teams in the KC race this off season

[ehb5]

Very week. Cousins is the cream of the crop. The Redskins need to lock him up. Lots of teams would want him.

Browns
Texans
Giants
Vikings
Cardinals
Bengals
Jaguar
Dolphins
Chiefs
Broncos
And maybe others.

For an offseason QB crop its pretty loaded

 

[ehb5]

The FO screwed the pooch on this one in Cousin's first year as a starter. They could have signed him for relative peanuts before that first year was up. No foresight, no football knowledge, no smarts.

I think Griffin was a Snyder/Allen decision and Cousin's was a Shanahan decision and they just can't live with the fact that they screwed up again. Instead they have played this ridiculous game of prove it until they look like the morons they are.

They screwed up in hindsight. It wasnt crazy that they didnt extend him at the time.

 

[ehb5]

my whole deal with grap is he was less experienced then KC when you all balked at 20 mil a year for KC saying KC hadnt proved anything yet

Yea whether garoppolo hits or not doesnt really matter.

There was no good reason to commit picks and $$ to Garoppolo and not to Cousins. 1 of them had proven production the other didnt. There was no reasonable case for garoppolo.

 

[ehb5]

I think experience is well over played in these instances. I'm sure that almost everyone here would take Cousins and his 60 games played over Flacco and his 138 games played just to make that point. BTW: I also think that growth/development fit the same category. Every year we see players who come into the league who are already head and shoulders better than the current placeholder despite that players growth/development.

Its not experience as much as its proven production. Cousins has close to 50 games as a good NFL QB. Garoppolo was a shot in the dark.

 

[Stymietee]

Yea whether garoppolo hits or not doesnt really matter.

There was no good reason to commit picks and $$ to Garoppolo and not to Cousins. 1 of them had proven production the other didnt. There was no reasonable case for garoppolo.

While I agree with your premise, I really don't follow when you separate the two, or better, make this an either/or choice. There was indeed no good reason to commit picks and $$ to Garoppolo and not to Cousins, however, there was good reason to commit money and/or picks to both.

I know that there's a significant portion of this fan base who are unaccustomed to having good competent, to great football minds running the show and making wise decisions. In truth there are very good to great evaluators in this game who are able to look at guys like Garoppollo, evaluate them beyond their brief bodies of work, determine how such players fit the scheme of their HC and make the deal happen to acquire them.

I know that it is NOT a popular thing to imagine, but right now there are QB's not starting in the league, who are and would be competent in Jay Gruden's system. Let us not forget that at one point Kirk Cousins was determined to be a competent QB in this system. As he gained experience, that opinion changed, to whatever degree that folks have of him now. What held true for Cousins, holds true for some of them as well. The question is and has always been, why don't we have such talent evaluators?

This team is on the verge of losing a QB who really fits nicely in J. Gruden's system due to no effort, of the person who will eventually be, responsible for finding his replacement. Oh Joy!!

 

[Stymietee]

Its not experience as much as its proven production. Cousins has close to 50 games as a good NFL QB. Garoppolo was a shot in the dark.

Again, whether it's experience or proven production, there are less than a handful of folks here or elsewhere who would take Joe Flacco and his 138 game experience plus a SB victory ( proven production) over Kirk Cousins and his 60 game experience and zero SB victories.

BTW: Garoppolo was not a shot in the dark. I'm sure that Lynch did his homework, evaluated the guy in terms of fit into Kyles system. Had conversations with Kyle, and determined what type of player he was, then made an smart, well informed decision to get this player.

 

[ehb5]

While I agree with your premise, I really don't follow when you separate the two, or better, make this an either/or choice. There was indeed no good reason to commit picks and $$ to Garoppolo and not to Cousins, however, there was good reason to commit money and/or picks to both.

