Schefter: WAS should trade Cousins now

[fnordcircle]

C'mon, dude. None of that would have mattered if they handed the ball to Lynch. Stop simply listing things to fit your narrative. If Lynch gets the ball there, he likely scores and then everything else is moot. He likely was the MVP of the game for them. Seriously, what is this?

Have you seen where Belichick defended the call to throw? It's an interesting tidbit if you haven't. If you have then I guess you just disagree with him on that particular call?

 

[miloofcroton]

Second tier:

• Big Ben (though he's in many peoples' top tier) - 2x SB winner - better than Cousins
• Philip Rivers - better than Cousins
• Joe Flacco - SB winner - better than Cousins
• Russell Wilson (though some would put him in the top tier) - SB winner - better than Cousins
• Andrew Luck - on the basis that he actually has won in the playoffs is better than Cousins
• Eli Manning - 2x SB winner - has been better than Cousins and made the playoffs again last season, though that could change this season as he ascends and Manning continues to decline

And then there was Cousins. I'd say that that's closer to lower second tier. Numbers are not everything, though you continue to throw numbers at me. I said in my initial response to you that numbers aren't everything. There is a thread discussing where Peyton Manning should rank and he's not even in some peoples' top five, while holding just about every single regular season record there is to own. LOL And you pointing out that he's in "the toughest division in football" must lend credence to those who say Brady only wins so much because he's in one of the easiest divisions in football. You can't have it both ways. Eli has won two SB's in the same toughest division. Dak Prescott, in his rookie season, finished with only two real losses and realistically should have been in the NFCCG (which I truly believe Dallas would have won). C'mon, dude. I have confidence that Cousins will surpass some of the people on the list above, but he hasn't yet. That's just what it is today.

What's funny is you're acting as though being in the lower second tier is a bad thing. It's not. He's still in the second tier. LOL I never said the man sucks. I never said he was a bad QB. In fact, I've said the opposite. What I'm not willing to do, however, is proclaim that he's as good as the purported price tag. QB play in the league has been so suspect that anyone who has a mildly decent season is cashing in. Paging all the Brock Os-whatever fans. LOL This is laughable. I'm quite finished. I won't continue a back-and-forth. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it every bit as much as you're entitled to yours. Have a good one.

You're making way too much of an argument for players that were on teams that won. Individual players cannot win games.

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[Simpelton]

When the only teams a guy has started for have been terrible teams, you just can't evaluate the team's body of work as if it was all one player's fault, even if that player is the quarterback.

It has been a very, very long tine since the Washskins were a franchise that one would expect a great quarterback to carry to greatness.

 

[miloofcroton]

Just for fun, since everyone's doing it...

My QBs Rankings:


Tier 1 - Pinnacle of ability. Dominant in all facets. Incredible challenge for defense to gameplan against.

Aaron Rodgers,
Andrew Luck

Tier 2 - Same as tier 1; balanced with everything necessary for sustained success. Rely a bit more on supporting cast and/or coaching though, as they cannot create plays like tier 1.

Tom Brady,
Matt Ryan,
Drew Brees

Tier 3 - Same as tier 1/2, but don't shine quite as bright. Have had bigger challenges in the NFL, due to lack of front office, talent, and coaching around them.

Philip Rivers,
Ben Roethlisberger,
Matt Stafford

Tier 4 - Sometimes they play better than tier 5, sometimes worse. They have more talent. These most likely players in the NFL to enter the top 3 tiers. Their potential is worth the risk over tier 5's production, in my opinion.

Jimmy Garappolo,
Carson Wentz,
Marcus Mariota,
Dak Prescott,
Jameis Winston,
Jared Goff

Tier 5 - Very good QBs, but they have a bit of a capped potential here. They each seem to have a weakness in their game (without the potential/likeliness to grow).

Kirk Cousins,
Derek Carr,
Andy Dalton,
Eli Manning,
Carson Palmer


Tier 6 - The first level that I might start to call a "game manager". They're either wildly inconsistent or simply do not have the ability to dominate a game through the air. Lots of talent but enough questions that I feel will never be answered.

