Kirk Cousins Development Tracker

[Knightingale]

I think that may still miss a key point - you're talking about 2 of the greatest QBs in NFL history. Forget the experience factor. While I think it's possible that Kirk will learn and get better with more experience in high pressure games, it's also possible he'll never be a Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers. My point is, so what? That's not a reason not to retain the guy, or to grade him an 'average QB' in comparison - every other NFL QB in this league is 'average' if that's the standard

I will continue to proclaim Kirk Cousins the best QB we've had in over a decade, maybe longer than that. That doesn't mean he's perfect, or that the criticism he is taking in regards to stepping up under the spotlight is not valid. If we don't retain him, it's going to set us back for a long time to come.

Absolutely agreed!

You make my point far more eloquently.

Not many QBs come straight into this league and are clutch in year one... or Year two... or sometimes ever.

Clutch usually comes with time.

Brady and Rodgers, as I said, are ratified air. But look at Matt Stafford. 19-36 over his first 55 starts... but this year he was Mr 4th Qtr Clutch!!

Some QBs just need time to be the best they can be. Even if that's never a Brady or a Rodgers.

And honestly... when was the last time we had a potential long time starting QB this good? Theismann?

Rypien did what 5 years? Brunell two? Campbell 3 or 4?

We have a chance to lock up the position with a really good QB for a long time and worry about other things.

It's been said before... we've won Superbowls with Williams, Theismann and Rypien and none of them were Elite either.
(In fact in 87 when we won SBXXII Williams only started 2 games!)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Boone]

Let McVay walk, promote Callahan to OC and watch us get serious on balance as rush attempts per game go up.

Why is Callahan an upgrade? Our run blocking sucked almost all year long and when Kirk needed pass protection the most yesterday, the OL couldn't provide it. Why is Callahan not subject to the same scrutiny some of the other coaches are?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DieselPwr44]

Callahan is the run game coordinator and OL coach only.

But he also is an experienced OC that's been to a SuperBowl and probably understands the importance of balance in an offense more than McVay can probably fathom.

It's one of the reasons why our pass protections break down: the offense is too one dimensional.

If the defense knows you're passing 3 times out of 4, what would you think they'd do? Pin them ears back and get after us.

Its one of McVay's major flaws. I believe Callahan would be an upgrade for just that reason alone.

I'd also submit that the OL is not a completed unit. It lacks a LG,C and IMO, a good RT that's athletic enough to run block.

But that makes no difference if you have an OC that only plays lip service to one facet of the offense.

 

[McD5]

Matt Stafford is great, right? Close to being in the discussion for league MVP.

He's been in the same system for 9 years. And he looked like crap last season.

Peyton Manning took 10 years to win a SB.

The Chiefs are the second seed with Alex Smith at QB.

Patience.

 

[Ax]

I don't get how so many are ready to crucify McVay. He does NOTHING that isn't Gruden approved. NOTHING.
So, you either keep them both, or fire them both. If McVay is snatched for another coaching gig, nothing will change. Gruden is pass happy. As a former QB it is in his DNA.

Oh, and poor Kirk. He's only a 2 year starter,(5yr vet) in a 3 year system, with a 3rd year head coach.

Meanwhile, two weeks ago, a rookie QB, in the his first season, playing in a new system, for a rookie head coach, with nothing to play for, beat this same NY Giant team, at home.

"How do you like me now?"

 

[redskins26]

Matt Stafford is great, right? Close to being in the discussion for league MVP.

He's been in the same system for 9 years. And he looked like crap last season.

Peyton Manning took 10 years to win a SB.

The Chiefs are the second seed with Alex Smith at QB.

Patience.

Smith if I recall went a whole season without throwing a TD pass to WR

 

[redskins26]

I don't get how so many are ready to crucify McVay. He does NOTHING that isn't Gruden approved. NOTHING.
So, you either keep them both, or fire them both. If McVay is snatched for another coaching gig, nothing will change. Gruden is pass happy. As a former QB it is in his DNA.

Oh, and poor Kirk. He's only a 2 year starter,(5yr vet) in a 3 year system, with a 3rd year head coach.

