This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/nfl by /u/EsotericPotato on 2024-09-12 14:24:57+00:00.
Watching Cousins on Sunday you could see a distinct lack of movement (even by Kirk standards, he looked like a statue) and failing to plant and drive off his right foot for longer throws, something he’s always needed to do to get good velocity on intermediate and deep balls.
It seemed abundantly clear he’s either not fully healed or doesn’t yet fully trust his surgically repaired Achilles. This would also explain why the Falcons barely used play action or bootlegs, something Kirk has always been extremely successful in and has been a staple for Cousins-led offenses.
Yet the prevailing narrative being spun since Sunday is a definitive one that signing Kirk was a mistake, that he’s cooked, that he doesn’t look the same since before the injury, as if this is as healthy as he will ever again be.
Is it so surprising that he doesn’t look good yet? Is it a reasonable expectation to assume that a pro athlete, an older pro athlete at that, would be 100% 10 months after rupturing his achilles?
This is a QB with minimal injury history who has accrued very few serious injuries over his career, and a player who is known for taking extremely good care of his body. Just seems like an extremely reactionary/myopic stance for the prevailing notion right now to be that the Kirk Cousins signing was a mistake.