Skinsinparadise

Members
  • Content count

    12,813
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Everything posted by Skinsinparadise

  1. You said here Its a giant joke if you can't see that this team is in such a better place than it was 5-6 years ago. I seriously wonder what some fans are going to do when they can't moan about how awful things are. I suspect there are some Redskins name-change advocates that you could throw some complaint parties with... I presume that's about the status quo of the FO with Bruce at the helm since that's what your post was about? It's pretty dramatic language as to how you characterize any who disagrees with your position. If so, it comes off to me like anyone who isn't on board with this FO arrangement is some type of malcontent because its plainly obvious that its good. I don't think it will be a disaster. I don't think this FO has really ever been a disaster. It's had good years, its had bad years. Under Dan, its been mostly mediocre. Though I think avoiding disaster shouldn't be the bar. The Bruce part of this again to me is a side issue but to play along a little. Bruce the GM has a larger sample than one year. But I don't even care about the semantics of the Bruce GM record. The point about Bruce the GM is simple -- he's not a traditional GM. The typical front office's personnel department isn't run by a non-personnel guy. I think your feelings about the current state of the Redskins might be clouding your take on this specific point. Hey I like the current state of the Redskins, too. Many insiders have said that there are three legs to a successful franchise: QB, HC, GM. Assuming, they resign Kirk. They finally have a franchise QB. They finally have stability at HC. That's not the same old Redskins. But specific to the GM front, in my book (and plenty of NFL observers) its definitely same old same old Redskins. Can the other two legs (QB and HC) overcome what I think is likely a mediocre FO operation. Probably, yes. If one of the other legs of this falls apart (like Kirk bolting), then, I doubt it. Going through your post, you seem to be throwing the whole soup at this and going with a general state of the franchise. I disagree with some of it. But regardless, I think most of it is extraneous. I can go through transactions I've liked over the years, heck I can extol full off seasons. But it doesn't change the fact that this operation has been hit and miss, mediocre IMO, including during Bruce's stint. And I am if anything being a little generous. I'll bring another example to help bring home the point. We brought back the legendary Joe Gibbs. I love the guy. He arguably brought pride and leadership back. He brought in arguably a good defensive coordinator and loaded up on talent on that side of the ball. Gibbs personified class. This all represented a new direction for the franchise. How dare anyone suggest otherwise or question that the team then wasn't leaps and bounds ahead of where it was previously? Yep, I agreed with that sentiment. Still do, on some fronts. But there was one thing in that mix that was same old Redskins, the FO structure. No one talked about the FO structure in glowing terms. No one talked about Vinny in that way. Gibbs was a legendary coach. But a legendary GM? Not really. Same idea today with the current FO. It's the same thing throughout most of Dan's tenure. Its hard to bottom line the operation. And we see signs of it in this very thread. You mock Scott a little with the "savior" comment in a previous post and then circle back in the next post and talk him up (without crediting him) drafting Doctson as a sign that the organization is doing things the smart way and showing foresight. I am not bringing this up for a Bruce-Scot debate. But to bring home, who is driving what in the FO? Who gets credit/blame? It's confusing. People can cherry pick what they like and ignore what doesn't fit their beliefs. So how are things bottom lined? I am not a big Shanny guy but a lot of the culture changes in the FO you refer to were initially credited to him. I am sure you recall he was the guy that used to steal draft picks from Vinny. As for the money drill, in a 980 interview once someone was giving Bruce credit for contracts and Bruce laughed and said I don't mind taking credit but that department is handled by Eric Schaffer, he's the guy. Then, others say Bruce is the key money guy since he has to sign off on the contracts. We got Scott Campbell and Jay saying that Scot had a heavy imprint on the 2017 draft. Doug Williams in a recent interview said heck the draft was all about Scott Campbell. Now Campbell has some nebulous executive position. Is he running the drafts or just advising? Just think of some of the discussion on the thread. Is it Bruce is it Shanny? Was it Bruce or really Scot? Was it Scot or really Scott? You can shift credit or blame either way on many fronts. Bruce like I said is really irrelevant to the point at hand but I've read some of the arguments here on his behalf. And people cherry picked. This counts. But this doesn't count. They had to create a special prism for their argument. And I am not blaming anyone for it. If anything to me it sums up the weird nature of the FO. I don't think the typical FO is that confusing. Lets take the Giants, people know Jerry Reese. They sink and swim with his calls -- people know who the buck stops with for better or worse. And again I like Bruce. I like what he's done on some fronts on some of the money issues you've talked about and I've talked about, too. But none of that changes the reality of how this FO is structured.
