Kirk Cousins Development Tracker

For my part, I am not using stats to prove that he's worth a gazillion dollars. But strength of schedule is important when someone suggests that Cousins only plays well against crap teams and wilts against better opponents. When one looks at that graphic, it appears he's about even money against better opponents.
Of course you are. As is Knightingale, and Om. Since I apparently must name names now.

So I have to ask, based on the graphic, do guys proclaim The Eagles as the best defense we faced last season? By a large margin?
The whole graphic is based on, well, I don't need to say. Everybody already knows.
 
The old anonymous "they" huh?

Okie doke.
Off the top of my head, they, more than once, being You, Boone, Fear, Knightingale, and stevenaa. Among others.

I can take a polygraph if you wish. :)
 
The major problem with assessing Kirk is that it is too easy to look through an emotional lens when perhaps we ought to employ a rational one. After all, the judgement on Kirk, Gruden, McCloughan and on the Redskins themselves comes down to how we "feel" about the team. That is divorced from the reality of the team and the context through which the team can quantitatively be measured.

If you ask the reporter, scientist, statistician in me I can tell you that the cup is more than half full with Gruden. I feel pretty good about what we've achieved and the fact that the team has moved from putrid to pretty good in the space of two seasons. That said, when I watch football I let the little kid in me out. He's screaming, cheering, and hollering with all the strength he has. He looks at the world in a 1950's Superman black and white, good versus evil, kind of way. Losses are victories for the bad guys. They're unfair, rotten, and shameful. Victories are exuberant, exciting, or a hair pulling relief.

Okay, what I'm writing is over the top, but our judgement on Gruden comes not from logic. Our love of the Redskins can't possibly stem from logic given the pain to happiness ratio over the last twenty years. It's an emotional call. 8-7-1 is pretty dissatisfying even though it marks a kind of success. More so, because there is a huge shadow of regression and a huge number of question marks with the unknowns in free agency and coaching.

Our inner three year old wants and deserves some chocolate cake with ice cream. This year, we were finally given an animal cracker. Maybe that should make us happy, but when we've got full view of the dessert cart it can be a little tough.
 
Off the top of my head, they, more than once, being You, Boone, Fear, Knightingale, and stevenaa. Among others.

I can take a polygraph if you wish. :)
Nah. Take a chill pill. :)

And, since you clearly cannot let this go, please show me any one time where I have said anything even remotely like what you've said I have. I happen to know the others you've named haven't, but I'm old now, so I may have forgotten a time I lost my higher brain functions and even remotely suggested Kirk's "stats" alone mean the team should pay him a gazillion dollars.

God help me it's only March 1.
 
Of course you are. As is Knightingale, and Om. Since I apparently must name names now.

So I have to ask, based on the graphic, do guys proclaim The Eagles as the best defense we faced last season? By a large margin?
The whole graphic is based on, well, I don't need to say. Everybody already knows.

No. Go ahead a re-read. It's cool.

Kirk isn't Aaron Rodgers, but he beat some pretty good defenses. I never even mentioned the Eagles. There was the Giants, the Ravens and the Vikings, though. All top-ten defenses in both points and yards. All wins. And when you say "The chokes against the Panthers and Giants proved he still struggles against anything mid level and up" well, it doesn't prove that. He SOMETIMES struggles against mid-level and up. Then again, most guys do. Brady doesn't. Rodgers doesn't. Roethelisberger ... usually doesn't. Brees ... well, his teams suck a lot. Cam Newton is a very hot and cold guy. Am I missing anyone? Wilson? Dude's had the best defense on the planet for the past five years.

So I suppose if you're point is Kirk ain't no Brady or Rodgers, well, gosh darn it, you're right. :)

If you don't think he's on the level below that, where a good supporting cast can make a world of difference, where Stafford and Ryan and Winston and Dalton, etc, live. I think there's a debate to be had there.
 