Meanwhile, two weeks ago, a rookie QB, in the his first season, playing in a new system, for a rookie head coach, with nothing to play for, beat this same NY Giant team, at home.

"How do you like me now?"

we beat that Rookie QB and head coach twice what's your point?

 

[Knightingale]

There was a team in 2012 that picked up a rookie QB And a rookie running back and shocked the league... for a year.

As Redskin fans we should know the dangers of putting you eggs in the "Rookie has a blindingly good first year" basket.

RGIII, Wentz, Dak, kaepernick, Luck, Wilson... Picking up a young QB is a lottery, there are very few surefire guaranteed hits. Which is why we've been wandering in the darkness for more than 25 years.

That's a quarter century. A third of the average human lifespan. Personally I'm through with rolling the dice when we have a really good QB in situ already.
With the way Cousins has played the last two years we're talking an incremental upgrade at best unless we really do stumble onto the next Joe Montana.

We've won Superbowls with less than Kirk. Gibbs knew how to make it work.

LOL and before you all say it...

Gruden is not Gibbs. Not even close, I'm under no illusions on that front. He was a Genius as a coach, for my money one of the very best ever to coach. We were blessed to have him.

But he did prove that you can get it done with a GOOD QB and a GOOD Team.
We don't need Cousins to be a Brady or a Rodgers or an Elway or a Montana and carry the team. And if that's the QB we're holding out for then it's gonna be a very very very long wait because they're once in a generation talents. Redskins probably haven't had a truly elite QB since Sammy (70 years ago) or Sonny (40 years ago).

I'd rather us try and get Kirk on a fair deal for both parties (which will be expensive due to the supply/demand situation around QB's in this league) and then build that team to support him.

 

[Ax]

we beat that Rookie QB and head coach twice what's your point?

That when it mattered most, we couldn't match what they did against the Giants last week. With a better team, supposedly. And much, much more at stake.

Tell me which words you're struggling with, and I'll help you.

 

[Ax]

There was a team in 2012 that picked up a rookie QB And a rookie running back and shocked the league... for a year.

As Redskin fans we should know the dangers of putting you eggs in the "Rookie has a blindingly good first year" basket.

True. But then, who said otherwise?

RGIII, Wentz, Dak, kaepernick, Luck, Wilson... Picking up a young QB is a lottery, there are very few surefire guaranteed hits. Which is why we've been wandering in the darkness for more than 25 years.

Why, thank you Capt. Obvious.

We've won Superbowls with less than Kirk. Gibbs knew how to make it work.

Well...........................

LOL and before you all say it...

Gruden is not Gibbs. Not even close, I'm under no illusions on that front. He was a Genius as a coach, for my money one of the very best ever to coach. We were blessed to have him.

So then, why even say it?

But he did prove that you can get it done with a GOOD QB and a GOOD Team.

He proved a great coach could. Gruden, as of this writing, still has a losing record. Horrible clock management skills. A disdain for the run game. And look of a whipped, clueless, loser. And yes, I know, looks can be deceiving. But for right now, the look fits the record.

I'd rather us try and get Kirk on a fair deal for both parties (which will be expensive due to the supply/demand situation around QB's in this league) and then build that team to support him.

And that's the debate. His worth. Many can't stop slobbering over the passing stats. Stats put up in a system geared for big passing stats. Well, those stats were not converted to enough TD's, or W's. They did help his upcoming contract negotiations though. So, Kirk reaped the benefits. his team, did not.

 

[Knightingale]

We're not slobbering over stats. What we're doing is not looking at the Redskins in a bubble. We're one of 32 teams and nobody is arguing that we don't need to improve. We do.

But look at how we sit statistically in the League. Our Offense is indisputably by any measure you care to throw out there one of the best in the league.

Is it perfect? No. We DO need to improve the run game. We DO need to look at red zone efficiency.

But those things aside we've scored buckets of points (11th in the league) and racked up thousands of yards. More than most of the league.

The issue with our win/loss record is that our Defense has allowed almost as many. Kirk and the Offense did more than enough over the season to win games.