  2. I guess you can call Grant Paulsen's radio show and challenge him on it. Somehow I doubt Kirk's agent emailed him the proposals. That contract offer discussion has been out there for awhile, I haven't seen anyone shoot it down. Does it sound far fetched that Kirk's agent in essence offered the franchise tag number over 3 years?
  3. As far as I can tell, no one here hates Bruce. I actually like Bruce. And I agree with much of what you said about his fiscal prudence. I've made similar points. But its not really relevant IMO. Neither are the gist of most of the other points that were more or less: Bruce versus Scot. Bruce versus Vinny. Bruce versus Shanny. The debate really isn't about Bruce but the FO structure. As for the critics of the FO structure, Bruce is at best a sidetrack conversation about whether he represents the exception to the rule where for him do we make exception. I can debate some of the FA thoughts you mentioned among other things but I won't since it will just sidetrack the conversation. There are some people (me among them) which don't like the unorthodox process of having a GM who doesn't come from a personnel background. That's really it. That and the continued processed of having an odd duck FO set up. And its not some odd/left field beef from us. You got plenty of NFL pundits talking about it. If you and others want to disagree and love the status quo. Cool. But that's the debate. It's not about some popularity tit for tat Bruce versus the world argument. It's irrelevant. I think even bringing up Bruce confuses the issue. You are taking a wild leap by insinuating that anyone who doesn't like this setup would be unhappy with just about anything. I've been more of a homer than not on the board for a good stretch of time. I'd bet I've sold some of Bruce's FA acquisitions this year harder than just about anyone. Sub who also has criticized this set up is probably among the biggest homers on the board, he's had the back of a lot of people from this organization who not everyone loved. I've defended plenty of these unorthodox FOs set ups in the past. I am just done with it. Fool me once, etc. And, I am familiar with the concept that this new version of the unconventional is different from the prior one -- different players, different drill. Yeah been there done that, too. I could relate a little to Koolblue's position which if I understand correctly is more or less, yeah its not ideal at all but it's OK and it could be worse so I am not losing sleep over it. It's actually not a mile off my position. I never really thought this FO was ever really a disaster. People forget but Vinny was actually defended plenty on this board by some and with substance. They had some good off seasons under him and good moves in the mix of soup. Years later he's described as a buffoon at every step but that wasn't the full consensus at the time. Do I think the current FO is better than that? Sure. Do I think its an above average operation? Nope. Do I think its a disaster? Nope. But I've always been talent (FO) > coaching. So my standards are high. I just don't see this operation as a model of success. Edit: I just caught Morneblade's Bruce stuff, I am gathering your post is directed his way even though you didn't highlight his post. Regardless, what got my attention is if we aren't satisfied with what we got now in the FO we will moan and groan about just anything. It implies that things right now are slam dunk great so who would challenge that. And IMO that's way over the top.
  4. OK, we are pretty much in the same place % wise. I think the only place we depart is if a deal doesn't get done, I am all in on blaming the FO for it. As for whom in the FO, I'm not sure until we learn the details. Unless, we are learn about some crazy demand from Kirk's agent. The Redskins are talked about already as a model for what not to do in a QB contract negotiation. We've even heard that idea being discussed as part of the impetus around the Raiders getting Carr locked up now. If this doesn't go down, I think the Kirk deal will go down as the model of how not to handle your franchise QB in negotiations. Epic disaster IMO and I can't really think of any positive spin for the FO. I don't feel like repeating all the narratives out there about why a deal doesn't happen. Just the highlights: this is what happens when you use the tag let alone twice, you lose all leverage. Them turning down a reasonable offer from Kirk's camp the previous year. The concept of evaluating your own players early before their price tag gets crazy. The relationship with the FO and player. The idea that low ball offers do not foster good will. On and on. And I am not sticking any of this on them right now. But if a deal doesn't happen, the litany of narratives that are out there about how the FO has blown it will become relevant. They aren't relevant to me though at the moment because they all presume it doesn't happen. I think they are wrong. My thought is yeah of course its going to go down to the wire. And yeah I don't think they were smart to not sign Kirk after the 2015 season. And that's not hindsight on my end. However, I get the logic of them not doing it then and waiting for a bigger sample size. My take on the FO is they cost themselves some serious money or perhaps even the player by waiting so I am not going to pat them on the back for playing that hand. But I am not going to condemn them either if the deal happens, regardless. If they said to themselves back then, we are more than willing to pay a premium for waiting. Then I think its all fine. What we don't know is do they think they don't have to pay much more of a premium for waiting and are surprised/annoyed that they likely have to pay about 4 million a year more and probably about $20-$25 million more in guaranteed money for playing their hand that way. Guys like Keim and Jones have suggested there is major ego in the mix of this negotiation. Hopefully, they are wrong or they get over it.