Joe Flacco,
Mike Glennon,
Cam Newton,
Russell Wilson,
Tyrod Taylor

Tier 7 - Pure game managers, as they say. Will be 100% reliant on whatever talent is surrounding them.

Alex Smith,
Sam Bradford,
Cody Kessler,
Trevor Siemian,
Brian Hoyer,
Matt Barkley

Tier 8 - Young QBs with potential. Haven't gotten much of a chance to show their skills yet.

Kevin Hogan,
CJ Beathard,
Paxton Lynch,
Jacoby Brisset

Tier 8 - Has-been talents.

Ryan Tannehill,
Blake Osweiler,
Blake Bortles


I didn't list everyone, but I tried to get everyone that was a starter last year and was worth mentioning. I know some of those choices will be controversial, but I welcome the debate. I have my reasons.

I focused on tier separation more than intra-tier ranking, although there is some loose order there too.

 

[supafly]

When the only teams a guy has started for have been terrible teams, you just can't evaluate the team's body of work as if it was all one player's fault, even if that player is the quarterback.

It has been a very, very long tine since the Washskins were a franchise that one would expect a great quarterback to carry to greatness.

I don't blame either party in these negotiations.

WSH wanted to see another year of hopeful progression before agreeing to the kind of guaranteed, long term deal Cousins wants. In the meantime, they're willing to pay the expensive year to year franchise tag numbers.

Cousins wants long term security and more up front guarantees, and believes that he's worth a top 8-10 pact (so far, I'm not sure that he is, but I also don't believe that WSH is going to do any better than him as their franchise QB, either).

I can see both points. His upcoming season will be crucial to his future payday, although even if he doesn't do as well and is forced to take less, he still walks away with almost 45m dollars from 2016 and 2017, alone.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Have you seen where Belichick defended the call to throw? It's an interesting tidbit if you haven't. If you have then I guess you just disagree with him on that particular call?

I never made any declaration on whether or not I thought it was a bad call, so I don't care, in this case, what BB had to say about it. The fact is that the call was made and it turned out that it worked against them. Anything more I had to say about the actual merit of the call was said in the weeks and months that followed the game. It was great fortune for the Pats and misfortune for the Seahawks and it ended up being the deciding factor in the fact that Brady got his fourth SB. It's no different than Tyree catching the pass or dropping the pass. It happened and it can't "unhappen." Does it change the fact that it was a lucky break for the Giants? You win some and you lose some. And some of the wins come with extreme good fortune and by the slimmest of margins, and your favorite team can easily be on either side of that coin. We should know that all too well in NE.

 

[PatsBoy12]

You're making way too much of an argument for players that were on teams that won. Individual players cannot win games.

Correlation does not imply causation.

But those players were still part of those teams and each ended up being a huge reason why they won. Eli made the plays that counted. Had he not, then it wouldn't have matter what the DLine did in that game, as they still would have lost. It was Eli who made the throws, not Strahan, Osi and the rest. So yes, I do understand it's a team game, but your argument is flawed as is mine and that's unavoidable when you're talking about TEAM sports. But it still doesn't change the fact that the QB position is the most important one and, therefore, a QB's performance must be evaluated differently. You simply cannot win consistently, and definitely not as consistently as the persons I named, if you don't have an adequate QB. As it stands now, I'd take anyone on that list before Cousins because they're proven winners and Cousins isn't . . . yet. We don't know if he ever will be. It it's the fourth quarter of a football playoff game or SB, I'll gladly take the guy who has won in that situation before than someone who hasn't. In other words, I know Eli can win a big game in the fourth quarter. I know Flacco can do the same. I don't know that about Cousins yet because we haven't even seen him in a truly big game with everything on the line. To deny that matters is just being biased and argumentative. I don't see why calling someone lower second tier, and especially when I used the word "maybe," is being turned into this. Cousins is a good QB, but I don't think he's shown anything outside of some really decent numbers to warrant people being all in on him just yet. This whole back-and-forth has got to be the biggest overreaction. You'd think I said Cousins sucks. I have repeatedly, in this thread in fact, said the opposite. I think he's very good. I just don't think he's worth some of the dollar amounts I'm hearing . . . not yet at least.

