Here comes the cousins talk.

[riggofan]

You can find another Kirk each NFL draft and may have one that could perform better on the team.

I was watching the Jets last night with their four QBs on the roster, not a single one who can play. Made me chuckle to think about this post.

[mastdark81]

You are assuming if we don't get a Top 5 overall qb we do not get a good qb though. That is absolutely false in the NFL landscape, to think that if you get a QB low 1st rd or lower that they cannot succeed. I can name Aaron Rodgers went low 1st rd.

Nope, I'm not assuming that at all. My feeling though on drafting a QB is that its still risky and rolling the dice on an unknown. Maybe you get Aaron Rodgers in the late first round or maybe you get another RG3 or maybe you just get a guy who needs two or three years to develop while the team goes 5-11.

Good conversation though, man. I don't completely disagree with the things you're saying. I think my personal preference would be to see Cousins signed to a deal where the team could get out of it in like three or four years. If the price tag on it is $19/20m/yr, I don't really care. (That price is going to look comparatively cheap three years from now.) Draft a QB fairly high in the next two years, late first or second, whom they can groom in case Cousins hits his ceiling.

Either way he's good enough and we at least can say we don't have a bad quarterback. But who knows the cap may finally decline this year. I hear ratings are down, which means things could decline or stay flat as far as the cap.

But you are right usually and the trend it the cap goes up every year and 3 years from now Kirk's salary looks average.

[mastdark81]

and I'm not saying don't resign him. Sign him for what we think is appropriate. Trust me he will sign less than 20 mil...compared to going to the Browns somewhere lol. We have the leverage.

The season's not over yet. Who has the leverage depends on how he plays the rest of the season, and how far the team goes with him at QB.

True I agree!

[mastdark81]

There's two guys that just came out that they are putting over Cousins and they are rookies.

lol. I'm going to save this quote. You can tell me again in December how Wentz is playing so much better than Cousins. Here's his next seven games: Vikes, Cowboys, Giants, Falcons, Seahawks, Packers, Bengals. Those guys are going to be 3-9 when we see them again in December.

Hopefully so but sorry I wasn't really clear on my original post. I meant to say that I think a GM would rather have Wentz and Prescott long term over Kirk. But you are right things could change as far as this season, but truth be told to date Wentz and Prescott is probably more consistent. They do not turn the ball over and make the key plays needed more times than not. For Wentz this was the first game media said he got rattled, pretty impressive.

[riggofan]

Hopefully so but sorry I wasn't really clear on my original post. I meant to say that I think a GM would rather have Wentz and Prescott long term over Kirk. But you are right things could change as far as this season, but truth be told to date Wentz and Prescott is probably more consistent. They do not turn the ball over and make the key plays needed more times than not. For Wentz this was the first game media said he got rattled, pretty impressive.

Nah, I get your point. I'm not sure that I'm sold on Prescott yet. That o-line is ridiculous and Elliot is having an insane year, hate to say. Not sure he'd be so good playing for most other teams, but either way he's been impressive. Wentz looks legit too, and I expect him to be ok long term. Think the Eagles schedule is going to bring him down to Earth a bit though going forward.

[mastdark81]

You can find another Kirk each NFL draft and may have one that could perform better on the team.

I was watching the Jets last night with their four QBs on the roster, not a single one who can play. Made me chuckle to think about this post.

Well what you are saying Dak and Wentz are not good qb's? I cannot tell you they are better than Kirk but they are ahead of Kirks curve being a rookie are they not?

Ok I'll wait for your reply.

[mastdark81]

Hopefully so but sorry I wasn't really clear on my original post. I meant to say that I think a GM would rather have Wentz and Prescott long term over Kirk. But you are right things could change as far as this season, but truth be told to date Wentz and Prescott is probably more consistent. They do not turn the ball over and make the key plays needed more times than not. For Wentz this was the first game media said he got rattled, pretty impressive.

Nah, I get your point. I'm not sure that I'm sold on Prescott yet. That o-line is ridiculous and Elliot is having an insane year, hate to say. Not sure he'd be so good playing for most other teams, but either way he's been impressive. Wentz looks legit too, and I expect him to be ok long term. Think the Eagles schedule is going to bring him down to Earth a bit though going forward.

