Who is Kirk Cousins?

I don't think in the history of professional sports has a fan cut a player.

Did someone on here cut Rambo?

BREAKING NEWS: KI SKINS Fan just signed Cousins to a 5 year 100 million dollar contract...ALL Guaranteed!

BREAKING NEWS: KI SKINS Fan just signed Cousins to a 5 year 100 million dollar contract...ALL Guaranteed!

I definitely deserved that! I don't mind being thought of as Kirk's #1 fan but I must admit that I do get a bit bombastic about him from time to time. I mean, I love what he's done so far this season. I want so much for our QB problems to be solved that I may tend to overrate him.

Nevertheless, if I could sign him I would. I think he's a mid-tier starter right now and I don't think he's anywhere near reaching his ceiling.

I think he'll probably get a 3-year $45MM deal with $15MM guaranteed. You may think that's high but, as long as he continues to improve, there will be enough interest in him to command that kind of money. There are some weak-ass starting QB's in the NFL right now and the 2016 QB draft class is nothing special.

I also promised him that you would give him a BJ.


Lol....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Lol....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Whoops! I was too late in deleting that. It was meant in good humor, though. Chico is a good man.

yea that is funny..i will use the same argument the rest of the year! go back and read the fans calling for rambo to be let go..thats my point. most fans were calling him a bum..you have guys on here now that want Gruden gone. THANK GOD FANS don't have a say.

I'm curious what type of money they think Fitzpatrick and Tyrod would get if they were in Kirk's shoes?

yea that is funny..i will use the same argument the rest of the year! go back and read the fans calling for rambo to be let go..thats my point. most fans were calling him a bum..you have guys on here now that want Gruden gone. THANK GOD FANS don't have a say.

The fans didn't cut Rambo. The Redskins did. As you know, he was horrible while he was here, so please don't try to re-write history. If he has turned his career around, good for him!

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.

Post deleted.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.