I know that there's a significant portion of this fan base who are unaccustomed to having good competent, to great football minds running the show and making wise decisions. In truth there are very good to great evaluators in this game who are able to look at guys like Garoppollo, evaluate them beyond their brief bodies of work, determine how such players fit the scheme of their HC and make the deal happen to acquire them.

I know that it is NOT a popular thing to imagine, but right now there are QB's not starting in the league, who are and would be competent in Jay Gruden's system. Let us not forget that at one point Kirk Cousins was determined to be a competent QB in this system. As he gained experience, that opinion changed, to whatever degree that folks have of him now. What held true for Cousins, holds true for some of them as well. The question is and has always been, why don't we have such talent evaluators?

This team is on the verge of losing a QB who really fits nicely in J. Gruden's system due to no effort, of the person who will eventually be, responsible for finding his replacement. Oh Joy!!

I'm not sure I follow. Sure we could've traded for him but then we'd be committing big money to an unproven qb. How is that better than big money to a qb with 50 (successful) starts?

Are there qbs out there who could run the offense as well as kirk? Maybe. Honestly I doubt it though unless you want to start dipping into the draft. And even if they are out there how the hell are we supposed to know which ones they are?

We don't have those talent evaluators because those talent evaluators don't exist.

 

[ehb5]

Again, whether it's experience or proven production, there are less than a handful of folks here or elsewhere who would take Joe Flacco and his 138 game experience plus a SB victory ( proven production) over Kirk Cousins and his 60 game experience and zero SB victories.

BTW: Garoppolo was not a shot in the dark. I'm sure that Lynch did his homework, evaluated the guy in terms of fit into Kyles system. Had conversations with Kyle, and determined what type of player he was, then made an smart, well informed decision to get this player.

Peoplewouldn't take flacco over cousins because flacco sucks. It's not about experience it's about skill.

Cousins is a proven above average qb. Garoppolo was a 2nd round pick with 94 pass attempts in 3 years. He was about as much of a shot in the dark as...a second round pick. Which is a fairly big shot in the dark especially when compared to somebody with the track record of 3 straight productive seasons as a starter.

 

[Stymietee]

I'm not sure I follow. Sure we could've traded for him but then we'd be committing big money to an unproven qb. How is that better than big money to a qb with 50 (successful) starts?

Are there qbs out there who could run the offense as well as kirk? Maybe. Honestly I doubt it though unless you want to start dipping into the draft. And even if they are out there how the hell are we supposed to know which ones they are?

We don't have those talent evaluators because those talent evaluators don't exist.

It appears that your difficulty following relates to your beliefs, and that's understandable. We all believe what we will, but once you enter doubt into your evaluation process as the basis for those beliefs the conclusions become obvious.

Research generally changes a position that's based upon belief. I've done the research, just as was done in SF. It makes no sense that the 49'ers would make that move merely based on a feeling or belief. I must also inform that there are other things to consider beyond numbers when evaluating players. Things such as character, work ethic, style, fit and a bit of imagination all must be factored into the process.

It is interesting to note that some DC fans/followers/supporters can't seem to look at and learn the lessons of introspection that comes with being such a fan/follower/supporter. The classic example is just one year removed from this team and it came from the loss of P. Garcon and D. Jackson.

By almost all accounts our two best receivers, right? Well, take a look at them now, Garcon is having a kind of decent season while Jackson not so much. What's the difference between what they are doing now and what they did here?.....FIT. Together in Gruden's system they worked here, apart they are not as effective. Happens all the time in the NFL. BTW: just as players compliment one another, so do players and systems. Individually, we see players performing at a high level on other teams and go after them in free agency without properly evaluating them for this team/organization, thus we get a long line of players like Archuletta, Sanders, and the like.

BTW: I'm not an NFL level evaluator, but I've just outlined and given examples, of other things that must be considered when acquiring talent, of course if folks want to use belief and sheer numbers as the basis for their posts, I suppose that I really don't exist. Those evaluators do indeed exist, just not here on the professional level. I've come to see Kirk as a pretty good QB, but to say that this team is doomed without him is frankly, ill informed.

