Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread

So can Rex Grossman... Went to a SB as the starting QB on a defensive dominant team.



So can Trent Dilfer... Won a SB as the starting QB on a defensive dominant team.



For that matter... So can RG3... Won a division as a starting QB where our defense was flat out horrible (a whole lot worse than KC dealt with this year)..



Saying a QB can win with a dominant defense is like saying a dime is worth 10 cents. Its a Captain Obvious statement.


Whats a matter cat piss in your cheerios? Of course a dominant defense can carry an average or below average quarterback. BUT I did not say we need a dominant defense did I? I said that we got our QB and if we improve on a piss poor defense that he can be one of the best in the league. But you read whatever you would like.

Edit: u also may want to re-visit your statement about this years D vs 2012. They were both bottom of the barrel except this years D was worse against the run. So to say what Griff dealt with was a whole lot worse is just not true.

Whats a matter cat piss in your cheerios? Of course a dominant defense can carry an average or below average quarterback. BUT I did not say we need a dominant defense did I? I said that we got our QB and if we improve on a piss poor defense that he can be one of the best in the league. But you read whatever you would like.

Edit: u also may want to re-visit your statement about this years D vs 2012. They were both bottom of the barrel except this years D was worse against the run. So to say what Griff dealt with was a whole lot worse is just not true.

Its not a pissed im my cheerios statement. Did you say dominant defense? No... Did you describe dominant defense? Yes. You said a defense that keeps him on the field and keeps us from playing from behind. Simply put, you are describing Seattle. Thats not something that defines a good QB unless you simply rate a QB by wins.

A defense that can keep your qb from playing from behind alot (which is what i said) is dominant? They are Seattle, they are Superbowl caliber? Lol. Ok.
How about they arent so freaking bad (worse than 2012....again), that your quarterback isnt always playing from behind. How in the hell does my original statement describe a dominant / championship defense? Lol. If KC has a HALFWAY DECENT DEFENSE THAT CAN FORCE A FEW THREE AND OUTS AND NOT ALWAYS FALL BEHIND HE CAN WIN A SHIT TON OF GAMES FOR THIS TEAM. Is that better? Im saying the exact opposite of what you are trying to twist my words into. He can be the type of qb that puts his team on his shoulders with a halfway competent D. The exact and polar opposite of what Rex or Trent were. They were along for the ride with a dominant D.

A defense that can keep your qb from playing from behind alot (which is what i said) is dominant? They are Seattle, they are Superbowl caliber? Lol. Ok.
How about they arent so freaking bad (worse than 2012....again), that your quarterback isnt always playing from behind. How in the hell does my original statement describe a dominant / championship defense? Lol. If KC has a HALFWAY DECENT DEFENSE THAT CAN FORCE A FEW THREE AND OUTS AND NOT ALWAYS FALL BEHIND HE CAN WIN A SHIT TON OF GAMES FOR THIS TEAM. Is that better? Im saying the exact opposite of what you are trying to twist my words into. He can be the type of qb that puts his team on his shoulders with a halfway competent D. The exact and polar opposite of what Rex or Trent were. They were along for the ride with a dominant D.

You are still simply making statements that "insert QB name here" are true. I mean what QB, if they hardly fall behind, cant win a shit ton of games. Other than the pick 6 machines, the rest are a true statement.

And a "HALFWAY DECENT DEFENSE" isnt keeping you from falling behind. Half way to decent is still a crap defense. I dont think a crap defense will keep you from playing from behind a lot. That either takes a really good defense with a good offense or a flat out elite defense.

I still dont understand why it takes the defense of the Redskins to determine whether KC is an assassin or not. Again, unless you rate a QB on wins only. KC can play great and the defense shit the bed and we get a loss. Thats not on KC.

You are still simply making statements that "insert QB name here" are true. I mean what QB, if they hardly fall behind, cant win a shit ton of games. Other than the pick 6 machines, the rest are a true statement.



And a "HALFWAY DECENT DEFENSE" isnt keeping you from falling behind. Half way to decent is still a crap defense. I dont think a crap defense will keep you from playing from behind a lot. That either takes a really good defense with a good offense or a flat out elite defense.



I still dont understand why it takes the defense of the Redskins to determine whether KC is an assassin or not. Again, unless you rate a QB on wins only. KC can play great and the defense shit the bed and we get a loss. Thats not on KC.


Wow dude. Just wow. C Redskins makes the statement that we got our QB, and I said , yup but im more worried about our D, we need a D that doesnt always fall behind to make KC really shine. Than you go on some ridiculous tirade where you are trying desperately to make some vain point - im not even sure what? The only "dumb" statement made throughout all of this was " RG-3 dealt with a worse defense in 2012 than Kirk did this year". Really? So basically you are either butt hurt that Griff is gone or you simply have a hard on for my post.
You have been saying over and over again how "obvious" my statement was. How it not only holds true for KC but for Griff, Grossman, Dilfer, or any other qb with a good defense - and now you are saying that you still don't understand the statement? So which is it "captain obvious like" or not? A statement really cannot be "captain obvious " and make no sense at all? You are all over the map, totally confused about our defense from 2012 vs 2015, and butt hurt about RG-3.
What quarterback if they dont fall behind cant win alot of games? One that sucks? One that turns the ball over? One that cannot score? Your statements are very black and white. There is no in between with you. Lol.

How are you confused about the fact that a better D would help keep KC and the O in more of a rhythm? How are you confused about how not falling behind all the time would allow KC and the offense not to have to press? How are you under the impression that our D either sucks or it is Seattle and apparently there is no in between? Are these new concepts or are you just trying desperately to argue with me about something? It really feels like the latter.

"I never played football thinking about money, and going forward I never want to play football thinking about money," Cousins said. "That's why I think it's important for me to play with a salary that's just locked in. I don't want to be thinking about individual accomplishments or rewards that would boost my salary or up my numbers. I just want to go out and play football and try and win games. So whether I'm making what I made last year [$660,000] or this year, I just want to play football and treat it like I did back in high school and love playing. It's a tremendous blessing to be paid to play this game the way I will this year."

Kirk Cousins of Washington Redskins fine with franchise tag, explains relationship with Robert Griffin III - NFL (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14996752/kirk-cousins-washington-redskins-fine-franchise-tag-explains-relationship-robert-griffin-iii-nfl)
-------------------------------------------

Is anyone not buying his "its not about the money" mantra.

Dude, its about the money. when you said you want to go where you are wanted the most = its all about the money.

Kirk, Im a fan, I love what you bring, the players seem to like you ... and this good guy schtick is fine, i think you are a good dude ... but if its not about the money and its about being locked in .... sign for 4 yrs, 18 mil per and be done with it.

I think kirk is 95% genuine, 5% trying to brand himself. Next thing you know, he will be doing a milk commercial with a milk moustache or something.

He seems like a genuine guy to me. Of course money is a good thing, it just isn't the ultimate motivator for everyone. Do we really need to turn on the guy already?

He seems like a genuine guy to me. Of course money is a good thing, it just isn't the ultimate motivator for everyone. Do we really need to turn on the guy already?

Not turning on him at all ... just not buying the "its not about the money" schtick. Which I dont even blame him for saying bc that is what he is supposed to say .... get off my lawn!!

So who do you believe? Kirk or Chris Cooley? I know what I saw with my own eyes and believe Kirk.


"He was a great teammate throughout the season and supportive, and he had a lot of experience having played a lot and was able to be a big help to me. So, it was a positive thing. ... It was a good relationship and I've always felt that way."


Kirk Cousins, on his relationship with Robert Griffin III.