Well I agree he is overrated at this point if he was a veteran. I think folks are just impressed because he was a 4th rounder and has been so poised so regardless of who is around him he's playing real solid. Not to mention they have actually played better with his best passing weapon out the last few games (DEZ BRYant).

I know alot of fans don't really care about qb's turning the ball over but thats half the game won if you can have a qb that don't make mistakes and have a solid defense. turnovers are big and both young qb's don't have much and I think that is why their record is what it is.

Dallas was running well last year too...take a hell of alot of pressure off a qb for sure but he has the record for pass attempts without an interception.

[mastdark81]

All I am saying is find a team that have a qb that have eaten up a good percentage of their cap and you will find a team that haven't EVER won a Super Bowl as of the past 5-10 years.

You either have a team that have paid their qb after they have won a Super Bowl or you have the teams that overpay for a qb that have not won anything and in both instances you never win SB again or team crashes! This applies to all qb's from average, good, to the elites. Those are the results folks!

[Irn-Bru]

All I am saying is find a team that have a qb that have eaten up a good percentage of their cap and you will find a team that haven't EVER won a Super Bowl as of the past 5-10 years.

You either have a team that have paid their qb after they have won a Super Bowl or you have the teams that overpay for a qb that have not won anything and in both instances you never win SB again or team crashes! This applies to all qb's from average, good, to the elites. Those are the results folks!

Both wrong and misleading.

First, Ben Roethlisberger, Drew Brees, Eli Manning, and Aaron Rodgers were all playing under big contracts when they won Super Bowls. So you're just wrong about this.

Moreover, it's misleading to look at Super Bowl winners only, since there is a good deal of luck involved to make it all the way. If instead you examine, say, the four teams that make it to the division championships each year, it quickly becomes apparent that teams with a big-money QB routinely make it to at least a game from a Super Bowl appearance.

[mastdark81]

All I am saying is find a team that have a qb that have eaten up a good percentage of their cap and you will find a team that haven't EVER won a Super Bowl as of the past 5-10 years.

You either have a team that have paid their qb after they have won a Super Bowl or you have the teams that overpay for a qb that have not won anything and in both instances you never win SB again or team crashes! This applies to all qb's from average, good, to the elites. Those are the results folks!

Both wrong and misleading.

First, Ben Roethlisberger, Drew Brees, Eli Manning, and Aaron Rodgers were all playing under big contracts when they won Super Bowls. So you're just wrong about this.

Moreover, it's misleading to look at Super Bowl winners only, since there is a good deal of luck involved to make it all the way. If instead you examine, say, the four teams that make it to the division championships each year, it quickly becomes apparent that teams with a big-money QB routinely make it to at least a game from a Super Bowl appearance.

* Ben signed his deal in 2015...they haven't won since 2012
* Brees signed a 6 year 60mil deal in 2006 is that really a big deal back then? Not sure. Maybe it was but thats why I stated 5-10 years, where the #'s are somewhat comparable. Even if its about the same of today's I doubt he was getting $10 mil the first year of an escalated contract.
* Eli - restructured http://www.espn.com/new-york/nfl/story/ ... cap-relief and was getting less than $10mil when they won the Super Bowl.
* Rodgers - Was getting $11 mil per year when he won the Super Bowl but it was a restructure not a "re-signing" they just added a few years to his existing rookie deal. We are not restructuring Kirk's deal we are re-signing him to a potential long term.

Since Ben, Bree's, Eli, nor Rodgers have EVEN appeared in the Super Bowl since.. I will give you Brees as he juuuuuuust met my 10 year mark and I cannot tell you if $10 mil per year was as if having $20mil + of today. I do remember Brees coming off an injury and some where in doubt about his career at the time he signed with the Saints. I honestly don't feel like looking back at it but I guess a more fare shake is how much of percentage of the cap was the QB taking up that particular year instead of a number to be more on a fair side is what I should have stated but I think most readers got my point.

