this poorly is actually impressive.

So here I sit, still waiting on you to post anything relevant to our discussion or to defend any of those reasons I listed.

 

[redskinsfan]

I did. And it has nothing to do with what you and I have been (trying) to talk about. I don't have any problem with anything mike jones said. The fact that you read this poorly is actually impressive.

So here I sit, still waiting on you to post anything relevant to our discussion or to defend any of those reasons I listed.

Uh huh. If you agree with what Mike Jones said, it then fully supports my view about Kirk and, in turn, rebuts your attempts to list, seriatim, a bunch of very valid reasons for signing him long term and then to dismiss them. I've also set forth in this thread and elsewhere arguments addressing your nonsense points. For instance, I've discussed the fact that his performance this year, apart from again setting franchise records in passing, was all that more impressive given the lack of any running game and abhorrent defense, in particular, run defense.

Somehow, you attempt to impart some facade of reasonableness by saying some of the right things, e.g., that we should keep Kirk. But as shark and others have noted, you then march right through them by citing points contradicting that.

It's useless dealing with you. And it's almost as if this dissonance on your part is part of a disorder you're suffering from.

I'm going to see a movie featuring someone like you. It's called Split, which is opening in theaters soon.

You ought to watch it to to gain some type of self assessment of what's going on here. Here's a link to the trailer.

 

[Beaker]

Your name is racist.

*Zoiburg sounds as I run out of the room"

 

[ehb5]

Uh huh. If you agree with what Mike Jones said, it then fully supports my view about Kirk and, in turn, rebuts your attempts to list, seriatim, a bunch of very valid reasons for signing him long term and then to dismiss them. I've also set forth in this thread and elsewhere arguments addressing your nonsense points. For instance, I've discussed the fact that his performance this year, apart from again setting franchise records in passing, was all that more impressive given the lack of any running game and abhorrent defense, in particular, run defense.

Somehow, you attempt to impart some facade of reasonableness by saying some of the right things, e.g., that we should keep Kirk. But as shark and others have noted, you then march right through them by citing points contradicting that.

It's useless dealing with you. And it's almost as if this dissonance on your part is part of a disorder you're suffering from.

I'm going to see a movie featuring someone like you. It's called Split, which is opening in theaters soon.

You ought to watch it to to gain some type of self assessment of what's going on here. Here's a link to the trailer.

Oh this is just keeps getting better. Please list which of the reasons I listed is also given by Mike Jones and where I contradict myself. Or ya know you could still make an actual argument about one of those reasons. But instead you keep blabbering on about movies, marriages, and articles I agree with. For somebody who got so worked up over my original post you sure haven't provided anything at all to dispute. Of course I'm almost positive you didn't understand it since you read at a 2nd grade level but if you figure it out lemme know.

The fact that you can't comprehend that I think we should keep kirk and stand by what mike jones said AND think there are still bad reasons to bring him back is almost embarrassing for you. Let me try to explain it to you using your logic though.

Say I wanted to marry a girl (I just love this analogy) and she was beautiful and smart and loving and my best friend. Those are great reasons to do so. I would want to marry her. But if you were my friend (god help me) and told me that I should marry her because "at least she doesnt beat you like your ex" or because "if she got some work done she'd be really attractive" those would be what we call BAD reasons to marry her. I would still marry her because of my reasons, I would just call out your dumbass reasons for what they are - dumbass reasons. Me thinking that your reasons are moronic doesn't mean I don't have good reasons for believing the same thing. That's what we call nuance. Sometimes it goes over the heads of bad readers though so I'm trying to be patient with you.

Now do you understand, buddy?

 

[redskinsfan]

Oh this is just keeps getting better. Please list which of the reasons I listed is also given by Mike Jones and where I contradict myself. Or ya know you could still make an actual argument about one of those reasons. But instead you keep blabbering on about movies, marriages, and articles I agree with. For somebody who got so worked up over my original post you sure haven't provided anything at all to dispute. Of course I'm almost positive you didn't understand it since you read at a 2nd grade level but if you figure it out lemme know.

