Redskins' Kirk Cousins: Still far apart on extension terms

[j_y19]

With the firing of SM, I fully expect that we will enter into a renewed version of the Bruce and Dan show albeit, for a while, with some ideas taken from the former GM.

No one that I've seen, has said anything close to "tossing" Kirk, but all the talk that I've participated in starts and ends with where I believe to be the likely outcome in the failed attempts to sign him. (Losing him) in that case there had better be a plan in place to replace him. I also offered that. Knowing how highly valued some here place him, I knew that they would reject that plan outright, but you know what?, I DID offer a plan.

BTW: if you don't expect Kirk in become better in manuvering himself in the pocket, or impoverization when a play breaks down, then you too agree with SM and myself that Cousins has reached his ceiling. It's certainly not a bad ceiling though, just sayin'

From a physical standpoint, he probably has reached his ceiling, or pretty darn close to it. But I still think that there is room for growth from the mental aspect. After all, he has less than 3 seasons of game experience. I would expect any QB with that level of game time to still have room for mental growth.

 

[j_y19]

I hear ya, but that's sort of implying that Cousins was the reason for all our wins. I think the elite QB's can be given that type of credit, and while there is a lot of value in Cousins being in the upper half of the NFL's starting QB's, I think he's a game manager reliant on the talent around him. Remember, we signed a lot of guys to 1 year deals, and we're going to have to re-sign those guys next year for a lot more or find more players through free agency. So signing Cousins does have an effect on who else we can get. I don't want to be in the situation Chicago's found themselves in. A few years ago they thought they had one of the better QB's in Cutler and signed him to an enormous long-term deal. And as that deal's gone on, it's looked worse every year and has been used as an excuse to not improve.

SO I guess this is the great departure from the KC supporters and the KC questioners in my mind. KC is a game manager and does need a supporting cast. But so do 25-28 of the starting QBs in the league right now. the rest are the elite. a handful come around every couple of years. We could spend a generation (and have) searching for that elite talent at this position. But you don't have to have an elite QB to win the SB. Its been proven time and again. I believe KC has the tools and ethic to be good enough to lead the right team to a SB. He still has flaws, but has always shown the ethic to work hard and address his flaws. I see no reason that he still can't continue to improve. In my opinion, the chances are much greater that if we lose KC, whomever we get to replace him will be worse, not better.

 

[Sharkinva]

Take Cousins out of the equation for a moment.

say the Skins could put a deal in place in principle where we could give up 2 firsts and a second, but would guarantee we would trade spots to get the first pick in the draft thus ensuring we got our pick of QBs. How many of you would go for this deal, right now no questions asked, an irrespective of where the Skins finished provided we did not in fact finish picking number 1 over all on our own.

 

[Ruzious]

SO I guess this is the great departure from the KC supporters and the KC questioners in my mind. KC is a game manager and does need a supporting cast. But so do 25-28 of the starting QBs in the league right now. the rest are the elite. a handful come around every couple of years. We could spend a generation (and have) searching for that elite talent at this position. But you don't have to have an elite QB to win the SB. Its been proven time and again. I believe KC has the tools and ethic to be good enough to lead the right team to a SB. He still has flaws, but has always shown the ethic to work hard and address his flaws. I see no reason that he still can't continue to improve. In my opinion, the chances are much greater that if we lose KC, whomever we get to replace him will be worse, not better.

I would say that Dallas already had a rookie last year that's better, and Philly had a rookie who's on his way to being better. Both are likely going to be better than Cousins for a decade. And the folks running Dallas and Philly aren't geniuses.

 

[gkekoa]

I hear ya, but that's sort of implying that Cousins was the reason for all our wins. I think the elite QB's can be given that type of credit, and while there is a lot of value in Cousins being in the upper half of the NFL's starting QB's, I think he's a game manager reliant on the talent around him. Remember, we signed a lot of guys to 1 year deals, and we're going to have to re-sign those guys next year for a lot more or find more players through free agency. So signing Cousins does have an effect on who else we can get. I don't want to be in the situation Chicago's found themselves in. A few years ago they thought they had one of the better QB's in Cutler and signed him to an enormous long-term deal. And as that deal's gone on, it's looked worse every year and has been used as an excuse to not improve.