  5. OK. But its hard for me to believe that guys like Keim are making up what they are hearing about contract offers. And I know you aren't suggesting that. So, they are likely correct at this point in time. As for moving forward, I do think beat reporters more than anything want to be right. So if Keim or Jones or whomever heard they are likely going to town with a big offer, I'd think they'd want to be the first to be on it. If you track Mike Jones for example, he started as a major optimist about this contract getting done in January. He was borderline pedantic on it where he came off like he couldn't understand others being negative on it. Now, he's negative on it, too. It's been the same for some others on this front. Sounds like you are confident that the club will offer a market deal but feel there is an off chance that Kirk asks for something outrageous. And I am not saying it doesn't happen like that. We won't know until it happens. I am just saying the prevailing theory (for those claiming they have sources to the team) for why a deal doesn't happen is closer to the opposite -- most feel Kirk will take a deal in the 23-25 million a year range with 70-80 million guaranteed but the club will never offer it. I agree with you that the club will likely offer it. But to me the club not offering it is in play -- it seems to be the #1 reason for the prevailing beat reporter pessimism. The closest version I hear about Kirk asking for something outrageous stems more from Kirk saying no to a market deal at this point because it has taken so long with too many low ball offers that at this juncture he's close to the finish line which is testing his value on the FA market -- that theory is usually coupled with how Bruce blew it to let it drag along this long. My take is it makes all the sense in the world to get a deal done. And even if I ran with the idea that they have concerns about him and are reluctant to pay big money, I think ego-PR would kick in and in a good way (in my book) -- because like I said they let him go and it blows up on them, its a PR disaster. I think they'd realize all of this big time.
  6. All we've heard publicly is Kirk was offered 20 million a year with low guaranteed sum. Derek Carr can talk all day long about him wanting to do a team friendly deal to bring in other players. But the dude got 25 million a year and a good chunk of guaranteed money. He backloaded the contract as some predicted in advance he would because there is no state income tax in Nevada. I am not expecting Kirk or any player to take a low ball offer. And as far as we know, Kirk thus far hasn't gotten an offer in the Derek Carr type of range.
  7. I think a deal gets done. Like I said in a previous post, there is a lot of noise and a lot of talk why a deal hasn't gotten done, yet. If I had to pick the theory I've heard the most its the Redskins don't want to pay the perceived market value of Kirk and they don't want to give him a Luck or Carr type of a deal. Is that true? You got me. But playing off of that, I don't think the only way this doesn't happen is if Kirk asks for something ridiculous. If I had to say what's the prevailing theory for the beat reporter pessimism on a resolution is the Redskins FO hasn't yet nor do they plan to offer Kirk that market deal. We won't know until it goes down one way or another.
  8. You can argue the same for Jax, too IMO. Maybe Buffalo. Denver. With LA's defense, I think they'd be a different team immediately with a good QB. What if Ben retires and the Steelers are looking? Dan Graziano saying that Kirk might get 30 million on the free market, I think is hyperbole. But, I think the odds that Kirk gets at least 25 million a year is almost a given assuming he has a another good year. Plus some of these teams have the cap space where they could front load the contract to make it more attractive, like SF did this year with Garcon. That's why I don't see the transition tag work next year. Teams lose guys with that tag because its easy for a team to swoop in with a ton of cap room and they can front load a contract in a way where a team like the Redskins can't match. If I recall SF for example has 75 million or so in cap space next year. And paying Kirk 35 million with the franchise tag is insane especially considering all the other guys they have up for FA. I don't see how Kirk is back in 2018 if they don't get this done this year. And if so, I agree with some people who have said it will go down as one of the biggest blunders in franchise history and what a wild way to cap off the 2012 draft. If you wrap the whole story up in the 2012 draft, this will be one football story for the ages especially if Kirk, Brad Johnson style took his next team to the Superbowl. That would go triple if Kirk ended up with Kyle. It would be IMO the biggest egg in your face draft of all time. If Kyle feels about Kirk like his dad and that is Kirk is a Superbowl caliber top 5 QB type. Then heck yeah I think they sign Kirk over Rosen or Allen or Darnold. In their shoes, I'd trade the pick to some desperate team (The Redskins?) and get a kings ransom. Build the team up around Kirk, SF already started that process this year.