The fact that you can't comprehend that I think we should keep kirk and stand by what mike jones said AND think there are still bad reasons to bring him back is almost embarrassing for you. Let me try to explain it to you using your logic though.

Say I wanted to marry a girl (I just love this analogy) and she was beautiful and smart and loving and my best friend. Those are great reasons to do so. I would want to marry her. But if you were my friend (god help me) and told me that I should marry her because "at least she doesnt beat you like your ex" or because "if she got some work done she'd be really attractive" those would be what we call BAD reasons to marry her. I would still marry her because of my reasons, I would just call out your dumbass reasons for what they are - dumbass reasons. Me thinking that your reasons are moronic doesn't mean I don't have good reasons for believing the same thing. That's what we call nuance. Sometimes it goes over the heads of bad readers though so I'm trying to be patient with you.

Now do you understand, buddy?

Mr./Ms. Split:

I've discussed ad nauseum the reasons how you've talked through both sides of your mouth. Your analogy, which bifurcates both good and bad reasons for marrying a woman, is completely inapt. That's because, in your prior post, you were citing a bunch of positive reasons for keeping a QB, but then stated you weren't convinced that they justified Kirk's worth. But the second half of your analogy cites to "BAD" reasons for marrying her, something which your initial points never set forth. That's why I stated, in a prior post using the marriage analogy, the issue this way: "Why wouldn't I marry a woman who's attractive, intelligent and has a lot of things in common with me?" Do you understand that all those points refer to positive traits of a prospective spouse?

Never mind. Others here are convinced you're nuts.

Feel free to revel in this dissonant world of yours.

And picking up a book on logic wouldn't hurt either.

 

[Breed]

Talent, ability and skill set is not a metric, its an opinion in the eye of the holder. Regular seasons wins, seeing as he has been a starter for 6 years, should be more, but his winning percentage isn't that much greater. In fact it is worse in the 2 years that KC has been the starter. But I will concede Luck does have a better win % today. Play off wins? OK. He also lost his first one, just as KC has. Do you remember how bad he was in that game? Turned the ball over a couple of times and no TDs.

Having said this, I do believe luck has more talent and more upside. But he has not by any metrics, outplayed KC in the period of KC being the starter.

Wait! What? Luck's winning percentage isn't that much better than Cuz's?

Luck - reg season games started 70/ reg season W/L record 43-27 = 61.42% win %
Cuz - reg season games started 41/ reg season W/L record 19-21-1 = 48.78% win% (Note: I added Cuz's tie as a win cuz I like him.)

61.42% vs 48.78% is not a significant difference to you?

How bout like this then?
For a 16 game season a 48.78% winning percentage gets you approx 7.8 wins
For a 16 game season a 61.42% winning percentage gets you approx 9.8 wins

Regarding the playoff record

Kirk not only lost his first playoff game. He also lost a game that for all intents and purposes was as important as a playoff game, at least to the Skins. To a team that had nothing to play for except the satisfaction of ending the Skins season.

Luck in playoffs - 3-3 .500
Kirk in playoffs and playoff play in game 0-2 .000

Luck 2015 reg season record - 2-5 28.5% winning % - Luck's 2nd victory and last game in 2015 came against the eventual Super Bowl Champs, Denver Broncos. Luck would suffer a lacerated kidney and a partially torn abdominal muscle in this game to end his season.

Cuz 2015 reg season record - 9-7 56,2% winning% No good reason, I'm just throwing this out there. The Skins would play the NFC's Super Bowl representative that season. The game was ovver at halftime as the Panthers took a 31-14 lead into the locker room and the final score ended up 44-16.

Luck 2016 reg season record (Note: he missed one game in 2016) 8-7 53.3% winning %
Cuz 2016 reg season record (Note: no counting of ties as a win here) 8-7-1 53.1% winning%

Other interesting, at least to me, stats of 2016
The Skin had 383 points scored against them in 2016
The Colts had 392 points scored against them in 2016

That high octane Skins off lead by uber-impressive stat compiler, Kirk "Top 5 QB" Cousins scored 396 points in 2016.

The Colts offense, which was not on par with any aspect of the Skins offense in a unit by unit comparison.......sans 1 scored 411 points in 2016.