Brady had won three SB's (and was the MVP in two of them) and still had people saying he might just be a game manager and saying it was the defenses that won those championships. That didn't change until 2007, which coincided with his first league MVP. Go figure. But even with all his greatness, Brady has never once taken the field all by himself. He needed ten other guys on offense to make plays and a whole defensive unit to do the same. Football is the quintessential team sport. Nonetheless, the QB position is the most important of all positions and if your team is going to win long term (or at all), then that position must be solid (with Trent Dilfer being one of the very few exceptions). And every single one of the guys I named has won multiple SB's and/or playoff games. That's not luck, nor is it solely because of the guys around them. Each of them made many crucial plays, and NE fans should know that better than any other group. As lucky as we want to say those throws were, they were still plays that Eli made, for example.

Go to the Dungy thread and look at Tony's graphic that shows what Manning was working with for the better part of his career and answer for me why he couldn't win with some of those teams. He's regarded as one of the greatest of all-time. So again, it's not solely individual talent (I agree with you), but individual talent matters a great deal still, especially at the QB position.

But just to illustrate how this is all a matter of opinion anyway: Carson Palmer and Cousins are in no way better than Ben (when he's healthy). Matt Ryan, after one MVP trophy, is not a top tier guy. He's definitely second tier. Cam Newton is still in some people's top tier for the same reason you likely put Ryan in yours. Trevor Siemien has not done much more than Bortles in the league, so why is Bortles in the last tier by himself? I could think of at least two or three more QB's that should be right along with him.

 

[miloofcroton]

But those players were still part of those teams and each ended up being a huge reason why they won. Eli made the plays that counted. Had he not, then it wouldn't have matter what the DLine did in that game, as they still would have lost. It was Eli who made the throws, not Strahan, Osi and the rest. So yes, I do understand it's a team game, but your argument is flawed as is mine and that's unavoidable when you're talking about TEAM sports. But it still doesn't change the fact that the QB position is the most important one and, therefore, a QB's performance must be evaluated differently. You simply cannot win consistently, and definitely not as consistently as the persons I named, if you don't have an adequate QB. As it stands now, I'd take anyone on that list before Cousins because they're proven winners and Cousins isn't . . . yet. We don't know if he ever will be. It it's the fourth quarter of a football playoff game or SB, I'll gladly take the guy who has won in that situation before than someone who hasn't. In other words, I know Eli can win a big game in the fourth quarter. I know Flacco can do the same. I don't know that about Cousins yet because we haven't even seen him in a truly big game with everything on the line. To deny that matters is just being biased and argumentative. I don't see why calling someone lower second tier, and especially when I used the word "maybe," is being turned into this. Cousins is a good QB, but I don't think he's shown anything outside of some really decent numbers to warrant people being all in on him just yet. This whole back-and-forth has got to be the biggest overreaction. You'd think I said Cousins sucks. I have repeatedly, in this thread in fact, said the opposite. I think he's very good. I just don't think he's worth some of the dollar amounts I'm hearing . . . not yet at least.

Brady had won three SB's (and was the MVP in two of them) and still had people saying he might just be a game manager and saying it was the defenses that won those championships. That didn't change until 2007, which coincided with his first league MVP. Go figure. But even with all his greatness, Brady has never once taken the field all by himself. He needed ten other guys on offense to make plays and a whole defensive unit to do the same. Football is the quintessential team sport. Nonetheless, the QB position is the most important of all positions and if your team is going to win long term (or at all), then that position must be solid (with Trent Dilfer being one of the very few exceptions). And every single one of the guys I named has won multiple SB's and/or playoff games. That's not luck, nor is it solely because of the guys around them. Each of them made many crucial plays, and NE fans should know that better than any other group. As lucky as we want to say those throws were, they were still plays that Eli made, for example.

Go to the Dungy thread and look at Tony's graphic that shows what Manning was working with for the better part of his career and answer for me why he couldn't win with some of those teams. He's regarded as one of the greatest of all-time. So again, it's not solely individual talent (I agree with you), but individual talent matters a great deal still, especially at the QB position.

But just to illustrate how this is all a matter of opinion anyway: Carson Palmer and Cousins are in no way better than Ben (when he's healthy). Matt Ryan, after one MVP trophy, is not a top tier guy. He's definitely second tier. Cam Newton is still in some people's top tier for the same reason you likely put Ryan in yours. Trevor Siemien has not done much more than Bortles in the league, so why is Bortles in the last tier by himself? I could think of at least two or three more QB's that should be right along with him.

