Kirk Cousins Development Tracker

[Knightingale]

Article by Keim on ESPN this morning about how McVay and Kyle Shanahan are both interviewing for head coaching jobs.

He breaks down the possible destinations and some of them need a QB. If so he's postulating that they'd both want Kirk which may keep his price high.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Elephant]

Article by Keim on ESPN this morning about how McVay and Kyle Shanahan are both interviewing for head coaching jobs.

He breaks down the possible destinations and some of them need a QB. If so he's postulating that they'd both want Kirk which may keep his price high.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With the vacancy in Denver and the similar offensive scheme, Elway might be wise to go after the younger Shanahan and hope he can keep Wade Phillips on as the DC.

McVay is not getting a Head Coaching vacancy this season.

 

[Knightingale]

I'd be amazed if McVay gets a HC job yet. There's a lot of vacancies out there though.

I'm not sure Elway would let Kyle take a swing for Kirk. He's on record as saying he's happy with his QBs. Never know though.

Meanwhile I'm sitting here wishing I was Chip Kelly.

Being paid millions by two teams for doing nothing! I could get used to that! Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ax]

We spent 64% of our cap on offense this season. A ginormous contract for Kirk isn't worth the cost of not being able to build the defense. Even if we jettison Garcon and Jackson. Only way we should sign Cousins is if it's a sign and trade. Because it doesn't look right now like he's gonna sign for anything less than, too damn much.

 

[Boone]

I tend to agree with redskins26 - he's projecting hardball because it's the smart approach to getting the best deal. I don't begrudge him that as the only one who is going to look out for Kirk is Kirk and you typically only get one chance at a big life-changing payday in the NFL (if you are lucky). I think there's about a 75% chance we get outbid for him if we don't franchise him, but franchising only makes sense if you plan to pay him big time in a long term deal the year after and let him know that up front. He sounds irritated that he was franchised this year so you have to wonder if franchising him again doesn't just assure he leaves for greener pastures the next year.

I couldn't disagree more with you Ryman. There are 2 truths in the modern NFL - first is that you aren't going to win consistently and certainly not contend for a championship without a franchise QB, and two, it's damn hard to find a franchise QB. Every team over spends on their QB. It's a matter of degree. I agree there has to be a limit and we can't cripple our ability to build at other positions. But you are either going to over spend or you are going to be looking for a new QB - and imho that constitutes a total restart on offense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Knightingale]

This is a situation where Kirk has almost all the leverage.

He's had two good record setting years. He's guided us to two winning seasons in a row. He has this Offense functioning at a high level. He's not desperate for cash as he got a big chunk of cash this year. He and his agent know that the Skins have no other viable QB option anywhere near as good and the league has a general shortage of good QBs and someone will pay him big money.

From the Skins side... they can point to the fact that he disappeared in a few games, most notably the Giants game. That there was a disparity between yards and points scored. That it's Gruden system and the organisations faith that put him in this position.

But it's a weak hand when Kirk knows he'll get paid somewhere.

There will be a franchise out there that sees the raw numbers and figures they can put Kirk in a good situation.

I'd hope that Kirk will be realistic and see the setup he has here is worth staying in and maybe come down a bit. Going somewhere else is an unknown, he could end up in a way worse situation... but then $120M would salve those worries.

We have a large bucket of money this year. Need to be careful how we spend it and that primarily starts with any contract we give Kirk and how we spread/minimise the cap hit.

I have a feeling he'll get tagged one more time. Maybe a deal gets done later on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Knightingale]

But you are either going to over spend or you are going to be looking for a new QB - and imho that constitutes a total restart on offense.

I agree. If Kirk walks along with Garçon and Jackson and possibly McVay, and knowing we still need a piece or two on the Oline and maybe a stud RB... you're looking at an overhaul pretty much.

Maybe McCoy might do ok in the system we have, but I don't think he's a long term answer. Nate we haven't seen enough to know.

Clairvoyant Knights says:

McVay stays
Kirk gets tagged
Djax leaves
Garçon stays
Davis stays
Jones is gone
Scotty drafts a RB
Also drafts for Defense
We see an opening of the chequebook for Defence FA
Doctson plays next year and justifies the pick.
Offense slides a little on yards, but improves on scoring.
Defense, after a period of adjustment, picks up a lot
Redskins make 2017 playoffs as a wild card.

