Kirk Cousins Development Tracker

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

Either one?

Both?
Click to expand...

lets pose a hypothetical question they get rid of Barry. Wade gets let's go in Denver and Snyder opens up his purse. Yet the defense doesn't improve much. Is its wades fault or lack of good players on the defense.
 
I agree.

Cousins would be fine with a 2017 version of the 1991 Redskins in terms of offensive line, receivers and defense.

The problem is, in the era of free agency, the chances of us being able to assemble that kind of unit and keep it together for any length of time is questionable.

Especially so, if the plan is to drop $80M in guaranteed money on a 29 year old quarterback who still seems gun shy and a bit of razor stubble short of being a 'grizzled veteran'.
 
redskins26 said:
lets pose a hypothetical question they get rid of Barry. Wade gets let's go in Denver and Snyder opens up his purse. Yet the defense doesn't improve much. Is its wades fault or lack of good players on the defense.
Click to expand...

We lack talent on the defense. That's a given and I think everyone here admits that.

The thing that tips you off that Barry and his staff are the problem?

Too many times this season, we've seen players blow their assignments or throw their hands up in the air because they do not know what to do.

That's coaching,plain and simple.
 
DieselPwr44 said:
We lack talent on the defense. That's a given and I think everyone here admits that.
The thing that tips you off that Barry and his staff are the problem?
Too many times this season, we've seen players blow their assignments or throw their hands up in the air because they do not know what to do.

That's coaching,plain and simple.
Click to expand...

If this is the best he can do with the group he has I certainly wouldn't hand over the next 2 drafts to him. It's time to move on. Yeah I know there's folks out here that think that's unfair but plan ahead a couple of years if you want something to last. I wouldn't put a house on the foundation Barry's built.

I don't know how badly they need Kirk, it's really hard to say until some other things fall in place. The Skins record really wasn't much different during his best 5 game stretch (2-2-1) than in his worst, at the end of the year (2-3). If the defense is the root cause of everything bad and you fix da D then you don't need him - his play really hasn't made a difference with a bad defense. This year he was really a game manager. Usually his bad play didn't cost them the win but his good play didn't save them a loss either.
 
I get so tired of Kirk Cousins being compared to Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady. He is neither! And he never will be, their talents eclipse 99.9% of all QB's to ever play the game, ffs!

Kirk is going to get 20 million or more a year because that is what the market currently dictates. It's simple economics, guys...the market will dictate his pay. He does not need to prove that he is a starting QB in the NFL and can be a good one...he already is. I heard BD suggest that Aaron Rodgers didn't need 4-5 years after getting the nod, well...Aaron Rodgers had an all-star cast around him when he took over for Favre, after sitting on the bench behind one of the greatest for 4 years...please stop using the Aaron Rodgers analogy, Cousins and Rodgers are not ever going to be the same.

You want a Rodgers analogy? If Aaron Rodgers was in his contract year going into this off-season, his worth would probably be around 30 million a year. Cousins will not get that.

With all that said, if Cousins hits Jackson on one of the bombs yesterday, we win. He brought us back and tied the game in the 4th Q Sunday night, but that is being overlooked because he made a terrible play to end the game after a terrible decision by the coaches to stop the clock to give the Gnats a chance to substitute some fresh players in.

What's being lost in all of this is that the Giants are a better team than we expected and we got out coached by a rookie head coach.

Yes, Cousins has his faults, but who in the **** else are you going to bring in to play QB? Colt McCoy? That's just crazy talk!
 
Last edited:
The bottom line for me is what Mr. McGloo thinks. As the only guy in the building with a proven track record in the NFL, whatever he decides is fine. Last year, it appears that he had a number in mind, and he stuck to it. I believe he'll do it again this go round. If it works out, fine. If Kirk wants more than Scot thinks he's worth? Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

He got top dollar this season, and pissed his pants when it mattered most.
 
Elephant said:
I get so tired of Kirk Cousins being compared to Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady. He is neither! And he never will be, their talents eclipse 99.9% of all QB's to ever play the game, ffs!

Kirk is going to get 20 million or more a year because that is what the market currently dictates. It's simple economics, guys...the market will dictate his pay. He does not need to prove that he is a starting QB in the NFL and can be a good one...he already is. I heard BD suggest that Aaron Rodgers didn't need 4-5 years after getting the nod, well...Aaron Rodgers had an all-star cast around him when he took over for Favre, after sitting on the bench behind one of the greatest for 4 years...please stop using the Aaron Rodgers analogy, Cousins and Rodgers are not ever going to be the same.