 

[Stymietee]

Peoplewouldn't take flacco over cousins because flacco sucks. It's not about experience it's about skill.

Cousins is a proven above average qb. Garoppolo was a 2nd round pick with 94 pass attempts in 3 years. He was about as much of a shot in the dark as...a second round pick. Which is a fairly big shot in the dark especially when compared to somebody with the track record of 3 straight productive seasons as a starter.

This is crazy at level 9, people don't take Cousins over Flacco because Flacco sucks, they take him because Cousins is the better QB. This doesn't make Flacco a bad QB, dude is 32 years old and has been the starter in Baltimore since 2008. If they thought of him as a guy that "sucks" wouldn't they have made a move to replace him by now? Ozzie Smith is one of the most talented GM's in the game and he certainly wouldn't put up with a QB that "sucks." for that many years.

That said, let's address the draft because it is germane to the topic at hand. Why do we have a draft at all? Well, not merely to infuse youth into the game but to also improve talent. Kirk Cousins has grown into a pretty good QB (my opinion) to say that there aren't guys who are not already at his talent leve or who can become that or better in a much short period of time that Kirk did, is nuts. So as my proof let's look at Kirk from the other direction. Some say that he is not at the top tier level yet, but if asked, I'm sure they can envision more growth that puts him there. How is it possible to imagine that and Not be imaginative enough to see another player already where Kirk worked to become? The answer is simple......bias.

This is what I hear when people (the OK'ers) say that we're doomed without Kirk,

The Platters - Only You - YouTube


View attachment 171353
3:28


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg9tA1JkaUE​

 

[Sharkinva]

This is what I hear when people (the OK'ers) say that we're doomed without Kirk

Im only going to address this portion because I assume you consider me an OKer.

No one is saying we are Doomed. But logic (not bias) would suggest that if you HAVE a pretty good QB (your words), would it not be prudent to hold onto said QB and address a position where you are actually lacking in talent of the even decent level?? Can we find a QB either in the draft or FA that is at Kirks level currently?? Maybe. BUt the cap savings wont be that drastic if its a FA, and we forfeit the ability to improve another position if we do in fact draft the QB in the first round.

Doomed, no. A setback probably. The only real reason at this point to want to move away from Kirk at this point in time is actually bias.. against him.

 

[Stymietee]

Im only going to address this portion because I assume you consider me an OKer.

No one is saying we are Doomed. But logic (not bias) would suggest that if you HAVE a pretty good QB (your words), would it not be prudent to hold onto said QB and address a position where you are actually lacking in talent of the even decent level?? Can we find a QB either in the draft or FA that is at Kirks level currently?? Maybe. BUt the cap savings wont be that drastic if its a FA, and we forfeit the ability to improve another position if we do in fact draft the QB in the first round.

Doomed, no. A setback probably. The only real reason at this point to want to move away from Kirk at this point in time is actually bias.. against him.

NOT so, there is a "who" component to all of this. In this case Bruce Allen, who you, on occasion, outlined his arrogance. If he believes that Kirk can be replaced, or has a plan to move on from him, why is that not the reason for being as prudent as you believe it to be?

Frankly, I'm still a bit surprised that Kirk is still here. Except for the fact that he is now 44M dollars richer, there really has been no reason for him to stay. Now that this monetary barrier has been hurdled, honestly, what real reasons are there for him to continue to wear our colors? Everything else revolves around personal relationships which btw, in a league where moving around is the norm, can be maintained beyond the workplace.

Do I believe that Bruce is qualified to do the right things for this team? NO, and that is the ONLY reason why I believe that there would be any sort of set-back if Kirk decides to leave.

You wrote: "The only real reason at this point to want to move away from Kirk at this point in time is actually bias.. against him." I disagree, so let me give you another reason.