Well for some reason the good amount of luck that you say Super Bowl teams have, haven't been teams that sign their qb's to massive qb deals which are usually re-signings or signing from another ball club. If they have gotten close as divisional games I bet you MONEY those qb's are most likely labeled ELITE and hALL OF FAMERS. Kirk isn't neither.

[riggofan]

You can find another Kirk each NFL draft and may have one that could perform better on the team.

I was watching the Jets last night with their four QBs on the roster, not a single one who can play. Made me chuckle to think about this post.

Well what you are saying Dak and Wentz are not good qb's? I cannot tell you they are better than Kirk but they are ahead of Kirks curve being a rookie are they not?

Ok I'll wait for your reply.

Nah, it was just a good reminder that for every Dak Prescott some team drafts, there are a dozen Geno Smiths, Bryce Petty and Christian Hackenbergs who can't push their way past Ryan Fitzpatrick playing the worst football of his life. We shouldn't be so dismissive of a guy who is getting the job done capably for us.

[Irn-Bru]

All I am saying is find a team that have a qb that have eaten up a good percentage of their cap and you will find a team that haven't EVER won a Super Bowl as of the past 5-10 years.

You either have a team that have paid their qb after they have won a Super Bowl or you have the teams that overpay for a qb that have not won anything and in both instances you never win SB again or team crashes! This applies to all qb's from average, good, to the elites. Those are the results folks!

Both wrong and misleading.

First, Ben Roethlisberger, Drew Brees, Eli Manning, and Aaron Rodgers were all playing under big contracts when they won Super Bowls. So you're just wrong about this.

Moreover, it's misleading to look at Super Bowl winners only, since there is a good deal of luck involved to make it all the way. If instead you examine, say, the four teams that make it to the division championships each year, it quickly becomes apparent that teams with a big-money QB routinely make it to at least a game from a Super Bowl appearance.

* Ben signed his deal in 2015...they haven't won since 2012

No, they haven't won a Super Bowl since the 2008 season, though they last went in the 2011 season (not in the 2012 season).

But back to the point: they won it in 2008. Can you take a wild guess as to which player had the highest salary in the NFL in 2008? I'll wait if you want to look it up.

* Brees signed a 6 year 60mil deal in 2006 is that really a big deal back then? Not sure.

Yes. $14M cap hit in 2009.

* Eli - restructured

That was after his Super Bowl win. The contract he had signed before winning made him the highest-paid NFL player: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... -extension

* Rodgers - Was getting $11 mil per year when he won the Super Bowl but it was a restructure not a "re-signing" they just added a few years to his existing rookie deal.

OK, I double-checked and Rodgers was indeed on a pretty cap-friendly deal at the time he won the Super Bowl. You get that one.

The others, not so much.

Since Ben, Bree's, Eli, nor Rodgers have EVEN appeared in the Super Bowl since

OK, but Peyton Manning and Cam Newton have, and we need to add them to the list.

That's why I said to look at the four teams that make the division championship round of the playoffs. You need a bigger sample size to make these kinds of judgments.

[mastdark81]

[In response to Irn-BRU]

Sorry I meant Flacco haven't won since 2012.

Peyton took a significant paycut when he won
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1242 ... y-cut-2015

and Cam Newton lost so he don't count haha.

As far as Ben I trust you and I was wrong. So yeah l corrected my original post with the bad facts. I think it still can be said that MOST don't win a Super Bowl. Division championships don't matter therefore I will never include or be satisfied with that nor even a Super Bowl appearance. I get your point though and it makes since only if you measure by just having "success" but the game is the win it all.

If Kirk gets on those qb's level of play you are right there is fact to support that we can still win a Super Bowl. I stand corrected. #httr

[HEROHAMO]

What you're trying to say master dark is that teams who have managed they're team well as far as salaries and talent are concerned are the contenders for the SuperBowl.

The draft, paying needed players who you think will contribute as well as letting go of players asking too much (managing the cap.

Seattle won its SuperBowl once Wilson was ready. Seattle had drafted well in previous years and traded for Lynch. The timing was important as well since Wilson was under rookie contract. Sherman,Wagner,Chancelor,Bennett,Irvin and the other safety were all playing a year or two under there rookie contracts.
Which is why drafting well is so important.