And we're back to wondering if Kirk gets a contract next year! Lol

There's a lot of optimism in there I know!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ax]

We can go with Colt for the next 2yrs for a tenth of what Cousins will cost. And I doubt that our offense would drop out of the top 15. Maybe still be top 10.
That would allow us to keep Garcon, and maybe Jackson. (For the right price)
It would force our coaching staff to work harder to develop an average running attack, while upgrading LG.
And give us the ability to focus on the defense for the next couple years.
Sudfield, or a drafted QB in the upcoming draft could ride the pine and learn the system, ready to step in a couple seasons.

And personally, unless it would severely hit the cap, I'd entertain trade offers for our pothead LT.
But then, maybe I'm just a vindictive Ugly American.

 

[Knightingale]

We can go with Colt for the next 2yrs for a tenth of what Cousins will cost. And I doubt that our offense would drop out of the top 15. Maybe still be top 10.
That would allow us to keep Garcon, and maybe Jackson. (For the right price)
It would force our coaching staff to work harder to develop an average running attack, while upgrading LG.
And give us the ability to focus on the defense for the next couple years.
Sudfield, or a drafted QB in the upcoming draft could ride the pine and learn the system, ready to step in a couple seasons.

And personally, unless it would severely hit the cap, I'd entertain trade offers for our pothead LT.
But then, maybe I'm just a vindictive Ugly American.

I do think Colt is the man that Scotty will wave in Kirks face during negotiation.

I think he'll use your argument. If you walk Kirk then we'll rebuild and put McCoy in. I think as part of their negotiation strategy they'll push hard that Kirks success is a product of the system and the team they've put around him.

There's a lot of merit in that argument.

I do wonder how much of this has to be run past Snyder. Would he see utilising McCoy as a step back? How tired is he of rebuilding? Scotty up front said he thought this was a 3 or 4 year plan so would Snyder bite on a delay to rebuild the Offense again?

I suspect he'll have input. How much does it affect the teams profit margin if Kirk leaves? I have no idea what that sort of move tells the fan base at large and what it does to things like ticket sales etc.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Boone]

Of course 'we can' - we 'can' do anything The point is - what's in the best interests of the franchise. I've already acknowledged that we can't cripple the franchise in order to secure Cousins. But if we low ball him and offer him $16-17 million a year (when he knows damn well other teams will offer him $23-25 million a year) we are just shooting ourselves in the foot.

Colt? I like Colt. He's a gamer. But he doesn't have an NFL arm and never will. Sure, he could be a placeholder - but then what? We're a top 5-10 offense right now, and we're a borderline playoff team. Wonder what dropping into the 15-20 range does for our prospects? Could the defense be improved and keep us competitive? I hope so, but we don't exactly have a track record of dramatic improvements from season to season. So in my mind, the downsides of not getting a deal done with Cousins are not insignificant, including:

1) Break in continuity. We already may have some of that if McVay leaves (may not be a bad thing, but it will be a change that has to be navigated). Starting over with a new QB (back up or not) is potentially unnecessary change.

2) If we have 2 subpar or downward trending seasons with McCoy or someone else under center, that likely signals complete regime change. Me? I don't pine for that. I know you are not a Gruden fan, and if I'm being honest the best I can say is that he has improved overall team play but the jury is still out on him. But we have 2 losing seasons and we'll be starting over. Again. For the gazillionth time.

3) The idea that we'll just 'find another QB' - okay, that sounds great. Exactly how do we do that? We've been trying to find a good, consistent, franchise caliber QB (not HOFer, but a reliable productive long-term starting QB) for the better part of 20 years. We finally find one, and we're going to let him walk? Big mistake. I almost hope we do let him walk because I'm going to ride those of you advocating for it to the grave when it doesn't work out so well for us. Maybe we'll stumble and bumble our way into the next big QB star with a 7th round pick. Maybe Nate Sudfeld is the 2nd coming. And maybe Scarlet Johanssen is going to email me for a secret hookup this weekend. It could happen, right?

Only other point I'll make is that we are building something. A step back now means that when we finally do find a solid long-term QB post-Kirk, many of the players we acquired in the 'build up' start aging out (Kerrigan for example). For me, success in the NFL is all about momentum from season to season. Letting Cousins go is an absolute momentum killer.

As for 'Ugly American', for someone who dishes out the snark and aggressive posts as often as anyone, you don't take it nearly as well How many more times are you going to reference it?