We all seem to agree that Bruce and Dan have messed this whole thing up, right?, well, honestly there's ONLY one way out that does not require either to admit wrong. (isn't this your position?) That's to continue doing what they have been, which forces the issue. They can legitimately say that Kirk no longer wants to be here, from their position "in the best interest of the team." To be sure I'll be among the many who won't buy this shit, but arrogance being what it is, they can sell it or not because it's Dan's franchise. A move like this has NOTHING at all to do with Kirk or bias against him, but everything to do with running this organization, as they deem fit.

 

[ehb5]

It appears that your difficulty following relates to your beliefs, and that's understandable. We all believe what we will, but once you enter doubt into your evaluation process as the basis for those beliefs the conclusions become obvious.

Research generally changes a position that's based upon belief. I've done the research, just as was done in SF. It makes no sense that the 49'ers would make that move merely based on a feeling or belief. I must also inform that there are other things to consider beyond numbers when evaluating players. Things such as character, work ethic, style, fit and a bit of imagination all must be factored into the process.

It is interesting to note that some DC fans/followers/supporters can't seem to look at and learn the lessons of introspection that comes with being such a fan/follower/supporter. The classic example is just one year removed from this team and it came from the loss of P. Garcon and D. Jackson.

By almost all accounts our two best receivers, right? Well, take a look at them now, Garcon is having a kind of decent season while Jackson not so much. What's the difference between what they are doing now and what they did here?.....FIT. Together in Gruden's system they worked here, apart they are not as effective. Happens all the time in the NFL. BTW: just as players compliment one another, so do players and systems. Individually, we see players performing at a high level on other teams and go after them in free agency without properly evaluating them for this team/organization, thus we get a long line of players like Archuletta, Sanders, and the like.

BTW: I'm not an NFL level evaluator, but I've just outlined and given examples, of other things that must be considered when acquiring talent, of course if folks want to use belief and sheer numbers as the basis for their posts, I suppose that I really don't exist. Those evaluators do indeed exist, just not here on the professional level. I've come to see Kirk as a pretty good QB, but to say that this team is doomed without him is frankly, ill informed.



Of course the 49ers did their research (at least i hope they did). Im sure they looked into his character and work ethic, looked into whether kyle shanahan thought he would fit, studied his college tape and what little nfl tape there was. Im sure they did all of that in their best attempt to make an educated guess. And you know what it came down to? A shot in the dark that it would work. Because after ALL that research - garoppolo still only had about the odds of a 2nd round pick at hitting.

And Garopollo was a rare case of a 2nd round backup in the league. Most other backups are even bigger shots in the dark. There simply isnt a good way to figure out which ones are good until you play them.

Ehh Garcon was doing well and got hurt. DJax could be several things. A predictable offense, a struggling young QB without a good deep ball, a bad backup playing more than you hoped, aging, or maybe just a bad fit as you said. Who knows. I havent watched much tampa football.

To your point - I do think fit matters. I think being good matters more. A bad QB wont succeed in Grudens offense just because hes "a fit". Thats why I think people are full of it when they use Kap not being a fit in teams offenses as an excuse to not sign him. Ill take Kap and his not fitting over Brock Osweiler and his "fit" in the offense any day.

Ive certainly never suggested we're doomed without him. We COULD end up better off without him. It just requires a good amount of luck.

 

[ehb5]

This is crazy at level 9, people don't take Cousins over Flacco because Flacco sucks, they take him because Cousins is the better QB. This doesn't make Flacco a bad QB, dude is 32 years old and has been the starter in Baltimore since 2008. If they thought of him as a guy that "sucks" wouldn't they have made a move to replace him by now? Ozzie Smith is one of the most talented GM's in the game and he certainly wouldn't put up with a QB that "sucks." for that many years.