[HEROHAMO]

Ok I think I know where this is leading.

Is Dak better then Kirk?
I think we can all see that Dak looks really good.(crap)

The combination of Dak,Elliott and that Oline is a force to be reckoned with.

Our Oline is good as well Kirk is solid, Matt Jones is solid. Where we beat Ttit at is our Wrs/TE.

So Qbs and Rb Dull ass has an edge. I would say Dak n Elliott are better then Kirk n Jones slightly. Oline is about even. Tight end and Wrs we beat them by a mile including Dez.

[HEROHAMO]

Our defense is better as well. Owners are equal. So long as Scott keeps adding pieces it's gonna be like old times. The rivalry is going to be intensified in these up coming years.

[Prowl33]

It is asinine to say right now dak or wentz is better than kirk. They are in completely different situations than kirk is. Wentz hasn't beat anyone good minus that fluke game va the steelers. How many td's did he score against us?

Dak has it on easy mode right now, it doesn't matter who his receivers are, he has a stud running back and the best O line in football, Mark Sanchez could have a good QBR in that system. These kids are 5-6 games in. Do you remember RG3.... rookie of the year to bust in no time. Look at Andrew luck, he has declined every year in the league.

You guys need to slow your rolls on the comparisons, right now I'll take kirk over 75% of the qbs in the league.

[SkinsJock]

... right now I'll take kirk over 75% of the qbs in the league.

Do you think this franchise should have signed Cousins to the long term deal he was looking for?

or

Do you think we made a mistake paying him $19M to play this season so he could show he was worth a lot more?

or

Do you think we're going to have to pay Cousins $20M plus per season to keep him based on what we've seen this far?

[cowboykillerzRGiii]

Dak is not better then Kirk.. he has the best oline and weapons around him to ease the growing pains... that and dink and dunk football...

I hate to admit it, but it looks like he is. Don't discount the Skins offensive line, which is playing nearly as well as Dallas' right now. And weapons? Kirk has at least as many as Dak . . . maybe more. Frankly, I think the two situations are pretty comparable, and Dak has looked like the better player.

Our patch work oline is playing at a high level, and we probably should thank the mastermind behind Dallas's oline- Mr Callahan, for getting us there. However, we aren't quite fielding 3/4 pro bowlers up front yet... Also, Kirk has always made the line look better by getting rid of the ball quicker- not saying the line hasn't been superb, just that Dak is probably benefiting from that great protection.

As far as weapons, I'd agree for the receivers and tight end.. maybe Witten's experience and blocking skills gives him a slight edge, but both teams are stacked at skill positions.

NOW, and the most important part IMHO ,is the running game/ running backs. Dak isn't the only beneficiary of that great oline man. Any rb you throw back there seems to lead the league in rushing each year!!!! Zeke is definitely a talented rb, but that line is creating monster lanes... AlMo actually looks better then he ever did here, and he's the damned back up!

If we could establish a more balanced attack, and put up over 150 on the ground each week and ask less of our qb like dullass, then we could more accurately compare the two qbs. I doubt Dak has thrown over 40 passes in one game- and pretty sure he has the lowest ypa of any qb in the league.

Just my take. Hearing Dak is the second coming of Jesus all week is normal here in NM... He's just not asked to do much yet. Jury is still out

[Prowl33]

... right now I'll take kirk over 75% of the qbs in the league.

Do you think this franchise should have signed Cousins to the long term deal he was looking for?

or

Do you think we made a mistake paying him $19M to play this season so he could show he was worth a lot more?

or

Do you think we're going to have to pay Cousins $20M plus per season to keep him based on what we've seen this far?

I agree with the franchise tag. It paid him short term for what he did for us last year and his potential future and gives the team the option to make an educated decision. If last year was a fluke, and he doesn't provide the performance we need, then we move on... if he balls out, and puts up performance equal to or greater than last year, then we pay the man.... making that decision this year was too risky given the sample size, making it next year is much easier to do.

I don't have a decision at this moment, but my prediction is that he will keep gradually improving and earn his contract.