>In other words, I know Eli can win a big game in the fourth quarter. I know Flacco can do the same. I don't know that about Cousins yet because we haven't even seen him in a truly big game with everything on the line. To deny that matters is just being biased and argumentative.

Anecdotes aren't a good basis for a theory.

>Cousins is a good QB, but I don't think he's shown anything outside of some really decent numbers to warrant people being all in on him just yet. This whole back-and-forth has got to be the biggest overreaction. You'd think I said Cousins sucks.

He's around top 15 in my ranking, and I think that's fair. I don't see him going much higher.

>Football is the quintessential team sport.

Nah, it's more than that. It's the quintessential melding of economic (scouting, development, roster building), political (coaching), and militaristic (players doing complementary jobs, aka displaying chemistry) components in a game that doesn't involve life or death. I refuse to accept a single player, no matter how great, can influence a team's success rate all the way to the Super Bowl. Going back to a classic argument, I'll use Joe Montana as an example. I refuse to believe he's the GOAT (or way, before everyone agreed Tom Brady took the mantle) simply because his team won a lot of Super Bowls. He was *good*. There were lots of good QBs. If you could swap players around and re-run the data, you might find out he was less special than everyone thought. Anecdotes do not make truth for me.

Truth is not something we'll know, but I'd rather pursue it with some subjectivity than rely on poor methods of objectivity.

>Go to the Dungy thread and look at Tony's graphic that shows what Manning was working with for the better part of his career and answer for me why he couldn't win with some of those teams.

The Colts were kind of a garbage franchise. Average talent acquisition at best. Average to poor coaching. Dungy was an overrated coach because everyone liked him, and his pride n joy years (where he supposedly proved his level of expertise) were with a team loaded with future Hall of Famers on defense (or darn close).

The Colts had some receiving weapons, although no one on the level of a Julio Jones or AJ Green. They had a good running game for around half the time that Manning was there (Edge wasn't always on top of his game, and he was injured at times, and they never had anyone besides Edge).

Peyton Manning is definitely one of the best QBs of all time, his Super Bowl success be damned. Super Bowls are what matter for teams, not players.

>Matt Ryan, after one MVP trophy, is not a top tier guy. He's definitely second tier.

Eh, kind of agreed. I made some changes after I first created the ranking. I am not using the typical tiers though, as I found the use of more tiers to be helpful in sorting.

>Cam Newton is still in some people's top tier for the same reason you likely put Ryan in yours.

I don't think scrambling QBs are a winning style, so I don't value his play very highly. If you look at games where teams make him beat them through the air, he's simply not that good.

>Trevor Siemien has not done much more than Bortles in the league, so why is Bortles in the last tier by himself?

I got lazy at the end. I have seen enough of Bortles to say he's awful. Siemien I haven't seen quite enough of yet, and being young, I'm still going to give him some benefit of the doubt. Surely there were some other lower tier guys I could have added to the ranking, but you have to stop somewhere. I didn't see any other names jumping out at me that deserved a ranking.

 

[chasa]

Just for fun, since everyone's doing it...

My QBs Rankings:


Tier 4
Jared Goff


Tier 5
Dak Prescott


Tier 6
Derek Carr


Tier 7
Russell Wilson

.

What?

How in the fudge factory do you put goff above prescott and carr(both playoff caliber QB's that were in the discussion for mvp last year, and then put russell wilson three ****ing tiers below Goff!?

Goff played 7 games last year and 5-7 td-int, and had a 64 passer rating.
Wilson started every game, and had a 92% rating, 2-1 Td-int ratio
Dak started everygame and had a 105 passer rating 23 td 4 int
Carr had a 98 rating 28td 6 int.

How many marijauna's did you take before you put jared "the bust" Goff tier 4 ahead of a ton of REALLY good QB's

 

[PatsBoy12]

>In other words, I know Eli can win a big game in the fourth quarter. I know Flacco can do the same. I don't know that about Cousins yet because we haven't even seen him in a truly big game with everything on the line. To deny that matters is just being biased and argumentative.