That said, let's address the draft because it is germane to the topic at hand. Why do we have a draft at all? Well, not merely to infuse youth into the game but to also improve talent. Kirk Cousins has grown into a pretty good QB (my opinion) to say that there aren't guys who are not already at his talent leve or who can become that or better in a much short period of time that Kirk did, is nuts. So as my proof let's look at Kirk from the other direction. Some say that he is not at the top tier level yet, but if asked, I'm sure they can envision more growth that puts him there. How is it possible to imagine that and Not be imaginative enough to see another player already where Kirk worked to become? The answer is simple......bias.

This is what I hear when people (the OK'ers) say that we're doomed without Kirk,

The Platters - Only You - YouTube


View attachment 171353
3:28


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg9tA1JkaUE​

Flacco absolutely sucks. People take Cousins over Flacco because Cousins is the better QB. Regardless of your opinion on Newsome, hes stuck with a bad QB for several years now and even let a better QB walk out the door. Granted, theres I dont blame him for not knowing Tyrod was better, but I do blame him for the commitments theyve made to Flacco.

Ehh. I agree, that if people dont think a rookie can come in and quickly ascend to Kirks level of play their living in some fantasy land where Kirk is their lord and savior, but I dont know if that applies to anybody on here. The problem is, it isnt that easy to get that young guy. If we could guarantee a successful QB pick obviously we should do it but the hit rate is only like 30-35% (roughly) in recent history. Its risky, especially since we dont have a top pick so we cant guarantee a top QB prospect would even be available to us.

 

[Sharkinva]

Flacco absolutely sucks. People take Cousins over Flacco because Cousins is the better QB. Regardless of your opinion on Newsome, hes stuck with a bad QB for several years now and even let a better QB walk out the door. Granted, theres I dont blame him for not knowing Tyrod was better, but I do blame him for the commitments theyve made to Flacco.

Ehh. I agree, that if people dont think a rookie can come in and quickly ascend to Kirks level of play their living in some fantasy land where Kirk is their lord and savior, but I dont know if that applies to anybody on here. The problem is, it isnt that easy to get that young guy. If we could guarantee a successful QB pick obviously we should do it but the hit rate is only like 30-35% (roughly) in recent history. Its risky, especially since we dont have a top pick so we cant guarantee a top QB prospect would even be available to us.

30-35% is being generous. And the real issue is, taking the QB pick out of context of the entire team. If we had no other holes, sure ditch Kirk, do what it takes and get that QB in the draft. But better be sure he is going to be as good as or better than Kirk.

But reality is, keeping Kirk, using that first round pick to get that other D-lineman, O-lineman or Safety/LB that we need while maybe not as exciting as the QB pick, stands a better chance of improving the team ON the field.

 

[ehb5]

30-35% is being generous. And the real issue is, taking the QB pick out of context of the entire team. If we had no other holes, sure ditch Kirk, do what it takes and get that QB in the draft. But better be sure he is going to be as good as or better than Kirk.

But reality is, keeping Kirk, using that first round pick to get that other D-lineman, O-lineman or Safety/LB that we need while maybe not as exciting as the QB pick, stands a better chance of improving the team ON the field.

I think that number is pretty accurate but weve had that debate about a billion times lol.

I dont really know how much having other holes matters. If we went that route we have money to use on other holes. If we keep Kirk we have a first round pick to use. Shrug.

I mean - I agree. I feel like you keep arguing against points Im not making here.

 

[Sharkinva]

I think that number is pretty accurate but weve had that debate about a billion times lol.

I dont really know how much having other holes matters. If we went that route we have money to use on other holes. If we keep Kirk we have a first round pick to use. Shrug.

I mean - I agree. I feel like you keep arguing against points Im not making here.

Well I will clear up my points then.

1. We have been looking for a GOOD QB for 20+ years. We finally have one.

2. We have tried the whole lets spend heavily in free agency to fill the holes. It has failed numerous times.

3. A starting O-lineman or D-lineman in the draft will cost alot less than a free agent, and we SHOULD have them longer.

4. While a Rookie QB will cost less than Kirk, even using your numbers, there is a 70% chance of failure. And this totally ignores the chance that we might in fact need to trade up to get said named savior unless we are in the mindset of whoever is there is a better option than Cousins.