 

[Boone]

I said it once before, but think it bears saying again - if we think Cousins can be 'the guy' that puts us in position at that spot to compete for Championships for years to come, he will never, ever be cheaper than he is right now. The market is what the market is. If you go with a placeholder, and ultimately find another franchise QB, do we really think we aren't going to have to pay what the market price is at some point?How ironic would it be if we let Cousins go over a difference of a few million a year, having given away the entire nest egg for Robert Effing Griffin? Pretty ironic.

Unless he absolutely demands the sun and stars, you have to get a contract done with Cousins. My opinion.

 

[Knightingale]

Of course 'we can' - we 'can' do anything The point is - what's in the best interests of the franchise. I've already acknowledged that we can't cripple the franchise in order to secure Cousins. But if we low ball him and offer him $16-17 million a year (when he knows damn well other teams will offer him $23-25 million a year) we are just shooting ourselves in the foot.

Colt? I like Colt. He's a gamer. But he doesn't have an NFL arm and never will. Sure, he could be a placeholder - but then what? We're a top 5-10 offense right now, and we're a borderline playoff team. Wonder what dropping into the 15-20 range does for our prospects? Could the defense be improved and keep us competitive? I hope so, but we don't exactly have a track record of dramatic improvements from season to season. So in my mind, the downsides of not getting a deal done with Cousins are not insignificant, including:

1) Break in continuity. We already may have some of that if McVay leaves (may not be a bad thing, but it will be a change that has to be navigated). Starting over with a new QB (back up or not) is potentially unnecessary change.

This is my fear.

Right now we're, as you say, a top 5-10 offense which we acknowledge has problems. And honestly those problems aren't huge or insurmountable.
The smart thing to do in my opinion is to keep as much continuity as possible while trying to fix those things.

The O-Line is pretty darned good, one of the best in the NFL. We just need another piece in there.

And we need a stud running back, or at least commit to a Running Back for the season and not play the mix and match game.
We've already groomed one WR (Crowder) so I'm happy to let DJax walk. I'd try and keep Garcon till we know what Doctson has.

Other than that, if we can keep this group together and keep tweaking it we're in really good shape on that side of the ball, and I think they'll just get better and better with more time together. The core of Kirk, Crowder, Reed, Scherff, Williams, Moses and maybe FatRob gives us a relatively young core we can build around and tweak. The more time and familiarity the better they'll be... hopefully.

2) If we have 2 subpar or downward trending seasons with McCoy or someone else under center, that likely signals complete regime change. Me? I don't pine for that. I know you are not a Gruden fan, and if I'm being honest the best I can say is that he has improved overall team play but the jury is still out on him. But we have 2 losing seasons and we'll be starting over. Again. For the gazillionth time.

I give Gru alot of credit for turning us around.

I also give him alot of credit for crafting this Offense.

I think he has struggled at times with the Head Coaching job, he admitted as such last year that he was trying to wear too many hats and control too many things. I do wonder who does the Offensive play calling... Did he hand off too much responsibility to McVay? Or does he still have a hand in it and needs to let go a little more? Without being on the sidelines it's impossible to know.

What I'm still undecided about is whether he's the coach to get us over the hump. To get us from a good team to a great team. I guess we'll find out in the next couple of years. But I could see a scenario where he gets us finishing around the 10-6, 11-5 mark the next couple of years and then we need a coaching change to push us further.

3) The idea that we'll just 'find another QB' - okay, that sounds great. Exactly how do we do that? We've been trying to find a good, consistent, franchise caliber QB (not HOFer, but a reliable productive long-term starting QB) for the better part of 20 years. We finally find one, and we're going to let him walk? Big mistake. I almost hope we do let him walk because I'm going to ride those of you advocating for it to the grave when it doesn't work out so well for us. Maybe we'll stumble and bumble our way into the next big QB star with a 7th round pick. Maybe Nate Sudfeld is the 2nd coming. And maybe Scarlet Johanssen is going to email me for a secret hookup this weekend. It could happen, right?

I think our past history has shown us just how hard that is. Since Joe Theismann we've pretty much rented other teams QB's for a few years to guide the ship. We've not had a home grown talent in over 30 years, and we're not alone as a team. Which to be honest I do find kinda staggering. When you consider that there are only 32 starting QB positions in the NFL, and that every year there are between 40 and 50 QB prospects in the draft... The hit rate is awful. That's something like 1200 QBs in the last 30 years and we've not hit on one of them high draft or low. Kirk is the best we've had in a long time and I do think he's still growing at the position, time can only make him better.