You are going to credit elite QBs with wins. I think we can all agree Brady is elite. How did they do without him? They went 3-1. Who were their QBs? Garrapolo, a first time starter (1-0), and Brissett, a sixth round rookie (1-1).

 

[Stymietee]

From a physical standpoint, he probably has reached his ceiling, or pretty darn close to it. But I still think that there is room for growth from the mental aspect. After all, he has less than 3 seasons of game experience. I would expect any QB with that level of game time to still have room for mental growth.

True, but let's not forget that he's 3 months removed from his 29th Birthday. Generally, that learning curve happens much earlier in a career, but other than that I won't argue over what's possible.

 

[Stymietee]

Take Cousins out of the equation for a moment.

say the Skins could put a deal in place in principle where we could give up 2 firsts and a second, but would guarantee we would trade spots to get the first pick in the draft thus ensuring we got our pick of QBs. How many of you would go for this deal, right now no questions asked, an irrespective of where the Skins finished provided we did not in fact finish picking number 1 over all on our own.

Absolutely NOT!! the reason being, that we could easily get another, better version of Kirk, in another deal that would cost us a whole lot less in immediate dollars and draft capital!

 

[j_y19]

True, but let's not forget that he's 3 months removed from his 29th Birthday. Generally, that learning curve happens much earlier in a career, but other than that I won't argue over what's possible.

Dude, I'm in my mid 50s and every time I experience something new, I learn. And that includes things that one might believe I am quite proficient at.

 

[j_y19]

I would say that Dallas already had a rookie last year that's better, and Philly had a rookie who's on his way to being better. Both are likely going to be better than Cousins for a decade. And the folks running Dallas and Philly aren't geniuses.[/QUOT

Its way too early on both those guys to make those proclamations, IMO. Not sure if you remember a guy by the name of RG3? How about another named Foles?

Prescott may turn out to be good, but he may also turn out to be the biggest benefactor of a great running game. He had half as many pass attempts as KC last year because they rarely had to pass. He was hardly ever put in a pressure situation. And Wentz??? I didn't see it. But he was in a much harder situation than Prescott.

 

[Sharkinva]

Absolutely NOT!! the reason being, that we MIGHT get another, better version of Kirk, in another deal that would cost us a whole lot less in immediate dollars and draft capital!

FIFY

 

[Stymietee]

Dude, I'm in my mid 50s and every time I experience something new, I learn. And that includes things that one might believe I am quite proficient at.

Dude I'm in my 60's and I've said on many occasions that we all learn something new in the course of our lifetimes. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we're talking about football, a very specific thing that limits growth that players experience to a very few seasons. To be clear more often than not football players master and peak out by a time certain in their careers, once there the skills erode and they are no longer the prize that they once were.

 

[Stymietee]

FIFY

The only reason that I used the word "might" is because there is no guarantee that we have the front office chops to make that deal happen in the event we are in the market for a QB.

 

[j_y19]

1. SO I guess this is the great departure from the KC supporters and the KC questioners in my mind. KC is a game manager and does need a supporting cast. But so do 25-28 of the starting QBs in the league right now. the rest are the elite. a handful come around every couple of years. We could spend a generation (and have) searching for that elite talent at this position. But you don't have to have an elite QB to win the SB. Its been proven time and again. I believe KC has the tools and ethic to be good enough to lead the right team to a SB. He still has flaws, but has always shown the ethic to work hard and address his flaws. I see no reason that he still can't continue to improve. In my opinion, the chances are much greater that if we lose KC, whomever we get to replace him will be worse, not better.
2. 
   Take Cousins out of the equation for a moment.
   
   say the Skins could put a deal in place in principle where we could give up 2 firsts and a second, but would guarantee we would trade spots to get the first pick in the draft thus ensuring we got our pick of QBs. How many of you would go for this deal, right now no questions asked, an irrespective of where the Skins finished provided we did not in fact finish picking number 1 over all on our own.

Damn you Dan and Bruce and your winning off the field attitudes! You two have us, some of your most loyal followers arguing and debating over something that easily could have been avoided. here ar


Dude I'm in my 60's and I've said on many occasions that we all learn something new in the course of our lifetimes. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we're talking about football, a very specific thing that limits growth that non players experience to a very few seasons. To be clear more often than not football players master and peak out by a time certain in their careers, once there the skills erode and they are no longer the prize that they once were.