You want a Rodgers analogy? If Aaron Rodgers was in his contract year going into this off-season, his worth would probably be around 30 million a year. Cousins will not get that.

With all that said, if Cousins hits Jackson on one of the bombs yesterday, we win. He brought us back and tied the game in the 4th Q Sunday night, but that is being overlooked because he made a terrible play to end the game after a terrible decision by the coaches to stop the clock to give the Gnats a chance to substitute some fresh players in.

What's being lost in all of this is that the Giants are a better team than we expected and we got out coached by a rookie head coach.

Yes, Cousins has his faults, but who in the **** else are you going to bring in to play QB? Colt McCoy? That's just crazy talk!
Click to expand...

This!!! Lol

That's what's been driving me crazy the past few days. I've said repeatedly 'how much better does he have to be?' because the likes of Rodgers and Brady are rarified air.

Even GOOD QBs are hard to find which is why teams pay through the nose for them.

Kirk isn't in that class. I still think he'll learn and grow over the years, but I don't think he's ever going to be a Hall of Famer. But he's proved that he can steer the ship really well.

One thing I'd add about those long bomb shots at Djax. Was listening to Rick Sniders podcast this morning and he echoed what I was thinking, what I've been thinking for a while.

DJax isn't as quick as he was. He mentioned that the common knowledge was that 'nobody could overthrow Jackson' but the fact that Kirk did it twice that game alone...
He just doesn't seem to break away from coverage that often anymore and gets caught up with long PI calls instead.

I think it's time to move on from him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well, Djax isn't the only guy he overthrows. Plus, like all QB's, his receivers bail him out a lot by making great catches of poorly thrown balls. For all the talk about how accurate he is, he doesn't hit guys in stride with regularity. Many of the long passes he hit were underthrown. Many crossing patterns he hit were a little behind. Where guys had to slow up a half step to catch it. And many more are high enough that the receiver has to break stride to leap and catch it. He also still locks on to receivers that are covered, while not seeing the open guy.
 
Ax said:
Well, Djax isn't the only guy he overthrows. Plus, like all QB's, his receivers bail him out a lot by making great catches of poorly thrown balls. For all the talk about how accurate he is, he doesn't hit guys in stride with regularity. Many of the long passes he hit were underthrown. Many crossing patterns he hit were a little behind. Where guys had to slow up a half step to catch it. And many more are high enough that the receiver has to break stride to leap and catch it. He also still locks on to receivers that are covered, while not seeing the open guy.
Click to expand...

All true, and as you say it's a QB thing across the league not just Kirk, I've spent all season watching Nelson make Rodgers look good sometimes!

It was just an observation on DJax this year. I remember his Eagles days and when he first arrived he was blistering. No one could touch him downfield and he'd have acres of space regularly. This year especially it's rare he breaks cover like that. More often he may be a smidgen ahead, or wrapped up with his cover. Kirks been overthrowing him all year and my eye test just says he's a step slower. When a QB throws long like that he has to throw to the route and lead the receiver to the spot as he releases a few seconds before the receiver arrives.

With DJax it was consistent and I wasn't sure if it was Kirk or DJax that was at fault. Snider just echoed my thoughts which I thought was interesting.

He's 30 years old, he's had hamstring issues all year... I think he's a step off.

He's also brittle and it's going to get worse if he keeps playing those short possession routes where he gets hammered after the catch.

I was borderline on whether we should resign him, but now I think we let him walk. I don't think he really wants to be here anyway.
 
DieselPwr44 said:
We lack talent on the defense. That's a given and I think everyone here admits that.

The thing that tips you off that Barry and his staff are the problem?

Too many times this season, we've seen players blow their assignments or throw their hands up in the air because they do not know what to do.

That's coaching,plain and simple.
Click to expand...

This times a million!

I don't think we got the best out of our D this year. It was never gonna be top 10, but we shouldn't have been bottom 3.

Things just drove me crazy! No pressure at key moments in games. Soft coverage allowing first downs. How many times did we see the opponent needing a third and long, say 12 yards... what did we do. Camp out at about 14 yards and allow the catch! Is it just me that drove crazy?
He should have benched Bree early and nipped that attitude in the bud. He should have put the reins on Norman and his showboating.

Barry doesn't seem to have MANAGED his players at all.

That's why I won't shed a tear if he goes.