The other thing I like about him... He's been pretty durable too. Now our O-Line is solid, and he's not been hit and sacked alot granted. And while he's not a Pocket Presence genius like Rodgers is, he's got enough savvy already to avoid hits and sacks. He can't avoid them all, no one can, but he's certainly no RGIII. When you look around the league and see how QB's drop like flies (there are always freak accidents - but some QB's are just fragile. Romo and RGIII to name but two)... it's good to feel confident in one that stays upright.

Only other point I'll make is that we are building something. A step back now means that when we finally do find a solid long-term QB post-Kirk, many of the players we acquired in the 'build up' start aging out (Kerrigan for example). For me, success in the NFL is all about momentum from season to season. Letting Cousins go is an absolute momentum killer.

Agreed on that score. See above.

 

[Ax]

Of course 'we can' - we 'can' do anything The point is - what's in the best interests of the franchise. I've already acknowledged that we can't cripple the franchise in order to secure Cousins. But if we low ball him and offer him $16-17 million a year (when he knows damn well other teams will offer him $23-25 million a year) we are just shooting ourselves in the foot.

Colt? I like Colt. He's a gamer. But he doesn't have an NFL arm and never will. Sure, he could be a placeholder - but then what? We're a top 5-10 offense right now, and we're a borderline playoff team. Wonder what dropping into the 15-20 range does for our prospects? Could the defense be improved and keep us competitive? I hope so, but we don't exactly have a track record of dramatic improvements from season to season. So in my mind, the downsides of not getting a deal done with Cousins are not insignificant, including:

1) Break in continuity. We already may have some of that if McVay leaves (may not be a bad thing, but it will be a change that has to be navigated). Starting over with a new QB (back up or not) is potentially unnecessary change.

2) If we have 2 subpar or downward trending seasons with McCoy or someone else under center, that likely signals complete regime change. Me? I don't pine for that. I know you are not a Gruden fan, and if I'm being honest the best I can say is that he has improved overall team play but the jury is still out on him. But we have 2 losing seasons and we'll be starting over. Again. For the gazillionth time.

3) The idea that we'll just 'find another QB' - okay, that sounds great. Exactly how do we do that? We've been trying to find a good, consistent, franchise caliber QB (not HOFer, but a reliable productive long-term starting QB) for the better part of 20 years. We finally find one, and we're going to let him walk? Big mistake. I almost hope we do let him walk because I'm going to ride those of you advocating for it to the grave when it doesn't work out so well for us. Maybe we'll stumble and bumble our way into the next big QB star with a 7th round pick. Maybe Nate Sudfeld is the 2nd coming. And maybe Scarlet Johanssen is going to email me for a secret hookup this weekend. It could happen, right?

Only other point I'll make is that we are building something. A step back now means that when we finally do find a solid long-term QB post-Kirk, many of the players we acquired in the 'build up' start aging out (Kerrigan for example). For me, success in the NFL is all about momentum from season to season. Letting Cousins go is an absolute momentum killer.

As for 'Ugly American', for someone who dishes out the snark and aggressive posts as often as anyone, you don't take it nearly as well How many more times are you going to reference it?

Pretty much agree with everything here. With a few caveats.

1. My scenario has Colt being the only big change. Well, that an more emphasis put into, and then using a running attack. McVay stays, Garcon and maybe Djax. The system wouldn't have to change much for Colt. And I believe the dropoff wouldn't be that severe. And, would take my ass whipping from you like a man, should it happen, and I be wrong.

2. I don't either. But I believe a repeat of this season will also bring about regime change. Gawdy numbers or not.

3. I like Kirk. And I know proficient QB's don't grow on trees. I just don't want to break the bank to sign him, leaving too little for everything else. Let's say he gets the 25mil being bandied about. Add that to Norman's 20mil, and the pothead's 15mil, and you've got 3 guys eating up almost half the cap. I've said I'll trust Scot to make the decision. And I will. Though, like everybody else, I'll voice an opinion about it.

As for, Ugly American, you misunderstand my brother. I LOVE it. If I didn't like Ax better, I would request a name change. Having a little fun with it is, well, fun. For me. And, as you know, it's all about me.

Maybe you could just put (The Ugly American) under Ax.

Purty please?

 

[Knightingale]

Pretty much agree with everything here. With a few caveats.