  9. Chris Russell just now on 106.7. He said talking to a source he knows (he seemed like he was alluding the source was from someone in Redskins Park but didn't flat out say so, in the past he did), the deal with Carr helps crystallize the market and cements the idea that Qbs getting mid 20 a year contracts are a real thing. He thinks a 3 year deal might be more likely -- incentive on both sides.
  10. Obviously, all we can do is guess. As Sheehan said recently there is an incredible amount of noise that he hears all the time and its hard for him to decipher truth from fiction. You got Grant Paulsen who has hinted he's talked to Kirk's camp. Keim, too. C. Russell, too. Finlay. Jones. And you get mixed stories if you take their sources all at their word. We've heard a bit of everything. Different variations of how Bruce mishandled the negotiations. Kirk not loving Dan-Bruce and looking to bolt (its what Paulsen has alluded to, Sheehan to a similar agree but not associating him wanting to leave to any individual). We've heard Kirk being fine with Bruce-Dan and being more than cool as to wanting to stay. We've got Bruce's self professed optimism about the talks and saying he's on it. You got some reporter like JLC who agree with that. We've heard from guys like Keim that they don't dig Kirk's agent. A lot of stuff. I don't think we are in a definitive position to pat Bruce on the back or criticize him or know for sure what Kirk is thinking. That's why my position is to let it all unfold. In my book, if they get the contract done, then awesome. They did their job. If they blow this and a deal doesn't happen, then heck yeah I am blaming the FO and IMO its a disaster. My feeling remains that they get this done and I'll be happy but I am not patting the FO on the back until/if that transpires. I am erring on the positive side both in terms of Bruce and Kirk's motives based on what they are saying. If you take them both at their word. Everything is fine. Also it has seemed intuitive to me from almost the get go that it likely would come down to the wire. I guess we will find out soon in reality.
  11. Had the same problem, I'll try to figure it out. I am in Florida too and yeah the Redskins app didn't work either in terms of getting the broadcasts
  12. The metric guys, PFF and Football outsiders think the team will be bottom rung. You got 4 out 6 ESPN analysts saying the Redskins are the team that has gotten the worst in the off season. Every football magazine expects them to be bottom rung. Vegas, too. Yeah I get that for the last 20 years plus this has most been a less than mediocre team. But they have had two winning records in a row. The team I think by most indicators got appreciably better not appreciably worse. But like I said, if Jay feeds off of this stuff, It's good motivational tool. IMO this team has too many laid back-nice guy types like Kerrigan. Good players but they don't seem to play angry with an edge. The Giants leading up to the last game of the season seemed more edgy and fired up about knocking the Redskins out of the playoffs than the Redskins seemed to be on edge about getting into the playoffs. And I said so in the days leading up to the game. But Swearinger seems like an angry dude type (in a good way). Ryan Anderson. I liked to hear Zach Brown saying no one is expecting anything from this team and he likes it, he said lets shock everyone. I think this team more than most benefits from things that can give you an edge. Granted its not the be all and end all, but I might give them some more oomph. Jay and D. Hall at least seemed to think so in 2015.
  13. Sheehan just in general keeps moving from camp to camp as either the team screwed up this negotiation, to Kirk doesn't want to be here to the team really doesn't want him that bad. But it feels like he's just flailing. Heck I'll blast this FO big time too if this deal doesn't happen but all the panic and hand wringing before July 17th seems way out of hand by the local media. Its actually comical. Grant Paulsen was going on today about how this deal hurts the Redskins and they will now have to be at 26 million or year plus. And Kirk still might not take the deal. Ridiculous.
  14. Listening to Colt right now on air. Granted he could be holding back but he doesn't sound that way to me, the dude praised Kirk left and right. Doesn't sound like there is a wit of acrimony.
