Who is Kirk Cousins?

[NoCalHail]

With Kirk it is mainly now about avoiding the valleys. He doesn't need to be Aaron Rodgers or Brady out there in order for the team to win the way we seem to be building the squad.

There are always going to be the 2-3 games a season where you are facing some really tough defenses and I don't think anyone expects him to look like an all pro in those games, but he just needs to limit mistakes when possible and try to find ways to win an ugly game.

The upcoming game against Carolina is a good example. They are a very good team this season but they aren't unbeatable. In fact I think they are a bit ripe for the picking from a team exactly like ours that is slowly becoming respectable but still not on most folks' radars yet as a "threat"

[rocnrik]

Originally Posted by nocalhail

with kirk it is mainly now about avoiding the valleys. He doesn't need to be aaron rodgers or brady out there in order for the team to win the way we seem to be building the squad.

There are always going to be the 2-3 games a season where you are facing some really tough defenses and i don't think anyone expects him to look like an all pro in those games, but he just needs to limit mistakes when possible and try to find ways to win an ugly game.

The upcoming game against carolina is a good example. They are a very good team this season but they aren't unbeatable. In fact i think they are a bit ripe for the picking from a team exactly like ours that is slowly becoming respectable but still not on most folks' radars yet as a "threat"

you get it!!

[Schneed10]

Excellent point about the valleys, those are the bugaboo for Kirk. Avoiding those down the stretch would be a major step in the right direction.

Again, we don't have to make a decision yet. But assuming Kirk doesn't tank down the stretch, if I'm McCloughan I might try to get him for 12M per year over three years, but almost all of it guaranteed. Give him security but still make him earn a huge pay day. I'd add a player option for year 4 that vests if he achieves certain incentives, and that salary could be 20M.

You don't want to overcommit but you want to show willingness to take care of him.

Again, decide later. Wait and see on this stretch run.

[KI Skins Fan]

Post deleted.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

1. Do you think that the Redskins are still in the process of deciding if they want Kirk to be their starting QB going forward?

Yes. Would it be prudent to do otherwise?

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

2. If they were to decide not to re-sign him, wouldn't that set back the team building process?

If they decided not to sign a QB who finished the year with say 18 TDs and 23 INTs, and a record of 6-10, then I'd say the rebuilding process was already set back. Throwing good money at such a QB would be a terrible decision. If they decided not to sign a QB who finished with a flourish, then obviously that would be a dumb decision. Are you kind of getting the pattern that it makes sense to wait for all information from the final 7 games to come in?

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

2. If Kirk isn't the choice as QB of the future, where are we going to find another QB for next season?

Every fan's worst fear right here. If Cousins is horrible down the stretch then we can resign him for cheap, maybe he'll turn into something in a few years. And it's back to the draft... again.

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

4. If he is the choice as our QB, then it's a matter of coming to a deal with him and his agent. With that in mind, why would he sign for $12MM per year for three years (albeit mostly guaranteed) when he could simply hold out for more and force the Redskins to tag him and pay him @ $25MM in 2016, fully guaranteed and paid to him in 2016?

He could very well do that. But when I assess the personalities involved, I don't find a cut-throat negotiation very likely.

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

I ask these questions because I believe that Kirk is either now or may soon be in a much stronger negotiating position than most other posters here think.

You're absolutely right, if he shreds it the last 7 games then he'll have a very strong position. But if you sign him now, even if you sign him for less, you are taking a pretty big risk. What if he flops down the stretch? He's getting his first chance to start this year, he's taken a lot of strides. But one thing we've still not seen is how he'll do late in the season with playoff implications on the line. Can he rise to the big moment?

You're assessing the risk that we might have to pay out the ear to keep him, because your glasses are so burgundy & gold that you can barely think of any other scenario than Kirk shredding it. While I hope in my heart of hearts that's the case, you have to consider the possibility that he shrinks under the spotlight, or simply goes back to failing to take care of the ball.

It's prudent to wait. If he costs us $16M per year instead of $12M, it means that he did well this year and is proving he can be the man. What a nice problem to have.

A terrible problem to have would be commit $12M per year to a guy who reveals himself to be the next Mark Sanchez.

Let's wait and see.

[KI Skins Fan]

[QUOTE=Schneed10;1129139]Yes. Would it be prudent to do otherwise?



If they decided not to sign a QB who finished the year with say 18 TDs and 23 INTs, and a record of 6-10, then I'd say the rebuilding process was already set back. Throwing good money at such a QB would be a terrible decision. If they decided not to sign a QB who finished with a flourish, then obviously that would be a dumb decision. Are you kind of getting the pattern that it makes sense to wait for all information from the final 7 games to come in?