Kirks worth is tied to market rate. The supply is far lower than the demand which drives his price up. He's put up top 10 stats this year, it's in black and white. Someone will pay him.

As for the 'obvious' rookie QB statements... look at our history! Look at league history! Some of us really think we're better off with a known quantity who is proven to be good (even if it's within a system designed for him) than repeatedly rolling the dice again and again and praying we strike gold.

As for Gruden... no he's not the second coming. But please stop saddling him with the losses that were the result of the mess Shanaclan left behind. We were a toxic mess in 2013. I defy ANY coach even Gibbs from posting a winning season that year.

I think if we fix the Defense this off season then by next off season it'll be a moot point anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JohnssBass]

It doesn't take a huge crystal ball to figure out Scot will focus on the Defensive side the next couple of years. So if you want to alter Gruden/McVay/Cousins configuration you pretty much have to do it now because you don't want to be rebuilding your offense just when your D is finally solid. And they should deal with the coaching on the D side now, before the talent is here and contaminated.

I don't know how much better Kirk will ever be but he's good enough as long as the coaching staff isn't forcing game plans that just don't work. They need a running game. It won't make Cousins a better QB but it will improve the play at the QB position. They don't need a QB to throw 5,ooo yards they need one that can get wins. Top 5 QB's in yardage; Brees, Ryan, Cousins, Rodgers and Rivers. Only two of those are going to the playoffs. Points, not yardage, win games. Maybe this is the best this particular combination of coaches and QB can be.

Overall this year the QB closest to Cousins considering both experience and results was Carr. They're both 3 year starters and while one was better in one category than the other it wasn't a major difference. If Derek had finished the year he would have been even closer and easily breaks 4,ooo yards. If Oak & Was swapped QB's would the team records be much different? I doubt it.

 

[Bulldog]

It's not his fault necessarily, but Cousins is going to be 29 years old in 2017.

Derrick Carr is 25 and Dak Prescott is 23.

Kirk is no longer a 'younger' player in the NFL, he is now by age a mid-career veteran.

I understand that Kirk sat for the better part of 2 years before he had a chance to play and 4 before he was designated the starter, but at the same time Aaron Rodgers sat on the bench until he was 27 years old with Brett Favre never giving him the chance to even hold for extra points because he wanted to keep him off the field.

It didn't take Rodgers another 4-5 years after getting the nod to become a quarterback with a demonstrable presence on the field.

And again during those age 22-26 years he got ZERO chance to do anything on the field.

 

[Knightingale]

Points are important...

But it's not volume of points, its point differential and that's a combo of Offense and Defense.

Case in point Skins scored 396 and allowed 383. Points differential of +13

Giants scored just 310, but only allowed 284. Diff of +26

That's why they're in the playoffs and we aren't.

We outscored them across the season by 86 points... but our defence allowed 99 more.

Kirk and our Offense did more than enough. Our D came up VERY VERY short.

Personally... I want Barry gone and someone else to try and extract more out of the D. I'm convinced it has more to give. Just being aggressive would be a start!!!

And I would like to see someone else call the plays on Offense. Especially red zone. I feel like McVay and Gru are a little too pass happy. It would be nice to see an OC who's run orientated to provide a check and balance for Gru.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ax]

So then, if Gruden refuses to fire Barry, or change the play calling?

Either one?

Both?

 

[Knightingale]

So then, if Gruden refuses to fire Barry, or change the play calling?

Either one?

Both?

Lol nothing I can do Ax, Snyder doesn't take my calls anymore.

But I'd see how next year plays out and then re-evaluate.

First thing needs to happen is tool up. Decide on a starting RB and stick with it. Sort that D out.

Then see if we're still an 8-8 or 9-7 team next year. This was always a 4 yr plan. I'm happy to let it play out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fear The Spear]

So, what have we got in Kirk ?
Is he a Tony Romo, who will just choke with INT's in big games ?
Or is this just another hump he gets over ?
Not sure I would let him walk, but I definitely wouldn't give him a bank-breaker contract either.
If he and his agent play hard-ball again, I'd franchise him just one more year, and if he doesn't win at least 1 or 2 playoff games next year, then it's time to seriously think about letting him walk.