I see Kirk as a Matt Ryan or maybe even a poor man's Drew Brees. He's got the quick release and a knack for not being hit. His arm is better than people think and while doesn't have any great physical attribute everything seems to be in the good range: good speed, good quickness, good agility, good accuracy (maybe better than just good here), etc.

He certainly isn't the QB that can lead a team to the promised land by himself as an Elway almost did or a Marino almost did, but he's plenty good enough to take you far with a good team. I don't know that he's worth 24 million a year, but the numbers we pay our athletes have climbed to such a ridiculous level that it's hard to fathom that even guys making vet min plus incentives are really worth what they're getting.
 
Nah. Take a chill pill. :)

And, since you clearly cannot let this go, please show me any one time where I have said anything even remotely like what you've said I have. I happen to know the others you've named haven't, but I'm old now, so I may have forgotten a time I lost my higher brain functions and even remotely suggested Kirk's "stats" alone mean the team should pay him a gazillion dollars.

God help me it's only March 1.
There couldn't possibly be a more "chill" guy in the world. If I took a chill "pill", my heart might stop beating.

Curious too, that I'm the one that won't "let it go". I was called upon, by Sir Knightingale, and responded. Others joined in, and I responded. I'm a counterpuncher by nature.
If there was a rule change, I didn't get the memo.

And, being a master wordsmith, I'm a little shocked that you chose to interpret,
Ax said:
"Coulda swore I've seen, for weeks and months, a number of people continuously citing #8's record breaking stats as the no brainer proof that he's worth a gazillion dollars, and a bag of chips."
as stating that I said you guys believe #8's "stats alone" mean the same. I see how someone with a preconceived notion would immediately jump to that conclusion. But, like stats, it doesn't tell the whole story. Being one of the most professed reasons, isn't necessarily the lone reason.

And, we're both getting older, my friend. :)

BTW, it's only March 1st. Just wait 'til I get over this sinus infection and start feeling like a ruttin' buck again.

Buwhahaahahahahah!
 
No. Go ahead a re-read. It's cool.

Kirk isn't Aaron Rodgers, but he beat some pretty good defenses. I never even mentioned the Eagles. There was the Giants, the Ravens and the Vikings, though. All top-ten defenses in both points and yards. All wins. And when you say "The chokes against the Panthers and Giants proved he still struggles against anything mid level and up" well, it doesn't prove that. He SOMETIMES struggles against mid-level and up. Then again, most guys do. Brady doesn't. Rodgers doesn't. Roethelisberger ... usually doesn't. Brees ... well, his teams suck a lot. Cam Newton is a very hot and cold guy. Am I missing anyone? Wilson? Dude's had the best defense on the planet for the past five years.

So I suppose if you're point is Kirk ain't no Brady or Rodgers, well, gosh darn it, you're right. :)

If you don't think he's on the level below that, where a good supporting cast can make a world of difference, where Stafford and Ryan and Winston and Dalton, etc, live. I think there's a debate to be had there.
Henry, my whole point is, that strength of schedule is also based off of stats. Which, if I remember, we all know can be misleading, and even dead wrong. According to that graph, the Eagles were the #1 defense we faced last year. The "stats" might support that, but who in the free world actually thinks it's true? so then, the whole graph is then questionable, right?

I question the graph. Waterboard me. ;)
 
Henry, my whole point is, that strength of schedule is also based off of stats. Which, if I remember, we all know can be misleading, and even dead wrong. According to that graph, the Eagles were the #1 defense we faced last year. The "stats" might support that, but who in the free world actually thinks it's true? so then, the whole graph is then questionable, right?

I question the graph. Waterboard me. ;)

Well, again, I didn't mention the Eagles myself because I thought they sucked. :)

I do wonder what it is with the Eagles. FootballOutsider, which I cite often and generally like as a comprehensive stat analysis site, has the Eagles as the fourth most efficient team last year. I don't know how a 7-9 team can be the fourth best team, but it seems to be a common theme amongst the wonks, apparently. I guess Wentz was just that bad. :D

So I guess if there is a point to be made that stats alone can occasionally completely miss the mark, the 2016 Eagles certainly support that point.
 