Every fan's worst fear right here. If Cousins is horrible down the stretch then we can resign him for cheap, maybe he'll turn into something in a few years. And it's back to the draft... again.



He could very well do that. But when I assess the personalities involved, I don't find a cut-throat negotiation very likely.



You're absolutely right, if he shreds it the last 7 games then he'll have a very strong position. But if you sign him now, even if you sign him for less, you are taking a pretty big risk. What if he flops down the stretch? He's getting his first chance to start this year, he's taken a lot of strides. But one thing we've still not seen is how he'll do late in the season with playoff implications on the line. Can he rise to the big moment?

You're assessing the risk that we might have to pay out the ear to keep him, because your glasses are so burgundy & gold that you can barely think of any other scenario than Kirk shredding it. While I hope in my heart of hearts that's the case, you have to consider the possibility that he shrinks under the spotlight, or simply goes back to failing to take care of the ball.

It's prudent to wait. If he costs us $16M per year instead of $12M, it means that he did well this year and is proving he can be the man. What a nice problem to have.

A terrible problem to have would be commit $12M per year to a guy who reveals himself to be the next Mark Sanchez.

Let's wait and see.[/QUOTE

I think I finally understand what you're saying. You're right, it is prudent to wait. Just about anything could happen between now and when it's time to negotiate.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

If Kirk is now or becomes the choice as our QB of the future by the end of this season, then why would he sign for $12MM per year for three years (albeit mostly guaranteed) when he could simply hold out for more and force the Redskins to tag him and pay him @ $25MM in 2016, fully guaranteed and paid to him in 2016?

If Kirk were to be tagged, he would already have $25MM in his pocket and be in a position to negotiate again prior to the 2017 season. Assuming that he performs well in 2016, he would then be in a negotiating position to make much more than $36MM in the next three years.

I believe that Kirk is the QB of the future and that he may now be or soon be in a much stronger negotiating position than most other posters here think.

Did you edit this post?

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Did you edit this post?

Yes but I should have left it alone. I deleted this because your answers include the questions and should be sufficient to continue the thread.

Thanks for answering the original post.

[Chico23231]

Kirk Cousins highlights Week 10 Players of Week - NFL.com

no surprise...great game

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Kirk Cousins highlights Week 10 Players of Week - NFL.com

no surprise...great game

Damn Rambo won AFC defensive player.

[over the mountain]

30 - my use of the word "different" was lazy for the part you quoted. our offense didnt seem different, its not a different scheme and we still ran exclusively out 1 back sets. my other comments re. "now able to open up the entire playbook" were more accurate.

your observations i 100% agree with, you answered it better then i could:

"the main differences I saw are finally there are runs from shotgun spread formations on 2nd down (not many but some is better then none). Lol, the crazy part is the Saints bit on our shotgun playaction it was awesome to watch. The second schematic difference I noticed is breaking their personnel based run tendencies e.g. by passing to Alfred Morris it makes it less of dead 'run' give away when he's in the game. They also threw more RBs screens then usual (which I like)."

We did a lot of screens, a lot of shotgun looks, a lot of half assed PA looks out of shotgun, we didnt attempt as many go routes as i thought but we had that one sideline one early to desean which was so nice to finally see. good call on screens to morris, i didnt think of that.

the run game and giving alf the ball 15 times was nice. of course we were finally able to do that bc we were getting 3-5 yards and not sitting at 2nd and 9 a bunch of times allowing us to run more than once per set of downs.

YAC - i actually checked our YAC 2 weeks ago bc i thought Cousins YPA was being disproportionately lowered bc of the lack of down field passing and it seemed our guys would never break a short pass for a long gain (like jones 70+ screen), garcon is basically a catch it and lower head kind of receiver, no desean ... but i was surprised to see we were at 15 or 16th in the NFL in YAC at that time. i thought we would be lower, a lot lower.

for me, i want to see run get back on track. production against the saints D means nothing to me. i want to see Kirk throw it 28 times or less every game. if that happens, that means our offense is staying on track.

getting 2-5 yards on 1st down is huge imo for this offense. it allows us to call any play - run, PA, 5-7 step drop down field pass etc ...

[30gut]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

30 - my use of the word "different" was lazy for the part you quoted. our offense didnt seem different, its not a different scheme and we still ran exclusively out 1 back sets. my other comments re. "now able to open up the entire playbook" were more accurate.
.........the run game and giving alf the ball 15 times was nice. of course we were finally able to do that bc we were getting 3-5 yards and not sitting at 2nd and 9 a bunch of times allowing us to run more than once per set of downs.
...................for me, i want to see run get back on track. production against the saints D means nothing to me. i want to see Kirk throw it 28 times or less every game. if that happens, that means our offense is staying on track.

getting 2-5 yards on 1st down is huge imo for this offense. it allows us to call any play - run, PA, 5-7 step drop down field pass etc ...

