• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


1 Follower

About goskins10

  • Rank
    The Free Agent
  • Birthday 10/21/1960

Contact Methods

  • Location
    North Carolina

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Redskins Football, Golf, Foosball

Recent Profile Visitors

4,502 profile views
  1. I believe the NFL has blacked out the radio broadcasts outside I think 75 miles of the two teams cities. You have to pay for it now. It's bull****. I am hoping they change it for this year. I travel a lot and it's nice to be able to at least listen to the game until I get home and can watch on NFL replay. When I am out of the country I can actually buy the games on an individual basis.
  2. Not picking on you directly as many others have made this same statement - There is no way to know if Kirk would have signed for this or any particular offer. No way possible to know that. In fact, if I were his agent, I would have told him the minute the tag was given him last year, that he should not sign any offer until July 17th 2017. That's when he will get the best deal the Redskins are willing to make. Just also goes for those saying Kirk is asking too much. You have no idea. It's all pure speculation. Both sides have been very professional and kept it all behind closed doors. Unless someone close to the negotiation is on this board, no one on this board knows with certainty what the team has offered recently or what Kirk's team has asked for. As has been stated 100 times - several of those by me - this is a negotiation. Both sides will be very far apart early on. So it would not surprise me if the Redskins offered $20M/yr and Cousins side just said - not good enough. In fact it's quite possible Kirk's side has not even given a number they will take. I wouldn't give it to them. July 17th we will know one of the following: 1. It was all posturing and they come to agreement. - I am 90% here. 2. The team never made a reasonable offer so Kirk will play on the tag - I am 9% here. The team would indeed be dumb as hell to let this happen and will deserve all the heat they will inevitably get. 3. Kirk's team was asking crazy money and the team had to do the right thing and let him play on the tag. - I am 1% here only because like everyone else I cannot be certain so it can't be 0%. Need to put down the pitch forks for each other and just be patient for July 17th. That really is the only thing any of us actually knows to be fact, that July 17th we will finally get answers to all the speculation.
  3. Not sure either of those offers have been confirmed. In fact, I believe it was Kirks team that made the $19M offer last year. The team was at $16M - made that offer almost immediately and both sides agreed to let him play on the tag. Not disagreeing with the overall premise that it takes two to get a deal done. But not sure the numbers you have are correct.
  4. I agree with most of what you and @Skinsinparadise are saying. I still think our STs over the last few years are being overlooked. In 2014 we were 29th. In 2015 it went to 6th and then 2016 it was 14th - losing ground mostly thanks to Hopkins FG misses. Having said that, over the years it is clear all these prognosticators jut assume teams will be the same as the year before. They pick a darling or two they think we turn around and one or two good teams they think will regress. Other than that they just assume same as last year. Then they take whatever actually happens during the offseason to justify their predetermined position. So no matter what the team had done, they were going to say they did not get better. I will agree that a lot of what we have is potential. But while not all of it is going to workout, not all of it is going to fail either. If this defense gets better at all - the team will be in every game. Then it will come down to who wants to win. That's where those guys with killer instincts you are both talking about become important. I for one like them trashing the team. It does seem to motivate them - at least it should.
  5. It's just blustering. No team is going to offer $30M/yr right now. In a few years? Like even as soon as 3? Possibly, maybe even probably. But this year or next? No one would be that reckless.
  6. Sheehan is just letting of some frustration. No way he or any QB, gets $30M/yr next yr. That would be a 20% increase to the current highest ever salary in one year that was signed today. It's a gross exaggeration. Kirk will get a deal very similar to Carr's deal. Probably same terms with a little more guaranteed money.