5. A free agent QB should cost us less than Kirk, but based on the landscape of the position... less is relative. I honestly think the guys capable of starting and doing well at this point come down to McCarron maybe... and he is going to get $20M based on the $20M I expect Grap to get. So we wont save much that way either.

 

[ehb5]

Well I will clear up my points then.

1. We have been looking for a GOOD QB for 20+ years. We finally have one.

2. We have tried the whole lets spend heavily in free agency to fill the holes. It has failed numerous times.

3. A starting O-lineman or D-lineman in the draft will cost alot less than a free agent, and we SHOULD have them longer.

4. While a Rookie QB will cost less than Kirk, even using your numbers, there is a 70% chance of failure. And this totally ignores the chance that we might in fact need to trade up to get said named savior unless we are in the mindset of whoever is there is a better option than Cousins.

5. A free agent QB should cost us less than Kirk, but based on the landscape of the position... less is relative. I honestly think the guys capable of starting and doing well at this point come down to McCarron maybe... and he is going to get $20M based on the $20M I expect Grap to get. So we wont save much that way either.

1. Yes

2. It's been hit and miss. Throwing away an entire method of improving the team is foolish.

3. That applies to every position but yes.

4. Yes

5. I think tyrod and Bridgewater are the only 2 worth looking into but they're backup plans if Kirk leaves not the goal.

 

[Sharkinva]

1. Yes

2. It's been hit and miss. Throwing away an entire method of improving the team is foolish.

3. That applies to every position but yes.

4. Yes

5. I think tyrod and Bridgewater are the only 2 worth looking into but they're backup plans if Kirk leaves not the goal.

Our free agency record since Dan has owned the team has been bad. I mean really bad. And if the plan is to fix the team through free agency, its a horrible plan. If a draft pick flames out, it costs what 3-10M over four years?? Most of our free agent fails have cost 3-5 times that in year one.

If Taylor or Bridgewater are the backup plan we are still screwed. I will make no bones about it, if they play that style of QB I simply dont want them here. They dont fit our offense, and I really would rather be a bit bored but feel confident we will actually have our QB barring a freak accident for 16 games. Taylor and Bridgewaters game (running QBs) lends them to getting injured. Neither of them has shown an ability to run a timing based offense for the most part. And thats what our current coach runs, thats what the guy before him wanted to run.

 

[ehb5]

Our free agency record since Dan has owned the team has been bad. I mean really bad. And if the plan is to fix the team through free agency, its a horrible plan. If a draft pick flames out, it costs what 3-10M over four years?? Most of our free agent fails have cost 3-5 times that in year one.

If Taylor or Bridgewater are the backup plan we are still screwed. I will make no bones about it, if they play that style of QB I simply dont want them here. They dont fit our offense, and I really would rather be a bit bored but feel confident we will actually have our QB barring a freak accident for 16 games. Taylor and Bridgewaters game (running QBs) lends them to getting injured. Neither of them has shown an ability to run a timing based offense for the most part. And thats what our current coach runs, thats what the guy before him wanted to run.

It's been better of late. I dont think anybody is suggesting we use solely free agency just that we use it. This team isnt a barren wasteland of talent like it's been in the past. Free agency wouldn't be the foundation it would just be part of the building.

You're gonna have a hard time selling me on us being screwed with tyrod and teddy but that we NEED to keep Kirk.

Also I think you might need to go watch teddy Bridgewater play some time. Hes not a running QB but he is actually a great fit for our offense the way gruden's been running it the past few years.

Look I'm with ya we should keep kirk. But if you're gonna bend over backwards to tell me tyrod and teddy cant cut it after the past 3 years of telling me kirk was more than enough I'm gonna roll my eyes out of my freakin head.