Ax,

It seems we do have at least one thing in common in this .... I too have ****ed up sinuses.

Mine are like 73% ****ed.

But that's just a stat.
 
Meanwhile ...

Kirk is going to be a rich man. Probably here, for at least one more year. Which would give us the same HC and QB in place, in the same system, heading into their third year together. We haven't seen that very often.

I suspect we'll see new wrinkles. Perhaps even a bit more focus on running the b--oh who am I kidding, we're chuckin' it. :)

Couple that with the hoped-for continued progression in Kirk, based if nothing else on experience and familiarity, and we might have some offensive fun. How that translates into points (red zone!), and wins (defense!) remains to be seen. But, one mountain at a time.
 
Damn you to hell Kirk, you're tearing this family apart!!!!
 
.....

I suspect we'll see new wrinkles. Perhaps even a bit more focus on running the b--oh who am I kidding, we're chuckin' it. :)

......

The Bruce better have put a run ratio that's close to 50% in Cavanaugh's contract. Mother ****er gonna learn!
 
IMG_2856.jpg
......
 
Last edited:
My view on all this is...

Stats tell a story but need to be taken as a part of a larger picture and it's only when you look at the whole, both the gaudy statistics and the eye test that you get the complete overview.

For me the stats tell a story that Kirk is in top tier of QB's. The eye test says he's not. To me he's in Tier 2.

For me personally I've also liked the way his game has grown and improved over the past couple of years since he was given the starting job. His completion percentage is good, he's cut down his turnovers, he looks calmer in the pocket to me and steps into pressure better. He distributes the ball well and can hit all the throws long and short.

Now it helps alot that the Skins have an offense built around him, to maximise his potential. You could say that that is why he's putting up the gaudy stats and you'd be right. But isn't that how all the best teams SHOULD be building their teams? Building to maximise the effectiveness of their QB's strengths.

I think I'm realistic on Kirk. He's not the second coming of Tom Brady. But he's also not the second coming of RGIII. He's a very very competent QB who despite his age and years in the NFL is still in the early days of his career. I also think he's shown the capability to learn and grow, something that RGIII didn't and many QB's don't.

In the two years he's been our starting QB we've gone 17-16-1 which is a good sight better than we're used to over the past two decades or more. I feel this is something we should build on, not tear down.

So here's the rub.

Look around the league, there's a massive shortage of competent QB's and this years draft isn't stocked with great prospects. Trubisky is probably the best in the draft and he's ranked as the 32nd best player in the draft over on ESPN. You can bet he'll go much higher than his ranking. The demand is far higher this year than the supply.

Everything that's played out currently is pretty much exactly what I expected. Kirk has no rush to sign as he has all the leverage at the moment.

So to try and swing the balance a little the Skins had to tag him. Firstly it keeps him off the market so he can't establish a price for his services by negotiating with another team. Secondly it keeps him in house for another year and next year everything could change. Those teams that need QB's this year, they could sign or draft one of the other options. Romo, Cutler, Garoppolo, Mike Glennon, Colin Kapernick... even Tyrod Taylor might be in the mix. For every one that signs somewhere, that takes an option off the table for Kirk. In 2018 the options for Kirk could be drastically reduced. That could play into the Skins hands especially if Kirk has a bad year. That's Kirk's risk on not signing a long term deal... what does the picture look like in 2018? How does he perform this year?

As for trades... does Kirk really want that? He'd have to think carefully about it. The San Fran connection is all about Kyle, but that team is a mess. Sure Kyle can try and put in a West Coast type offence that could suit Kirk, but with what pieces? Does Kirk really think he'll have the kind of success he's had here behind our O-line and with our receiving corps? Is it just the money he's after? He's never struck me as someone who just chases the dollar, I think he want's success too. Where else could he go and succeed? The Browns?