  7. Lot's a different topics there - lol. Ok, I get your intent was you thought Quick's salary would be more than someone else. Think we are now both aligned there. Salary is low no matter where he is on the depth chart. It at least read to me the discussion was Quick or Grant. I stand by may statement that for me I prefer Quick. As for Quick vs "younger players" - I assume you mean like Harris or Davis. It depends. I see Quick as someone with NFL experience that can be insurance for Doctson. We know he can at least keep people honest so they can't just always focus on Pryor. That also keeps Crowder mostly in the slot where he is most dangerous. Not sure they want to trust that role to a rookie or even Grant. Although it's sounding like Gruden wants to give grant a chance. Anyway, I want to see how they do in TC and PS before coming ot any of those conclusions. Quick may develop a really great rapport with Kirk - or one of the others might. You just never know till they get on the field. I like going young when possible but not just for the sake of going young. As for STs, that's strictly a tie breaker. They will keep the guy that help them in the offense first. If it's close, then and only then will STs come into play.
  8. Kind of my point... I still would prefer Quick over Grant. I like Grant and he is a good locker room guy. But he has trouble getting open. Some of that is lack of targets. Some of that is play selection. Who knows we are running when Grant is put in? Wait. I know this one....... But at least Quick has had a season where he caught some passes. Last year he caught more passes than Grant has his entire 3 yr career. Quick is also a very good blocker like Grant. If I have my choice between a guy that can catch balls more regularly or a guy who plays STs, I am taking the pass catcher every time. Yoi can find other guys to paly STs. Having said that, if they keep Grant over Quick I will not be as upset as some. As I said he is a great locker room guy. Coaches need those guys, even if they are not the most productive.
  9. Brian Quick - Cap hit $695,000 Ryan Grant - Cap hit $743,403 Not sure I understand this statement. Grant costs more than Quick and more importantly the minimum is $465,000.
  10. I see what you are saying. It still does not support the $29.6M/yr statement. That's what threw everything because honestly that's just incorrect. But here it goes. See if you follow. What you think is happening is that the team is saying we are signing you to a 5 yr contract that starts in 2018 but we will begin paying you that rate now. That turns into a 6 yr contract at $25Myr or $150M. So it's still not $29.8M/yr. It's $25Myr for 6 yrs. The way the contract will in fact work is that they replace the existing contract that's for $1.2M this year with a new that is for $25M/yr for 5 yrs that starts now. So yes, he gets $23.8M more this year. But the total worth of the contract is still just $125M over 5 yrs or wait for it: $25M/yr. And now I am totally done. All you saying he is correct have to just be trying to keep this going out of boredom. lol
  11. Player B does not earn more than $125M over 5 yrs. It's the same $23.8M! You can't add them twice!! LOL I am done here. Not worth it. Carry on. LOL
  12. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And BTW you wrote the same thing I did - lol. Yes, he makes $23.8M more now if he signs a new contract. But it still equals $125M over 5 yrs - period. Please defend the $29.8M/yr number? That is what this entire thing has been about.
  13. No you aren't. You would completely lose your mind! lol
  14. Ok, one more try and then I give up, because if you can't see it then you just never will - and honestly it's not that important. Current state: 2017 - $1.2M If he signs a contract for 5 yrs that starts now: 2017 - $25M (He is making $23.8M more than he would if they did nothing). 2018 - $25M 2019 - $25M 2020 - $25M 2021 - $25M Totals $125M over 5 yrs. The increase for this year is the difference between $1.2M and $25M for 2017. He is making $23.8M more but it's because of the 1st year salary of $25M. Therefore the $23.8M is in the $125M. There is no additional $23.8M. You can't add it twice which is the only way you get to $29.8M/yr.
  15. I was responding to the bolded statement. I read that to say that the Redskins should have signed Kirk before they had to - stepped up the plate as you put it. But the circumstance is completely different. Again, to do that they would have to sign him after the 2014 season before he was ever the #1 starter. If that was not your intent with that statement then I just misunderstood. And sorry - @Califan007 is right about the math. Unless I am missing something. I believe you are counting the $23.8M twice. If they do nothing he gets roughly $1.2M this year - using your numbers. I think we all agree. Assuming they do sign him for an average of $25M (this is ignoring guarantees, bonuses, escalators, etc. just doing the math.) he makes based on that average $25M this year so he does get an additional $23.8M this year. I think we all agree here too. Assuming a 5 yr contract that's approximately $125M total ($25M*5). I think we are all OK up to this point. Where the math gets lost is when yo say he will in effect be making $29.8M/yr. The only way to get there is to add the $23.8M to the 5 yr total of $125M --> ($25M*5+$23.8M)/5 = $148.8M/5 = $29.8M. The problem with that is the $23.8M is already in the $125M. You can't add it twice. The total contract is $125M, period.