  15. They don't. I actually look it as a contrarian and see these dire predictions as a good sign. and I recall Jay Gruden saying they fed off of that negativity in 2015. To add fuel to the fire, PFF weighs in. Redskins are the 4th worst team in the NFC. Apparently to them the Bears are even a better team. https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-falcons-sit-atop-first-batch-of-nfc-projections-for-2017/
  16. You say you are frustrated with hate leveled on Bruce. And that Bruce is being accused of being incompetent. And you single out me and Sub on that front. But, that's a wild misrepresentation IMO. You have given very emotional heartfelt arguments for the dude. But I think in that process you might be getting a bit carried away in your advocacy where in doing so you are overreaching on how he's been criticized. Lets take my position on Bruce. My points on him that I've made multiple times on this thread. A. He does a good job and is an asset to the organization B. I've met him and I like him. C. I took Bruce's side in his squabble with Scot. Even though I like Scot. D. I said I am opposed to firing Bruce. E. In Kirk's thread I am even defended Bruce from strong criticism leveled his way for not getting a deal done with Kirk, yet. That's some pretty heavy duty pro-Bruce positions especially "C". Not sure what else positive I need to say about Bruce let alone be labeled as someone who hates him or that I am calling him out as incompetent. I am a Redskins fan but that doesn't obligate me to endorse everything that Bruce does. But as to on the Bruce front specifically, I think I've endorsed plenty and actually more than the typical poster. So in that mix of positivity, my one beef with Bruce and its not really even with him, its with Dan since he is the one who sets the FO structure is that I don't think a money/business guy should run personnel. That's is. We've dealt into why. And yeah sorry I don't find Bruce's background as proof he's some sort of exception to the rule. And if people want to argue otherwise on that point. I'll debate that person back. And provide points for why. When you and another poster dug up all the research you did. It actually helped solidify the "personnel" side of the argument in a major way. And the main reason why I brought up Jay to you in an earlier post is to bring out that I am not shy to change my mind if evidence contradicts my initial impression. If what you guys dug up indicated that heck yeah a good chunk of teams have a business guy running personnel and those teams are kicking butt -- not only would I have changed my point of view but I'd have loved it. I love this team. My rooting interest is never for the status quo to be off. I'd love it if you were right that it doesn't matter if the GM has a personnel background or not so we are in great hands. And as I said I feel the same way about ANY FO structure that's unconventional that way. I don't care how beloved the figure is, you can put Warren Buffett in the position and I'd hate it. And yeah that doesn't make me a Bruce hater. I've told you in my multiple posts I like Bruce. So its quite the opposite. Edit: Actually some of what I refer back to is to posts from Voice of Reason. He's the guy that pulled some of the research that I found ironically backed the point we were making on the GM front. But my overriding point though still applies to my post to you since I made the posts that I refer to on this thread. Sorry not sure why I keep confusing you guys. But nope me being a Bruce hater or accusing him of incompetence wouldn't fit my characterization of him.
  17. I agree. It's why I think potentially this will help move this deal along. I was just checking twitter people there seem to summarize this as a major win for Kirk's side and loss for the FO. But I don't see it that way. This sets the market, it brings clarity.
  18. I was just thinking about it, hard call for me either way. Now as to some of the critics on this process, its an interesting development because both sides could take something from it. A. Some of Bruce's critics among the media suggest that he is a bit of a stuck in the mud and perhaps doesn't understand the QB market and or prides himself on being cheap and doesn't get that while that approach works at times, it doesn't work here where he has no leverage. And, the team seeing what other QBs who are arguably comparable get contract wise will bring home that they are off about all of this. B. You got some suggesting that Kirk's agent wants to get every penny and play off of every inch of leverage he has. If so, he will use this to his advantage in negotiating where he'd argue that Kirk's numbers are better on a number of fronts over Carr. For me personally, I guess I got an odd position compared to most. I do not blame Kirk for trying to get every penny he can. I am willing to pay Kirk a big contract. I don't blame Bruce for how long this has taken. I will blame the organization big time IF they ultimately don't get this done. If I had to land somewhere on this, I'd say Carr getting a contract done will help move this contract.
  19. I was digging to see if I could find anything about Lombardi and Bruce having bad blood. I couldn't find anything. Lombardi came in hard when Bruce was hired that he isn't a personnel guy but a pure money/PR guy. But that's not bitter and he's far from alone in that take. I saw an article that maybe Bruce would consider Lombardi for a personnel spot -- back when it looked like they were interviewing outside people. Maybe he was interviewed and not hired? Otherwise, I got no clue.