Anecdotes aren't a good basis for a theory.

>Cousins is a good QB, but I don't think he's shown anything outside of some really decent numbers to warrant people being all in on him just yet. This whole back-and-forth has got to be the biggest overreaction. You'd think I said Cousins sucks.

He's around top 15 in my ranking, and I think that's fair. I don't see him going much higher.

>Football is the quintessential team sport.

Nah, it's more than that. It's the quintessential melding of economic (scouting, development, roster building), political (coaching), and militaristic (players doing complementary jobs, aka displaying chemistry) components in a game that doesn't involve life or death. I refuse to accept a single player, no matter how great, can influence a team's success rate all the way to the Super Bowl. Going back to a classic argument, I'll use Joe Montana as an example. I refuse to believe he's the GOAT (or way, before everyone agreed Tom Brady took the mantle) simply because his team won a lot of Super Bowls. He was *good*. There were lots of good QBs. If you could swap players around and re-run the data, you might find out he was less special than everyone thought. Anecdotes do not make truth for me.

Truth is not something we'll know, but I'd rather pursue it with some subjectivity than rely on poor methods of objectivity.

>Matt Ryan, after one MVP trophy, is not a top tier guy. He's definitely second tier.

Eh, kind of agreed. I made some changes after I first created the ranking. I am not using the typical tiers though, as I found the use of more tiers to be helpful in sorting.

>Cam Newton is still in some people's top tier for the same reason you likely put Ryan in yours.

I don't think scrambling QBs are a winning style, so I don't value his play very highly. If you look at games where teams make him beat them through the air, he's simply not that good.

>Trevor Siemien has not done much more than Bortles in the league, so why is Bortles in the last tier by himself?

I got lazy at the end. I have seen enough of Bortles to say he's awful. Siemien I haven't seen quite enough of yet, and being young, I'm still going to give him some benefit of the doubt. Surely there were some other lower tier guys I could have added to the ranking, but you have to stop somewhere. I didn't see any other names jumping out at me that deserved a ranking.

You start by saying anecdotes aren't a great basis for theory (though there's nothing anecdotal about two guys who have done something that the third guy hasn't - it's reality) and then follow up with a few of your own. I'm done. Listen, I respect you and say you are entitled to your opinion, as am I. That's simply all there is to it at this point. For the final time, and I care not who responds, I think Cousins is a good second tier type of guy. What started this whole thing was someone getting upset that I put him in the lower second tier possibly. Why is that a bad thing? That's actually really good for a guy who has played for a mostly dysfunctional organization under different head coaches. But until he can do what winning QB's must do to be thrust to superstar status and deserve the accolades and money, I'll reserve further judgement. If I were building a team today, there are quite a few other guys I'd look at before Cousins. Unfortunately, we are in a time where stats seem to matter more than winning. Those other guys are proven winners when it counts. Cousins is not yet. It's really that simple.

 

[miloofcroton]

What?

How in the fudge factory do you put goff about prescott and carr(both playoff caliber QB's that were in the discussion for mvp last year, and then put russell wilson three ****ing tiers below Goff!?

Goff played 7 games last year and 5-7 td-int, and had a 64 passer rating.
Wilson started every game, and had a 92% rating, 2-1 Td-int ratio
Dak started everygame and had a 105 passer rating 23 td 4 int
Carr had a 98 rating 28td 6 int.

How many marijauna's did you take before you put jared "the bust" Goff tier 4 ahead of a ton of REALLY good QB's

I'm projecting into the future, not looking at past success.

Hey, any QB on the entire list could be 'playoff caliber' if their team makes the playoffs.

Goff had a terrible situation last year, and I'm still confident with him based upon what I saw at Cal.

 

[miloofcroton]

You start by saying anecdotes aren't a great basis for theory (though there's nothing anecdotal about two guys who have done something that the third guy hasn't - it's reality) and then follow up with a few of your own. I'm done. Listen, I respect you and say you are entitled to your opinion, as am I. That's simply all there is to it at this point. For the final time, and I care not who responds, I think Cousins is a good second tier type of guy. Until he can do what winning QB's must do to be thrust to superstar status and deserve the accolades and money, I'll reserve further judgement. If I were building a team today, there are quite a few other guys I'd look at before Cousins. Unfortunately, we are in a time where stats seem to matter more than winning. Those other guys are proven winners when it counts. Cousins is not yet. It's really that simple.

