I honestly think these numbers mean nothing without a basis for comparison, but I still thought they were interesting.

One knock on Kirk is that he looks great on paper, but looks poor under pressure. Eye test easily confirms this for me, and this tidbit does a good job of outlining how much of his production is meaningless.

If we assumed that 25% of his career production came in the 1st quarter, 25% in the 2nd, and so on... that would mean just under a third of his 4th quarter yards were meaningless, along with just over a 3rd of his TD passes.

I am trying to make sense of these numbers and put them into context. I am not familiar enough with the defenses he had when playing in Washington, but one might try to point at poor defensive teams he has played with.

I know the vikings, Kirk has enjoyed the 9th best PPG, 5th best PPG, and 29th (yuck) best PPG in his first 3 years with the team. In Washington, he had the 17th, 19th, and 28th best PPG defenses. This tells me that on average, over the past 6 years as a starter, he had 2 years where it was pretty bad, 2 middle of the pack, and 2 top 10 defenses. A mixed bag.

I guess I am just having trouble putting these numbers into the right context and understanding what it says about Kirk's career numbers as a starter, which are pretty strong if we are just looking at the stats on paper.

What are your thoughts?