For me its a chicken vs the egg question when it comes to the run game.

I believe how the run game is called and implemented effects the productivity or lack thereof. Imo sometimes the "negative" runs are a result of the playcalling. We actually did get DY on the field for some runs, we actually did run the ball on 2nd down and from spread shotgun. Those changes imo positively impact the run game.

Also there was a stretch of where they called 5 straight runs. Meaning they stuck with the run. Of course it easier to stick with the run when its "working". Its much harder to do what they Jets did a few weeks ago in a win (23 runs for 26 yards). Many people will say that is terrible well....even those "failed" runs did 2 things..(1) control the clock for up to 13 minutes, that's huge to a defense (2) it sets up play-action. But I digress..............It also helped that the Saints defense...well....sucked...sucks..

But, I'm with you. Lets really, truly embrace the run game as our way forward.

... but i was surprised to see we were at 15 or 16th in the NFL in YAC at that time. i thought we would be lower, a lot lower.

That doesn't surprise me really. The league worst YPA is imo more a result of the depth of the throws attempted. Jay's offense is imo overly dependent upon throwing the ball quick. Quick usually= short. The receivers aren't going to have time to get downfield, therefore whatever YAC they get is gonna generate less YPA then a deeper throw would.

[over the mountain]

Perfect QB rating nets Cousins NFC honor | ProFootballTalk

Cousins was so good that Saints defensive coordinator Rob Ryan got fired the next day.

What do you get for this? a 10k check? a piece of nice paper with nice squiggly writing on it?

[NoCalHail]

I think the biggest difference against the Saints was the running game was working which helped setup the pass and play action. Also, for the first time forever, screen passes were producing big yardage.

The offense itself though wasn't different. This is a WCO through and through, which traditionally is not about downfield passing. Go watch clips of the 49ers under Walsh. Montana was a a surgeon with how he delivered the ball to WR's in space so short completions would turn into long gains. It is very similar to the Pats offense. 3 step drops, quick passes, looking for mis-matches. THAT is what a WCO is.

With that said, many coordinators through the years have modified the WCO to add in more deep passing, depending on the personnel. For example, with Jackson and Reed (and hopefully eventually Ross) you are going to have the opportunity to take shots downfield and the hope is that the few times a game you get them, you take advantage because it further opens up space underneath.

My biggest concern earlier in the season watching the offense was what would happen when we played teams that were able to make tackles at the point of the catch. There were a lot of passes where the WR's were stopping to make the catch, or the throw would dictate them needing to stop, turn around, etc etc....it could have been timing issues, still learning the offense, fundamentally sound defense from opponents etc etc etc....

Also in a WCO the run game is used almost as an extension of the passing game, which is why a guy like Matt Jones is so important because he can take screen passes to the house with his speed and acceleration.

[hail_2_da_skins]

Originally Posted by NoCalHail

I think the biggest difference against the Saints was the running game was working which helped setup the pass and play action. Also, for the first time forever, screen passes were producing big yardage.

The offense itself though wasn't different. This is a WCO through and through, which traditionally is not about downfield passing. Go watch clips of the 49ers under Walsh. Montana was a a surgeon with how he delivered the ball to WR's in space so short completions would turn into long gains. It is very similar to the Pats offense. 3 step drops, quick passes, looking for mis-matches. THAT is what a WCO is.

With that said, many coordinators through the years have modified the WCO to add in more deep passing, depending on the personnel. For example, with Jackson and Reed (and hopefully eventually Ross) you are going to have the opportunity to take shots downfield and the hope is that the few times a game you get them, you take advantage because it further opens up space underneath.

My biggest concern earlier in the season watching the offense was what would happen when we played teams that were able to make tackles at the point of the catch. There were a lot of passes where the WR's were stopping to make the catch, or the throw would dictate them needing to stop, turn around, etc etc....it could have been timing issues, still learning the offense, fundamentally sound defense from opponents etc etc etc....

Also in a WCO the run game is used almost as an extension of the passing game, which is why a guy like Matt Jones is so important because he can take screen passes to the house with his speed and acceleration.

Excellent analysis. Jay Gruden called the perfect game. It was a good mixture of run and pass. Finally the formations did not give away the play call. The running plays complemented the passing plays and the running backs were apart of the passing game. Jay must be reading our posts.