Kirk Cousins 24/7 thread

I like your posts and the way you think. I will go on record and say that I do not think that Cousins is the type of QB who can win the game all by himself, BUT, i think if you give him a complete team, which is something he doesn't have, he is a guy that wins you plenty of big games and probably the superbowl.



Let's play Devil's Advocate for a moment here and pretend that our defense was basically average this season, and we had a good kicking game. That's a scenario where we finish 11-5 or better. Hopkins alone cost us at minimum three games. Let's say the defense stayed exactly the same (League worst) and Hopkins didn't blow crucial kicks. We have now finished with at minimum at 10-6 record, but most likely 12-4. Cousins still cost us the giants game at year end. BUT, at 12-4, you feel great going into the playoffs and there is no debate now over Cousins, he's brought you back to back winning seasons and back to back playoff seasons. Do you see what i'm saying? Amazing that Cousins won 8 games (really nine in my book because of the tie) with a defense that was so historically bad. He had to put above 30 points every week just to have a chance at winning.



And that's what the Redskins are asking themselves and would be risking if they pay Cousins what he wants. The Redskins would be limited in improving the defense and also maintaining their offense to where they are now.

If I were the Redskins, I would just pay him close to what he wants. And work around that. Maybe look to trade him. But signing him, would take more of the pressure off the the Redskins and place it on Cousins.

And that's what the Redskins are asking themselves and would be risking if they pay Cousins what he wants. The Redskins would be limited in improving the defense and also maintaining their offense to where they are now.

If I were the Redskins, I would just pay him close to what he wants. And work around that. Maybe look to trade him. But signing him, would take more of the pressure off the the Redskins and place it on Cousins.

But if the skins won't pay Cousins, how are the other teams able to do it, i mean the teams who want them as their QB.

The way the Redskins explain it, it's almost a "If you have one, we can't have the other" - So, we pay $$$ for the QB, but then we can't afford a good defense. OR, if we build up the defense, we can't pay a starting QB.

How do good teams do it?

But if the skins won't pay Cousins, how are the other teams able to do it, i mean the teams who want them as their QB.



The way the Redskins explain it, it's almost a "If you have one, we can't have the other" - So, we pay $$$ for the QB, but then we can't afford a good defense. OR, if we build up the defense, we can't pay a starting QB.



How do good teams do it?



I don't think there's a simple answer. Maybe hoping and prayer. Maybe turn to drinking like McCloughan did before. At this point, it's all very risky.

That's why they were hoping that Cousins would've proven definitively that he would be THE guy.

You can pay KC and have a good defense. Total nonsense that you can't have both.

Some folks here seem to be unable to put into context what Kirk Cousins has accomplished in the short time he has been our starter. Nor do they seem to appreciate what it takes to find and keep a decent QB on your team in today's NFL.

Kirk's detractors discount many noteworthy facts about Kirk's performance of which they must be aware. They also ignore the realities of player contracts in today's NFL. There are Many, many facts posted here in support of retaining Kirk and paying him very well. What I don't see here are the facts in support of not signing Kirk to a long-term contract. If you don't think he should be signed long-term, educate the rest of us by showing us something that is factual and not subjective in support of your position.

Some folks here seem to be unable to put into context what Kirk Cousins has accomplished in the short time he has been our starter. Nor do they seem to appreciate what it takes to find and keep a decent QB on your team in today's NFL.

Kirk's detractors discount many noteworthy facts about Kirk's performance of which they must be aware. They also ignore the realities of player contracts in today's NFL. There are Many, many facts posted here in support of retaining Kirk and paying him very well. What I don't see here are the facts in support of not signing Kirk to a long-term contract. If you don't think he should be signed long-term, educate the rest of us by showing us something that is factual and not subjective in support of your position.

I think they absolutley SHOULD sign Kirk to something long term. But it seems that even after the past two seasons, the Redskins probably aren't going to do that. The fact that there are even people "internal" that are still suggesting we could get Cousins-like numbers from Mc-Coy like QB's are all the proof we need that this team is no different. Complete ineptitude still from top to bottom.

You can pay KC and have a good defense. Total nonsense that you can't have both.
We don't need that much to be even a decent def. All we need is a top 12 ish defense.

I like your posts and the way you think. I will go on record and say that I do not think that Cousins is the type of QB who can win the game all by himself, BUT, i think if you give him a complete team, which is something he doesn't have, he is a guy that wins you plenty of big games and probably the superbowl.



So you're saying, if we build a complete team around the quarterback, it's plausible that we could win plenty of big games and probably the Super Bowl? Sounds iffy, but let's give it a shot.

You can pay KC and have a good defense. Total nonsense that you can't have both.



This is easier said than done.

I think most everyone thinks Cousins is a good QB and may turn into a great QB. But it's not a given. The only problem is he will be paid like he's a great QB already. And the more money that you give him, the less you can give someone else.