When I said I'd take him over 75% of qbs in the league, that was based off of comparing his career qbr and comp % to all other current starters (excluding rookies) He is among the top 10 qbs.

[Irn-Bru]

[In response to Irn-BRU]

Sorry I meant Flacco haven't won since 2012.

Peyton took a significant paycut when he won
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1242 ... y-cut-2015

and Cam Newton lost so he don't count haha.

Well that's why I didn't include Peyton in my original list: he did take a pay cut the year before they won the Super Bowl. But since you brought up Super Bowl appearances (versus wins only) I thought it was only fair to mention 2013 Peyton and Cam Newton.

I think it still can be said that MOST don't win a Super Bowl.

Since there are 31 teams every year that don't win a Super Bowl, and about 27-28 teams that don't win it in any five-year window, then it can be said that MOST teams that do X — for any X whatsoever — don't win a Super Bowl. It's not a very meaningful statement, IMHO.

Division championships don't matter therefore I will never include or be satisfied with that nor even a Super Bowl appearance. I get your point though and it makes since only if you measure by just having "success" but the game is the win it all.

By this same argument, one could argue that it really doesn't matter what a team pays a QB, since the only thing that matters is winning a Super Bowl.

The moment you start looking for cause and effect, you have to start trying to measure "success" by some other metric than just "who won on Sunday?" The whole point is to understand why someone wins.

You are doing this when you look at how much teams spend on QBs. What I'm doing is just another way of looking at it. Both by necessity have to analyze factors beyond "who won the SB?" So if you really think that is, literally, the only thing that matters, then it's pointless even to look at little stats like the percentage of salary cap eaten up by QBs. The only stat you should care about is who scored more points in one particular game — how the teams got there is irrelevant, according to your own argument.

[SkinsJock]

Cousins wanted an opportunity to earn a good deal for himself ... there's still 10 games left

[Prowl33]

Cousins wanted an opportunity to earn a good deal for himself ... there's still 10 games left

At this point if he just played the rest of the year like he has so far, if we don't pay him 20+ million, someone else will. Bears, jets, someone. I'd almost rather overpay a little for him to beat out other teams, than start over with yet another rookie and go through the mental turmoil of the unknown for years again

[Deadskins]

Cousins wanted an opportunity to earn a good deal for himself ... there's still 10 games left

At this point if he just played the rest of the year like he has so far, if we don't pay him 20+ million, someone else will. Bears, jets, someone. I'd almost rather overpay a little for him to beat out other teams, than start over with yet another rookie and go through the mental turmoil of the unknown for years again

Exactly. Then we can draft a project QB (maybe we already did), and let him sit, watch, and learn while we pay Kirk for a few years. Once the kid is ready, we could even trade Kirk for draft picks or some help in another area.

[markshark84]

Cousins wanted an opportunity to earn a good deal for himself ... there's still 10 games left

At this point if he just played the rest of the year like he has so far, if we don't pay him 20+ million, someone else will. Bears, jets, someone. I'd almost rather overpay a little for him to beat out other teams, than start over with yet another rookie and go through the mental turmoil of the unknown for years again

That is correct. If he continues on the same pace he is currently for the remainder of the year, he is hovering around being a top 10 QB in the NFL. When players like that hit the market at the QB position, they tend to go in the $18-20M range. And with the salary cap going up another 10+M next season, it may be in the $20-22M range. I could easily see CHI, NYJ, CLE, DEN, or SF dropping that kind on money on him --- no question about that.

I also agree that I would rather have Cousins over an unknown rookie QB. And based on our current roster, we need our top draft picks to fill needs at other positions --- NT, DEs, C, OG, S, and depending on what happens: WR and TE. This team can't afford to take a QB in R1 or R2 (which is when they'd need to). It also goes without saying that we can't afford to trade up...... And the likelihood is that we would have a mid-round or possible late round selection depending on how the rest of the year goes --- and with CLE, SF, CHI, and NYJ looking to be 4 of the top 8 picks, trading up would be a necessity to lock a "top 3" QB pick.

I have heard a number of arguments about how much you pay a QB vs. winning SBs and while I can understand the argument, it is FAR FAR worse to give up draft picks than overpay a QB by a couple million.