1. My scenario has Colt being the only big change. Well, that an more emphasis put into, and then using a running attack. McVay stays, Garcon and maybe Djax. The system wouldn't have to change much for Colt. And I believe the dropoff wouldn't be that severe. And, would take my ass whipping from you like a man, should it happen, and I be wrong.

True.

Colt would be the only real alternative to keep any kind of continuity. He's been playing in the system for the same amount of time Kirk has.

My only concern here would be if we did let Kirk walk...

We have young players who now trust in Kirk and have seen the kind of numbers this team has put up. If we start to struggle with Colt under Centre what would it do to team moral? Would this team turn on Colt or the Coaching or Management for letting Kirk go? You've got to sell the players either on something to make them swallow the pill. It's not like they're turning around and saying "Look guys, we let Kirk go because here's your new QB.... Tom Brady!!!!". You've really got to sell them on the fact that there might be some short term pain for long term gain. But if they don't see that gain anytime soon...

We've been pretty drama free for two years now, this is potentially opening the door to an awful lot of back stabbing. How long before we hear reports from the locker room that the team has lost confidence in Colt? That they made a mistake in letting Kirk walk? Before you know it you've got dissent in the locker room.

All hypothetical, but could happen.

While Gruden has made a good job of keeping this Locker room united, being a winning team and having back to back winning seasons is a big part of it. I think the players sense progress and trending the right way. And if the trains chugging forwards they're happy to ride it. We've been 9-6 and 8-7-1, two (albeit slim) winning seasons. Even if the drop off is only a couple of games on our record then we're suddenly a losing team again with all the whining and whinging and unrest that comes with it.

In some ways this team is sitting on a knife edge in that respect.

As for, Ugly American, you misunderstand my brother. I LOVE it. If I didn't like Ax better, I would request a name change. Having a little fun with it is, well, fun. For me. And, as you know, it's all about me.

Maybe you could just put (The Ugly American) under Ax.

Purty please?

Or maybe warning flags for newcomers to the forums

 

[Ax]

True.

Colt would be the only real alternative to keep any kind of continuity. He's been playing in the system for the same amount of time Kirk has.

My only concern here would be if we did let Kirk walk...

We have young players who now trust in Kirk and have seen the kind of numbers this team has put up. If we start to struggle with Colt under Centre what would it do to team moral? Would this team turn on Colt or the Coaching or Management for letting Kirk go? You've got to sell the players either on something to make them swallow the pill. It's not like they're turning around and saying "Look guys, we let Kirk go because here's your new QB.... Tom Brady!!!!". You've really got to sell them on the fact that there might be some short term pain for long term gain. But if they don't see that gain anytime soon...

We've been pretty drama free for two years now, this is potentially opening the door to an awful lot of back stabbing. How long before we hear reports from the locker room that the team has lost confidence in Colt? That they made a mistake in letting Kirk walk? Before you know it you've got dissent in the locker room.

All hypothetical, but could happen.

While Gruden has made a good job of keeping this Locker room united, being a winning team and having back to back winning seasons is a big part of it. I think the players sense progress and trending the right way. And if the trains chugging forwards they're happy to ride it. We've been 9-6 and 8-7-1, two (albeit slim) winning seasons. Even if the drop off is only a couple of games on our record then we're suddenly a losing team again with all the whining and whinging and unrest that comes with it.

In some ways this team is sitting on a knife edge in that respect.

Well, let's not forget that there have been grumblings about Kirk not getting the ball to the open receivers. by the receivers. So, there's always a risk when guys aren't getting the ball. Bottom line is, they don't really care who gets them the ball, as long as they get it.

Or maybe warning flags for newcomers to the forums

Naaaa! One of the greatest days in Redskins history was "The Ambush" in SB XXII.

 

[Knightingale]

Well, let's not forget that there have been grumblings about Kirk not getting the ball to the open receivers. by the receivers. So, there's always a risk when guys aren't getting the ball. Bottom line is, they don't really care who gets them the ball, as long as they get it.

Alas that's always going to be the case with this offense and it's weapons. The load is going to be spread. Winning keeps a lid on too much bitching though.

If we start losing alot... well that's when things get nasty.

Naaaa! One of the greatest days in Redskins history was "The Ambush" in SB XXII.

LOL That was such an awesome game.

Little anecdote! I was 16 when Superbowl XXII was played, I'd been a Redkskin fan for a good 4 or 5 years at this point.

My brother was 12, and he was at that age where he generally just attached himself to any team that was doing well and wasn't the Redskins. During Superbowl XX he was a Bears fan etc etc.
That year he was rooting for the Broncos.