So, which would you rather have?

This
Cuz - 25 TDs/12 INTs 4.1% TD ratio/2.0% INT ratio 396 points scored in 2016

or

That
Luck - 31 TDs/13 INTs 5.7% TD ratio/2.4% INT ratio 411 points scored in 2016

You were saying something about metrics earlier I believe.

 

[ehb5]

Mr./Ms. Split:

I've discussed ad nauseum the reasons how you've talked through both sides of your mouth. Your analogy, which bifurcates both good and bad reasons for marrying a woman, is completely inapt. That's because, in your prior post, you were citing a bunch of positive reasons for keeping a QB, but then stated you weren't convinced that they justified Kirk's worth. But the second half of your analogy cites to "BAD" reasons for marrying her, something which your initial points never set forth. That's why I stated, in a prior post using the marriage analogy, the issue this way: "Why wouldn't I marry a woman who's attractive, intelligent and has a lot of things in common with me?" Do you understand that all those points refer to positive traits of a prospective spouse?

Never mind. Others here are convinced you're nuts.

Feel free to revel in this dissonant world of yours.

And picking up a book on logic wouldn't hurt either.

No the reasons I listed are bad reasons for resigning somebody. You just dont see them as such. Which is fine you're entitled to your opinion, however shitty. But lets walk through that.

- breaking franchise records - So? You reached an arbitrary statistical point in an era DESIGNED for you to do so on an offense aimed to HELP you do so. Theres nothing wrong with breaking franchise records of course - Kirk should be proud. But they arent a reason to commit longterm money to a guy.

- being the best guy we've had in a long time - this is the ex who beat you example which you yourself admitted was a bad reason to marry somebody. Just because RG3 and John Beck and Donovan McNabb abused us doesnt mean we should re-sign Kirk just because he DOESNT abuse us. This (I would hope) should be pretty clear to you. Clearly this is not a good reason to commit longterm money to somebody.

- that we suck at drafting QBs - Once again - so? To say we suck at drafting QBs has several problems. 1. Its a ridiculously small sample size and 2. Its not the same front office! Danny and Vinny's inability to scout players has nothing to do with SMGMs ability to. So once again this is a bad reason to commit long term money to somebody.

- that we'll be worse if we let him go/need to replace him with somebody - Ive explained this in several posts and most people seem to get where Im coming from even if they dont agree. So - if Kirk is not good enough to be our starter and we CANT win a Super Bowl with him then we would need to move on (Note I am not at all saying this is the case). There would be no point in committing long term money to the guy so it wouldnt matter if a replacement was worse because they would just be a cheap fill in until we find somebody who IS good enough. So another bad reason to make a huge long term commitment.

- that he doesnt have enough help on offense - This one is just ridiculous. He has an amazing group of pass catchers, a solid oline, and a running game that averages 4.5 ypc. The running game could be better, but to argue he NEEDS it to be better basically means you need Kirk to be put in the PERFECT situation where he is carried by everybody else. Im not committing long term money to somebody if they need a perfect situation to be successful.

- that its only his second year as a starter - He has 41 career starts has played in 46 games and will be 29 by the start of next season. We dont know if he will develop any further. We need to be comfortable commiting the money to the guy we have now NOT to the guy we HOPE he'll be if he gets a few more starts. So to say hes worth it because hes only been a starter for 2 years is a bad reason to commit long term money to a guy.

Now Ive been waiting for literally ANY arguments against these points from you for god knows how many posts. You have provided nothing. AKA you're talking out your ass as usual. But please - Im still waiting on an actual response so we can have a debate rather than the crap youve been spewing the last 2 days about god knows what and all sorts of unrelated things.

And Id stay away from the whole book topic. Im not sure those are safe for you to try and read, bud.

 

[skinsdad62]

No the reasons I listed are bad reasons for resigning somebody. You just dont see them as such. Which is fine you're entitled to your opinion, however shitty. But lets walk through that.