As for those draft picks we'd get from San Fran... Well Cleveland are going number 1, so they'll take Trubisky who as I said is ranked as the 32nd best player in the draft... So that leaves us with who? DeShaun Watson maybe? There's not, to my eye anyway, a standout QB in this draft. When you look at draft picks the question has to be... "Is who we'll pick going to be a better option for this team than the person we have?"
Watson might be cheaper, might even be good... but is it worth rolling the dice? Are we going to look fools if we draft the next RGIII or Kapernick while San Fran goes to the playoffs behind an ever improving Kirk Cousins?

Because I think that's a very strong possibility if we trade him.

As for his cost in a long term deal. The raw numbers don't matter. It's the percentage of the cap he'll take up that does. What looks like a large percentage now, is going to look very reasonable in a few years time with the projected rise in the salary cap. Plus other QB's will sign mega deals and by 2020 any deal Kirk gets would look pretty reasonable.

Whether Kirk stays or goes comes down, in my mind, to one thing... Is the Front Office committed to build on what we have or tear it down and start over.

If we're committed to building on the past two years we should do what it takes to get Kirk locked up, we should look at Doctson and see if we need to try and retain Garcon (I think Jackson is gone either way). We hit free agency to pick up some key Offensive additions and we draft for Defence. This is a pretty deep draft for the Defence, we could get some good young talent that could grow with this team together over the next few years if we're lucky.

With Kirk a consistent presence under centre, with our O-line gelling together, two young receivers in Crowder and Doctson plus Reed and a few good vets (Davis for one) we're in good shape on O going forwards, even if Garcon and DJax leave. Just need a good running back, maybe see what Kelly has, maybe give Jones another run at it.

Give us a consistent offence and a young up and coming and improving Defence and we could see something special building in Washington. The blocks are there...

If they trade Kirk... I see that as a signal of a tear down and rebuild. Because they'll let Garcon and Jackson walk too and then we're stuck building around what? Reed, Crowder and a pretty good O-line. That's about it. Without a competent trigger man I think we're slipping back from even our current position.

Personally I think it boils down to this... There is a sad lack of even competent QB's in this league.... we have one of them. Been a while since we've had one in this town and if our Front Office decide to let him go for the fools gold of draft picks then we're in trouble.
Despite all the pessimism and the trade rumours etc coming out of the media... I still think a deal gets done.

I think we'll be horrified at the cost... but in a few years time we won't worry about it. I'd rather see this team build on the foundation they've put down. I'm not that worried about the salary situation right now and if the cap continues to rise might never need to be. Especially if we can improve the D through the draft and get a nice core of young players there for cheap.

My tuppence for what it's worth. :D
 
It may not be the best overall scenario that some of us would like, but the Redskins could take a major step in resolving this process.

Give Jay Gruden a raise and a three year extension.
 
I suspect we'll be drafting a QB this April.
Should be interesting and telling, by which round he goes in.

And have that guy and Nate shadow Kirk wherever he goes. Do what Kirk does. Eat the same burrito Kirk does.

You know.....just in case.
 
edited
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You'd probably have to be a member of the media to understand it - they're the only ones that do.

Jason Reid sayz, 'He hasn't been offered fair-market value. Nothing to consider.' Really? Aren't the Skins willing to pay him $44M over two years via the tag? That's not fair market value? He's the #4 QB on the chart now and was #7 last year. Luck is #1 and only $600k more. The Skins are willing to pay the bucks - it comes down to terms - not the bucks.

For those who wish, the link is:

It's humorous. Stupid but funny nonetheless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Look, I am in camp with Ax that the stats mean little, on too many occasions when we needed Kirk to step up his game and lead this team to victory in season ending or possible season ending games, he shit the bed. Last year in the playoffs, he disappeared in the 2nd half of the Packers game, the Giants game this year, the Dallass game last year when we could have clinched a playoff spot, and a couple others.

The only difference, I know we had to sign him...and he needs to be given a long term deal that we can get out of after 4 years. That means he gets 95 million over 4 years. He gets 24 this year, you guarantee him close to 50 over the next 2 and then we can cut bait in the 4th year...then be done with him if he cannot be any better than Andy Dalton.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 4, Members: 0, Guests: 4)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top