Well that first quarter was a disaster for the Skins. Denver looked unstoppable, we were 10 points down and Doug Williams had already limped off the field with a hyper-extended knee.

Second quarter starts and BOOM! 35 unanswered.

Probably the most exciting quarter of football I've ever watched.

Little brothers face was a study, I'll always remember that night. LOL

It's kinda weird but looking back on that season I'd have sworn that Doug Williams played most of the games. I knew he shared snap time with Jay Schroeder, but I could have sworn he played more than 5 games in the regular season. In fact when you look at his stats he only started something like 23 games in a Redskins uniform at all, but he's one of our most famous QB's

 

[TomE]

Article number 3 of the Boone dictum is exactly what I see.

Kirk is not 'elite' but he's pretty damn good. Yeah, the stats seem hollow but stick in a couple more of those wins that were there to be had, a few more red zone scores which in 2015 we didn't seem to have a problem doing and those stats acquire some 'beef'.

Kirk will be employed somewhere and if it's not here then we will be once again searching for that fairy tail solution.

It's easy to say that Kirk is not worth what he'll get paid but suppose one of those elite QBs were in the same spot.... what would he get in todays market?

One can say that those elites are already signed to 'reasonable' long term deals.... I might be wrong but didn't every new long term deal to one of those type QBs set a new record for the position and has since been mitigated by ever decreasing cap percentage?

Kirk didn't get a real opportunity to 'show his stuff' (warts and all) while he was cheap, now that he has, it's time to pay and he's not going to accept one of those creative contracts that let's the team off the hook easily in the future. That type of deal might have feasible prior to 2015.... but no one here was going to do that until the Griffin question was answered.

 

[Knightingale]

Article number 3 of the Boone dictum is exactly what I see.

Kirk is not 'elite' but he's pretty damn good. Yeah, the stats seem hollow but stick in a couple more of those wins that were there to be had, a few more red zone scores which in 2015 we didn't seem to have a problem doing and those stats acquire some 'beef'.

Kirk will be employed somewhere and if it's not here then we will be once again searching for that fairy tail solution.

It's easy to say that Kirk is not worth what he'll get paid but suppose one of those elite QBs were in the same spot.... what would he get in todays market?

One can say that those elites are already signed to 'reasonable' long term deals.... I might be wrong but didn't every new long term deal to one of those type QBs set a new record for the position and has since been mitigated by ever decreasing cap percentage?

Kirk didn't get a real opportunity to 'show his stuff' (warts and all) while he was cheap, now that he has, it's time to pay and he's not going to accept one of those creative contracts that let's the team off the hook easily in the future. That type of deal might have feasible prior to 2015.... but no one here was going to do that until the Griffin question was answered.

I do wonder where Kirk would be skills-wise now if we had never had the RGIII experience.

I sincerely doubt we'd have had the 2012 season, that was pure magic and at that time Kirk was a turnover machine.

But he seems to be a slow burn QB who needs time to study and grow. Interesting what if.

Would he be better now than he is? Or would he have crashed and burned out of the league?

Tandler had an article up yesterday or today talking about the RedZone issues. Last year we converted RedZone trips to TD's on something like 60%, this year it was more like 45%. I think he worked it out that we'd let slip something like 36 points, or 6 TD's. Especially in that first Cowboys game were we scored on 2 of 6 redzone trips. Those could easily have turned over two or three games worth of losses into wins.
All semantics I know, because if the Defense had held more often it wouldn't have mattered, but if we could get back to those numbers next year it would be good.

He also said (and I don't know if this is true without looking) that the Interception he threw in the Dallas game in the RedZone was his first RedZone interception. He wondered if that made Kirk a little more circumspect over the season in those tight quarters. Who knows! But he said the Dallas game seemed to be the catalyst for the start of the RedZone woes.

 

[TomE]

Yep, saw the Tandler blurb, of those particularly tough losses (or tie) it's easy to cherry pick potential wins and say 'what if'.

Unfortunately it didn't happen and there is enough blame to go around the entire team and staff but just the mere fact that we missed a consecutive year playoff appearance by 10 stinkin' points is enough to be a little optimistic about where the team is heading.

Tandler

 

[Ax]

I guess the Devil's Advocate would also ask, how many of these games might have easily gone the other way

@Giants 29-27 W
@Ravens 16-10 W
Eagles 27-20 W
Vikings 26-20 W
@Eagles 27-22 W