- breaking franchise records - So? You reached an arbitrary statistical point in an era DESIGNED for you to do so on an offense aimed to HELP you do so. Theres nothing wrong with breaking franchise records of course - Kirk should be proud. But they arent a reason to commit longterm money to a guy.

- being the best guy we've had in a long time - this is the ex who beat you example which you yourself admitted was a bad reason to marry somebody. Just because RG3 and John Beck and Donovan McNabb abused us doesnt mean we should re-sign Kirk just because he DOESNT abuse us. This (I would hope) should be pretty clear to you. Clearly this is not a good reason to commit longterm money to somebody.

- that we suck at drafting QBs - Once again - so? To say we suck at drafting QBs has several problems. 1. Its a ridiculously small sample size and 2. Its not the same front office! Danny and Vinny's inability to scout players has nothing to do with SMGMs ability to. So once again this is a bad reason to commit long term money to somebody.

- that we'll be worse if we let him go/need to replace him with somebody - Ive explained this in several posts and most people seem to get where Im coming from even if they dont agree. So - if Kirk is not good enough to be our starter and we CANT win a Super Bowl with him then we would need to move on (Note I am not at all saying this is the case). There would be no point in committing long term money to the guy so it wouldnt matter if a replacement was worse because they would just be a cheap fill in until we find somebody who IS good enough. So another bad reason to make a huge long term commitment.
- that he doesnt have enough help on offense - This one is just ridiculous. He has an amazing group of pass catchers, a solid oline, and a running game that averages 4.5 ypc. The running game could be better, but to argue he NEEDS it to be better basically means you need Kirk to be put in the PERFECT situation where he is carried by everybody else. Im not committing long term money to somebody if they need a perfect situation to be successful.

- that its only his second year as a starter - He has 41 career starts has played in 46 games and will be 29 by the start of next season. We dont know if he will develop any further. We need to be comfortable commiting the money to the guy we have now NOT to the guy we HOPE he'll be if he gets a few more starts. So to say hes worth it because hes only been a starter for 2 years is a bad reason to commit long term money to a guy.

Now Ive been waiting for literally ANY arguments against these points from you for god knows how many posts. You have provided nothing. AKA you're talking out your ass as usual. But please - Im still waiting on an actual response so we can have a debate rather than the crap youve been spewing the last 2 days about god knows what and all sorts of unrelated things.

And Id stay away from the whole book topic. Im not sure those are safe for you to try and read, bud.

ok then name the replacement

 

[ehb5]

ok then name the replacement

Pick whoever you want it doesn't matter that's the point. Not that I think we should go that route anyways.

 

[skinsdad62]

Pick whoever you want it doesn't matter that's the point. Not that I think we should go that route anyways.

well you seem to be making the case for dumping him . In fact one of your reasons for not resigning him is that thinking we cant get anybody better isnt reason enough

so stop dodging put a name or two out there i have put names out there and i am in the same boat you say you are in

i wasnt afraid to make the case against my position with names

 

[ehb5]

well you seem to be making the case for dumping him . In fact one of your reasons for not resigning him is that thinking we cant get anybody better isnt reason enough

so stop dodging put a name or two out there i have put names out there and i am in the same boat you say you are in

i wasnt afraid to make the case against my position with names

I am not at all making the case for dumping him. I want him back.

But I will not give you a name on principle just because 1. I'm not advocating we go that route and 2. I've explained why I dont think that's a factor. If you want me to give a name you've gotta prove to me a name is important.

 

[Stymietee]

No the reasons I listed are bad reasons for resigning somebody. You just dont see them as such. Which is fine you're entitled to your opinion, however shitty. But lets walk through that.

- breaking franchise records - So? You reached an arbitrary statistical point in an era DESIGNED for you to do so on an offense aimed to HELP you do so. Theres nothing wrong with breaking franchise records of course - Kirk should be proud. But they arent a reason to commit longterm money to a guy.

- being the best guy we've had in a long time - this is the ex who beat you example which you yourself admitted was a bad reason to marry somebody. Just because RG3 and John Beck and Donovan McNabb abused us doesnt mean we should re-sign Kirk just because he DOESNT abuse us. This (I would hope) should be pretty clear to you. Clearly this is not a good reason to commit longterm money to somebody.