As much as I hate to admit it, the Giants Defense the other night just looked.... bad ass. They had attitude and swagger and came right after us. I want that kind of a defense because that kind of attitude will make up for a lot of deficiencies in talent.I'm sure that Kerrigan and Smith etc are all warriors and all did their best... but I never get the impression that this team has a mean attitude on defense.
Because it has no leaders that inspire that.

We need to draft someone nasty in either the Linebacker corps or the Line. Someone to bring an edge to this unit that the others can feed off.

And we need a DC that gets the defense fired up.
 
micks113 said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL Maybe I’m just bad at explaining what I mean.

Let’s put it this way…

If a Defense gives up 20 points a game, the Offense has to score 21 to win.
If they give up 50 points a game, then the Offense has to score 51 points to win.

If our Offense isn’t doing enough to get us to the playoffs then logically we should be putting up poor per game numbers for points. But we’re not.

Of the Six NFC play off teams their average points per game across the season:

#1 Atlanta with 33.75 pts per game
#2 Green Bay with 27 pts per game
#3 Dallas with 26.3 pts per game
#4 Seattle with 22.13 pts per game
#5 Detroit with 21.6 pts per game
#6 New York with 19.3 pts per game.

Washington (despite some admitted Red Zone woes) scored 24.75 pts per game. Good enough for 4th on that list and better than Seattle, Detroit and New York.
Ergo it wasn’t the Offense that let us down.

The issue was that our Defense was also allowing 23.9 pts per game leaving us a razor thin margin for error. Just 0.85 pts per game.

How did the rest of the play off teams fair?
#1 Atlanta with +8 pts per game (Their offense was prodigious though!)
#2 Dallas with +7 pts per game
#3 Seattle with +4 pts per game
#4 Green Bay with +3 pts per game
#5 New York with +3 pts per game
#6 Detroit with -0.7 pts per game.

New York are the outlier because their Points differential is based on their Defense. Their offense was so bad their Defense had to limit the opponents scoring so much. They are by FAR the best defensive team in the NFC Playoffs allowing a stingy 17.75 points per game.

And this is why the Offense Defense relationship is reciprocal. Each relies on the other.
If our Defence had given up 70 pts a game would you still blame the offense for not keeping up?
If the Giants had missed the playoffs they had every right to blame an offense that can only muster an average of 19 points per game.
For the Redskins… the reverse is true. Our offense was forced to score points because our Defense couldn’t stop anyone.
I’m not saying our Offense didn’t have issues. It did. But you have to look at the whole season, bot just the Giants game in a bubble. We shouldn’t have been in shoot outs, that’s on the Defense. And how many games did we lose in the season because our Defense couldn’t make an end of game stand?
Don’t get me wrong there is a lot of blame to go around. And honestly… our Offense did underperform by their own lofty standards.
But we lost games because the Defense was bad, not because the offense was. Just look at the stats, it’s there in black and white. We should NEVER have been in the position where a bad game here or there down the stretch took us out of the playoffs, if our defense had helped us win games like the ones against the Bengals or the Lions or one of the Dallas games then the Giants game would have been totally moot.
Blaming the offense is like blaming the Horse for bolting after you left the gate open.

Also regarding that Giants game…
Did our Defense hold them to 10 points? Or are the Giants just a bad offense?
We benefited hugely from the fact that they are an awful offense. They only averaged 19 points per game. They’d scored 10 by half time.
Now if we’d been playing say the Falcons and we’d held them to just 10 pts in the first half… they I’d be crowing too. But let’s face facts, this was an awful offense against an awful defense.
Did our Offense lay an egg? Absolutely. But also consider that the Giants Defense is seriously good (Which you alluded to, they paid for it this year). On average they held opponents to just 17 pts per game. Our Offense was never going to have it easy. True they could have made it easier on themselves and screwed the pooch, but this game was on the cards if you looked at the stats prior to the game.

I was hoping before hand that our Offense would be able to get to just under our average (score arond 24) and the Giants would probably score just over their average (around 20) and it would hence be a close 24-20 ish victory for us.

Alas that was not to be.
 
That's the problem with stats. They don't take into account individual games.

The offense cost us the game against NY. Period. Along with others during the season.

Plus, everybody and their mother knew going onto the season, that the offense would have to lead the way. And at times, they most certainly did.
But there were also games where the defense held when they absolutely, positively had to, allowing the offense the eventually put us in front.