  20. On further reflection, I think the Doug hire might be clouding this debate because the more people (including Doug) talk about it, the more it comes off like his role is similar to last time except for he made recommendations for promotions that Bruce agreed with and he will be talking more to Jay. To me on the research I did, I found it especially telling that the media questioned the Jets hire of a GM with a limited personnel background as "a curious hire". And the Jets ultimately canned him and replaced him with a traditional GM. I think its real simple. Bruce has final say and should he be that guy? Is it normal to have someone with his background be that guy? How wonderful a guy he is and how much he wants to win IMO is irrelevant to the discussion. To go with one more cooking analogy, an overwhelming majority of teams believe that the guy overseeing the menu should have a vast background in cooking and creating menus in their own right versus being the Maitre D. The more I dig about Bruce, the more I think that I don't think he'd even agree with some of the arguments people are using here to advocate for him. He doesn't come off like he's selling himself as a guy who really knows personnel and he unfairly doesn't get credit for it. The argument for him seems to be more in line with "so what if his niche isn't personnel" we still trust his judgment to listen to his actual personnel guys and do their bidding. There is some logic to that. But IMO you want a guy who can listen to recommendations but also insert their own experience and logic to filter, add and challenge the insight and synchronize it all. Your top personnel guy expertise wise IMO should be the actual boss of personnel not the bosses underlings. This is from Lombardi who worked with Bruce for 5 years. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2012/11/15/michael-lombardi-on-shanahan-the-gm/?utm_term=.b939b4da042e Bruce [Allen] isn’t a personnel [guy]; Bruce does cap and PR and all those things; Bruce isn’t the true total GM in terms of breaking down teams and finding players.”
  21. Yeah I gather there is a back story to it. Usually talking head types even if they don't like someone often hold back a little. Arguably, if you just go off on people it comes off to some unprofessional. Lombardi clearly didn't care. I recall Lombardi's criticism of Shanny as a personnel guy from years back -- he compared him to Belichick by saying Belichick had a more realistic view of his roster while Shanny saw the roster with rose colored glasses. I recall the criticism because I used it in debates back then.
  22. I heard that actual podcast, they played it on Bram's show a little while ago. The way he said it (which gets lost by whomever transcribed it) is it isn't on Jay or Scot its on Bruce as to what's going on with Kirk. If you listen to the whole drill, Lombardi comes off as if he wants to take on Bruce. Bruce never relinquished power. Dan let the wrong guy go between Bruce and Shanny. Bruce is likely screwing up the negotiation. As Bram said, Lombardi really came after Bruce hard. It's even clearer I think when you hear the audio. Lombardi worked with Bruce for years -- comes off clearly that he doesn't like the dude.
  23. Agree. It just is what it is. I personally think Kirk is very good but even running with just good, he's going to get paid big. It's just how the market is. And I'd pay every penny without hesitating. Reason why QBs are getting paid crazy money is its no secret that you can't win much in this league without a good QB.
  24. I would have paid Kirk in 2016. But I don't think it was crazy not to if the FO wasn't sure about him with the caveat that they need to pay him a premium for waiting once 2017 arrives. I think the one shot though to get him cheap (maybe) was when Scot's camp say he wanted to get it done which is during the 2015 season. Once they got past the 2015 season, Kirk was going to get big money. It's just how that position works. Look at what Osweiler got then and Glennon got this year. I think the window to get Kirk relatively cheap closed after 2015 regardless if they franchised him or not. The main problem with the franchise is it boxes you in and it hands Kirk's agent the leverage but regardless Kirk was likely going to get more than Osweiler did which would mean he'd be pushing $20 million. According to Grant Paulsen, Kirk's agent offered them a 3 year contract at 19.5 million after 2015 and the Redskins said no. Don't recall the amount of guaranteed money. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/06/20/talk-of-possible-kirk-cousins-deal-is-noise-until-the-middle-of-july/ According to contract details obtained by USA TODAY Sports, Osweiler will make $21 million in 2016 in the form of a $12 million signing bonus, $5 million roster bonus due this month and $4 million guaranteed base salary. His $16 million base salary in 2017 also is fully guaranteed.
  25. Sheehan today hit the McCoy-Kirk thing saying he's heard it but isn't sure its true. I agree it strikes me too strange considering both guys personality wise seem like boy scouts but who knows. As Sheehan pointed out even if there is a riff why should it matter anyway? Not everyone loves each other on a football team. Joel Corry (ex-agent) was on his show basically saying what many have which is if anything happens its very likely going to happen right upon the deadline not before that. I am firmly in the camp of there is nothing dysfunctional of them not getting a contract done so far. But its a big time dysfunction if the upshot is they don't ultimately make it happen by the deadline and this carries to 2018. Sheehan suggested it might be a bumpy ride story wise leading up to the deadline because there are all these different stories that keep flying around about the contract and Kirk and the FO. And he has no idea if true or not. But he said a lot of noise to sift on via various sources.