- that we suck at drafting QBs - Once again - so? To say we suck at drafting QBs has several problems. 1. Its a ridiculously small sample size and 2. Its not the same front office! Danny and Vinny's inability to scout players has nothing to do with SMGMs ability to. So once again this is a bad reason to commit long term money to somebody.

- that we'll be worse if we let him go/need to replace him with somebody - Ive explained this in several posts and most people seem to get where Im coming from even if they dont agree. So - if Kirk is not good enough to be our starter and we CANT win a Super Bowl with him then we would need to move on (Note I am not at all saying this is the case). There would be no point in committing long term money to the guy so it wouldnt matter if a replacement was worse because they would just be a cheap fill in until we find somebody who IS good enough. So another bad reason to make a huge long term commitment.

- that he doesnt have enough help on offense - This one is just ridiculous. He has an amazing group of pass catchers, a solid oline, and a running game that averages 4.5 ypc. The running game could be better, but to argue he NEEDS it to be better basically means you need Kirk to be put in the PERFECT situation where he is carried by everybody else. Im not committing long term money to somebody if they need a perfect situation to be successful.

- that its only his second year as a starter - He has 41 career starts has played in 46 games and will be 29 by the start of next season. We dont know if he will develop any further. We need to be comfortable commiting the money to the guy we have now NOT to the guy we HOPE he'll be if he gets a few more starts. So to say hes worth it because hes only been a starter for 2 years is a bad reason to commit long term money to a guy.

Now Ive been waiting for literally ANY arguments against these points from you for god knows how many posts. You have provided nothing. AKA you're talking out your ass as usual. But please - Im still waiting on an actual response so we can have a debate rather than the crap youve been spewing the last 2 days about god knows what and all sorts of unrelated things.

And Id stay away from the whole book topic. Im not sure those are safe for you to try and read, bud.

A very nice response to all of those points. I understand that there is the whole "we've been drowning and anything that seems reasonable will do" position that a lot of folks here have. It is nice not to have to worry about the QB position because we have taken this step to go beyond anything that we've had in a while.

I honestly believe that what you have outlined here are exactly the points that the organization has properly avoided when making their contractual considerations.

The only other "problem" that some here have presented is...."Name the replacement?" which is a rather damning question towards our GM and his team. It is possible that the replacement has already been named in Sudfield, Who the hell knows? Maybe they have targeted someone in free agency (who's more the Russell Wilson type ) that will totally piss off a lot of folks here because that person is not as known and loved as Kirk. It is also possible that they have a target in the draft that their scouts have assured them is already better than what we have with and without Kirk. That too would flare a bunch of nostris here.

Could it also be as I've suggested that Kirk stays here refranchised AND they make moves to replace him? All of those things are possible as is resigning Kirk to a contract that everyone can live with. I just can't get with this either or mentality where Kirk is either resigned or the team faces some sort of dire drastic setback. There are other realistic ways to sign or not sign him and barely miss a beat.

 

[skinsdad62]

I am not at all making the case for dumping him. I want him back.

But I will not give you a name on principle just because 1. I'm not advocating we go that route and 2. I've explained why I dont think that's a factor. If you want me to give a name you've gotta prove to me a name is important.

then why all the reasons ? thats making the case to dump him . and if you are making the case to dump him (even though you arent ) then give us a replacement . that is a fair question . i dont know what principle you could possibly have that would prevent you from putting out a name . its not like am i am asking you to sell your soul. i am asking you to give up a plan B without some mythical guy

 

[ehb5]

then why all the reasons ? thats making the case to dump him . and if you are making the case to dump him (even though you arent ) then give us a replacement . that is a fair question . i dont know what principle you could possibly have that would prevent you from putting out a name . its not like am i am asking you to sell your soul. i am asking you to give up a plan B without some mythical guy

Ok tyrod taylor, Jay cutler, tony romo, whoever cheap. I don't even know whose available at qb this offseason. Doesn't matter to me. I don't want us to do that anyways.

I listed those reasons because shark asked me to list the reasons that I thought were bad reasons to resign him.