So, whether it's called slobbering over stats, gushing over stats, obsessing over stats, or whatever. Stats are the pretty little flowers on a shrub. They rarely do an accurate job of telling all that happened for the rest of the shrub to produce those flowers. But man they sure look good.
 
Ax said:
That's the problem with stats. They don't take into account individual games.

The offense cost us the game against NY. Period. Along with others during the season.
Click to expand...

You will not get an argument from me about statistics, they simply don't tell the whole picture, but I am convinced it was coaching more than the offense, that cost us the game against NY.

I am still shaking my head over the decision to call a time out on our last drive with so much time on the clock, moving the ball with such ease against a defense that was worn out. Why did they think it was a good idea to give the defense a rest?

To be honest, I would not care if Gruden were fired. I am not opposed to bringing him back, but 3 years in he is making the same rookie mistakes that Kirk Cousins made.
 
Ax said:
That's the problem with stats. They don't take into account individual games.

The offense cost us the game against NY. Period. Along with others during the season.
Click to expand...

Very true, but if we're looking at singular games then it was the Defense that cost us wins against both Detroit and Cincinnati. And probably one of the Cowboys games.

Point being that if the Defense had stepped up earlier in the season then we wouldn't have NEEDED to win that Giants game. Or the Panthers game. Or the Arizona game.

Stats aren't flowery shrubs. They're facts. Hard cold facts.

But facts and stats always need context.

I totally agree that we put up lots of fancy yards, but we under performed in the redzone and in scoring. Not arguing that the offense could and probably should have done better.

However what you're doing is taking individual games totally out of the larger context.

The FACT is that this team scored more than enough points on average acorss the season to win more games. But the Defense left us in holes to large to climb out of. Including needing a run at the end of the season to make the playoffs.

We didn't make the playoffs not simply because we lost to the Giants. But because we lost to the Steelers, the Cowboys, the Lions, the Cardinals, the Panthers etc. And honestly in alot of those games it was the Defense that was subpar, not the offense.

We ranked 12th in points gained per game across the season. Only 5 of those teams are from the NFC.

Ranked on the POINTS we scored alone we'd be the fifth seed. But we're not. Because the Defense let the opposition score more points that.

The reason... we were 19th in points allowed per game. There are only 12 playoff teams. Our Defense was at least 7 places away from posting the requisite number to allow what our offense did to get us in.

It's really simple math.

The defense was the reason we were IN those high pressure win or go home games in the first place.

You're getting cause and effect mixed up.

The EFFECT was that the Redskins offense messed the bed in an important game.
The CAUSE was that we were in that position in the first place because our Defense couldn't come though all year.
 
Elephant said:
You will not get an argument from me about statistics, they simply don't tell the whole picture, but I am convinced it was coaching more than the offense, that cost us the game against NY.

I am still shaking my head over the decision to call a time out on our last drive with so much time on the clock, moving the ball with such ease against a defense that was worn out. Why did they think it was a good idea to give the defense a rest?

To be honest, I would not care if Gruden were fired. I am not opposed to bringing him back, but 3 years in he is making the same rookie mistakes that Kirk Cousins made.
Click to expand...

Yeah that was a badly coached game.

Pretty much a **** up across the board for the coaching staff.

I agree with you that the fault for the Giants game was mostly coaching. What concerned me the most was there was no adjustment until they lucked into that TD drive... and then didn't learn from it.

I give credit to Gru for turning us around as a franchise, but I really do wish we had an OC with some form of authority and experience to call a good game. Let Gru manage the staff and find an experienced playcaller to run the offense.

I still think we're being harsh to Kirk. He played well this year, really solid. So he had a couple of bad games, it happens. I spent many many many nights earlier in the year hearing wifey debating what was wrong with Aaron Rodgers after their 4 game losing streak when he looked simply awful.
 
Elephant said:
You will not get an argument from me about statistics, they simply don't tell the whole picture, but I am convinced it was coaching more than the offense, that cost us the game against NY.

I am still shaking my head over the decision to call a time out on our last drive with so much time on the clock, moving the ball with such ease against a defense that was worn out. Why did they think it was a good idea to give the defense a rest?

To be honest, I would not care if Gruden were fired. I am not opposed to bringing him back, but 3 years in he is making the same rookie mistakes that Kirk Cousins made.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with your entire post here.

And, to be more specific about my point, when I say the offense cost us the game, that includes the entire offense. Meaning the coaching, the playcalling, the game plan, the execution of that game plan, clock management, etc...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top