 

[Boone]

At some point franchising him doesn't make sense. The price will be 24 million this time. You might end up paying more going that route in the long run than if you had just paid the man to begin with. Plus - if he plays lights out in season 3, now you are really going to pay through the nose for a long-term deal. He will never be cheaper than he is right now is what I'm saying, if you are convinced he can be our QB for the next 5 seasons, it becomes stupid not to sign him.

And he's sounding like a guy who wants a deal and may look to go elsewhere if we keep dicking around about it.

If I'm being honest, I don't like the tone of some of his post-game comments. You just screwed the pooch in a must-win game and were one of the weak links in contributing to losing it. I'd expect a little more humility in your comments, and a little more appreciation about which team it is that gave you your big shot. I don't hear much of that from him. It's all about his ****ing agent.

 

[Bulldog]

The fact is though for a guy that threw for 4,500 plus yards, Kirk's 25 touchdown passes are a bit underwhelming.

Rodgers threw for less yardage but had 40 touchdowns. And his receivers and backs outside of Nelson are hardly a list of pro bowlers.

Brees threw 37.

35 year old Philip Rivers on that forgettable Chargers' team this year managed to throw 33.

Yes, the defense was very poor.

But so were defenses in Green Bay, Detroit, and Atlanta and they are all in the playoffs.

What was missing on offense were those couple of breakout games where Kirk throws that 4 or 5 TD effort out there.

We just never clicked enough for that to happen.

One could understand when Reed and Jackson were out that the options for big plays were lessened.

But with their return our scoring output didn't seem to rise noticeably. We got the occasional 50 yard pass through to Jackson, but were still kicking field goals in the red zone.

 

[micks113]

Again simply not true Micks.

Our Defense has a DIRECT effect on our Offense. If they can't hold an opponent to a low score then our Offense has to keep performing to outscore the opponent. That forces us out of game plan and to a reliance on passing etc. We've witnessed that time and again!

By the same token the Offence is directly responsible to the defence too. Which is when games like last night happen. Our D was under a lot of pressure last night to keep the Giants from scoring and did a solid if unspectacular job.

But to be fair they were helped by a Giants Offense ranked 25th in the league and a QB ranked 27th. I'm not sure how much credit I give our D for that.

Too many times this year we've been forced into shootouts with opponents because our Defense couldn't stop them scoring. Those are the games where Kirk HAS to throw to get us back in the game and when precious little help is coming from the run game.

With no defense and an inconsistent run game we're FORCED to rely on Kirk to outperform the defense every single game. To be perfect. And we shoot him down when he's not.

I reiterate. He's a second year starter who doesn't yet have the decades of experience that the Elite QBs have. But he's put up two pretty good years of play and would be the first to admit he's still learning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I must be dumb as a bag of hammers, as I simply don't follow your logic.
Your first paragraph:
"Our Defense has a DIRECT effect on our Offense. If they can't hold an opponent to a low score then our Offense has to keep performing to outscore the opponent. That forces us out of game plan and to a reliance on passing etc. We've witnessed that time and again!"

Our Def held the Giants to 10 pts first half. Our offense failed to show up. We should have been able to have them on the ropes by then.

Look, Kirk would be just fine for us if we had a top 4 defense. We don't and can't with this talent. But they have kept us in games and in games our offense should have won. Sorry, that's how I see it.

The Giants did it this year by buying a high quality defense in free agency. Something we have failed every time we tried in the past. But that's one thing, its totally another when our GM screwed the pooch on our biggest needs. Just think, we had committed to go into the season without Norman. He was the acorn to the blind squirrel. For all I know, he'll draft another WR because Gruden told him that was the scheme and to give Kirk targets. Nothings going to change on that front. We will still be pass happy. Unless he drafts fournett from LSU and gets another run blocking guard and center. I don't see that happening though.

By the way, I can tell you from experience, that Kirk will not get to elite unless he has competition to do so. Give me Clemson D Watson playing behind him, and we'll see a different Kirk.

What I'm dreaming for is three Alabama defensive guys, LB Foster, DT Allen and either the other LB or the DB Fitzpatrick.