I would not. I would use those draft picks to continue to bolster the rest of the team for whomever our QB is. The failure rate for QBs coming out of college is just too high, even ones drafted #1 (or #2!).

 

[Sharkinva]

I would say that Dallas already had a rookie last year that's better, and Philly had a rookie who's on his way to being better. Both are likely going to be better than Cousins for a decade. And the folks running Dallas and Philly aren't geniuses.

And i would say that so far Dallas looks to have gotten lucky, though as some have pointed out Dak hasnt really been tested yet as he was rarely put in a position to NEED to pass.

Philly paid out the nose to move up to get Wentz, they in effect used two firsts, a second, a third and a 4th to draft Wentz. The only team to take it harder than that to get a QB was.... well we know who got butt raped on a QB trade.

So which is it, do we hope to get lucky, or take it up the exit chute again in the quest for elite??

 

[Sharkinva]

The only reason that I used the word "might" is because there is no guarantee that we have the front office chops to make that deal happen in the event we are in the market for a QB.

Ture, but your statement, and in fact the start of another thread have been based on the concept that we should easily be able to find a better QB for far less than what Kirk will cost to resign. My take is, if it was that wasy, why have we sucked at the position for two decades considering we have thrown a metric shit ton of draft capital at the position over the same two decade span??

 

[Stymietee]

Ture, but your statement, and in fact the start of another thread have been based on the concept that we should easily be able to find a better QB for far less than what Kirk will cost to resign. My take is, if it was that wasy, why have we sucked at the position for two decades considering we have thrown a metric shit ton of draft capital at the position over the same two decade span??

Not exactly right, but there is a QB whether you believe it or not who fits this system better than Kirk, has actual game and playoff experience, has the pedigree, is younger and still on his rookie contract.

We've sucked not because the organization tried and failed, but because they tried to gimmick their way through for the last 20 years. We all know this and Bruce titled it in more recent times as "winning off the field."

It's easily done today, because that guy is sitting there in Cincy.

 

[Sharkinva]

Not exactly right, but there is a QB whether you believe it or not who fits this system better than Kirk, has actual game and playoff experience, has the pedigree, is younger and still on his rookie contract.

We've sucked not because the organization tried and failed, but because they tried to gimmick their way through for the last 20 years. We all know this and Bruce titled it in more recent times as "winning off the field."

It's easily done today, because that guy is sitting there in Cincy.

Considering that there are STILL 4 teams unsettled at QB not named Washington, if the league at large had as much faith in McCarron as you do, some one would have pulled the trigger on getting him. IM also curious as to how Schuler, Campbell, and Ramsey were Gimmick QBs, pocket passers and a game manager sure. Granted Bob was a gimmick straight out of the circus.

Also, as an off shoot, say McCarron does hit the FA Market next year, considering Oswiler got $17M a year, and the likeliness of the Carr and Stafford deals driving the QB market up... just how much do you think McCarron is going to cost? Or rather, if $24M a year is too much to give Kirk, and assuming the market for a starting QB is going to be around that, how cheap do you think starting over with what you have deemed an elite QB is going to be?? Because plenty of people outside this board have said Kirk IS a franchise QB, so the next logical step if McCarron is better than Kirk is... he must be elite right??

 

[Ruzious]

You are going to credit elite QBs with wins. I think we can all agree Brady is elite. How did they do without him? They went 3-1. Who were their QBs? Garrapolo, a first time starter (1-0), and Brissett, a sixth round rookie (1-1).

Do you have a point there?

 

[Ruzious]

Double-post telling people to stop making irrelevant points. Do we really need to go over why RG3 failed? Swallowing toothpicks might be a better use of our time.

 

[Ruzious]

And i would say that so far Dallas looks to have gotten lucky, though as some have pointed out Dak hasnt really been tested yet as he was rarely put in a position to NEED to pass.

Philly paid out the nose to move up to get Wentz, they in effect used two firsts, a second, a third and a 4th to draft Wentz. The only team to take it harder than that to get a QB was.... well we know who got butt raped on a QB trade.

So which is it, do we hope to get lucky, or take it up the exit chute again in the quest for elite??

Lol, how about be smart? Apparently, that's not an option...