Okie dokie. No need to take it personal.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Okie dokie. No need to take it personal.

I didn't.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Super Bowls are what matter for teams, not players.

And I've never heard anything like this before. I just don't even know where to begin. LOL

 

[miloofcroton]

And I've never heard anything like this before. I just don't even know where to begin. LOL

What is confusing??

A championship involves a lot of factors, far more than fans are willing to admit. You can't judge a player on his number of championships. Everything has to be through the lens of 'what he did with what he had'. That's if you're judging players according to talent.

If you wan to judge players according to success, then by all means, quote stats and win figures. But don't conflate success with talent. The difference should be self-evident.

 

[PatsBoy12]

When the only teams a guy has started for have been terrible teams, you just can't evaluate the team's body of work as if it was all one player's fault, even if that player is the quarterback.

It has been a very, very long tine since the Washskins were a franchise that one would expect a great quarterback to carry to greatness.

This is very fair. Nonetheless, Cousins has put up some impressive numbers and one does wonder what he would do with better talent around him. So yeah, a complete evaluation cannot be made. But that doesn't mean that there isn't room for any evaluation.

 

[PatsBoy12]

What is confusing??

A championship involves a lot of factors, far more than fans are willing to admit. You can't judge a player on his number of championships. Everything has to be through the lens of 'what he did with what he had'. That's if you're judging players according to talent.

If you wan to judge players according to success, then by all means, quote stats and win figures. But don't conflate success with talent. The difference should be self-evident.

It wasn't the concept, but the way you worded it, buddy. I wouldn't have disagreed with the point you made in your response because it's somewhat valid. But go back and read what you actually initially typed. But players are often evaluated based on championships and I don't think it's entirely unfair. One of the keys to being great is making players around you better after all.

 

[BlacknGold77]

I'm projecting into the future, not looking at past success.

Hey, any QB on the entire list could be 'playoff caliber' if their team makes the playoffs.

Goff had a terrible situation last year, and I'm still confident with him based upon what I saw at Cal.

then you are even more off base given that explanation. Projecting into the future bumps Goff even further down your tiers list and easily below Prescott, Carr and Wilson.

Wilson, 28 yrs old:
-5 years as starter, 5x playoffs...1 SB ring, 2 NFC Titles
-Has had passing yds and yds from scrimmage improve every year despite losing major pieces like Marshawn Lynch
-has 3 seasons out of 5 with a rating over 100
-with the pieces that team has lost on both sides, Wilson is what's keeping them in the hunt.

Carr, 25 yrs old:
-has turned the Raiders from 3-13 to 12-3 in 2 years
-last year (his 3rd) he cut his INT in half from 13 to 6, while increasing his ypg and td/gm
-has increased his rating every year, 91 and 96 the last 2 seasons

Prescott, 23 yrs old:
-is a rookie same as Goff, yet managed to completely destroy Goff last year.
-3,667, 23/4 td/int + another 6 TD on the ground. rating of 104.9
-in the 1 playoff game he wasnt why they lost throwing for 302, 3 td and 1 int

Goff, 22 yrs old:
-record of 0-7
-only 1085 yds in 7 games (155 per game)
-1 int per game and less than 1 td per game
-rating of 63.6

If you're a Goff fanboy, thats fine. Just admit it instead of trying to justify the over-rating

 

[Kontradiction]

I'm projecting into the future, not looking at past success.

Hey, any QB on the entire list could be 'playoff caliber' if their team makes the playoffs.

Goff had a terrible situation last year, and I'm still confident with him based upon what I saw at Cal.

Ryan Leaf looked great in college, too. What did you see out of Goff in the pro's that made you so confident?

 

[Froob]

Ryan Leaf looked great in college, too. What did you see out of Goff in the pro's that made you so confident?

In all fairness, Goff had about as bad of a situation as you could get. Footwork looked pretty good, seemed to make pretty quick decisions. Kinda liked him more than Wentz. Rams probably will ruin him though.