Wildbunny Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, XtremeFan55 said: If what I am reading is accurate then the whole Cousins fiasco is on Bruce Allen. Apparently, Scot McCloughan is the talent evaluator....Bruce Allen is the money man who determines how much to spend on players. Scot's job was to pound the table and convince Allen and Snyder that Cousins was a much better quarterback than RG3 before the 2015 season. Allen's job is to determine how much to pay him. Since both McCloughan and Gruden want Cousins to remain as the Redskins quarterback...the holdup seems to be entirely in the hands of Bruce Allen and possibly Dan Snyder who are reluctant to pay Cousins asking price. Cousins is as good as gone and the Redskins will again sink back down to mediocrity and blame Gruden and McCloughan when the blame is entirely on Allen and Snyder. We then go back and start over once again with new coaches, new GM, and trying to find the next rare and elusive franchise quarterback after letting one slip thru our fingers. Welcome to the new 'Factory of Sadness'..... The only act that will show that things have changed will be for Snyder to fire Bruce Allen. Allen already answered this as he wants Kirk to remains here. For sure Allen and Schaeffer are the money guys, and Scot is in charge of player personnel. But there's no real such thing as an expensive Franchise QB nowadays. If they're expensive, then they aren't Franchise QB. Last year was a completly different situation. Our brass needed to make sure he was no 6 months wonder. Which was understandable from their pov. I would have prefered a LTD last year because I thought that in 2017 we would have to ride with him as well as 2016 as we had no backup plan already in store and there where not so much options coming. So they went with a Tag prove it deal approach. Can't really fault them and blame them for that. Neither side. Now it's another thing. Kirk have answered questions. He proved it. So our FO is not likely to opens with a 20M contract and not budge from it. Kirk will disagree here and there, we'll counter, and we'll reach a situation that both sides likes. If our top budget for him is 23M and we settle at 24.5M, it'll be Scott, Jay and Bruce's job to "sacrifice" a guy elsewhere on the team, like a Shaun Lauvao, or a DeAngelo Hall, maybe try to sign Baker for a bit less, or call Kerrigan's agent or Trent's agent to make a renegotiation of their contract. I don't see Kirk and his agent asking price being way over the top because that would be them telling the team: "**** you, we're not gonna sign here, trade us". And our FO could come up with that story and torpedo him and his image throughout the league. Most people around here, me included, would like the fact that they managed to come out of this with some kind of good compensation for a guy that didn't want to be here. But it had never been Kirk's stance since the beginning, and I'm still not buying the Kyle love's story. He's got much more love from this current FO than Kyle ever gaved him. So we have a high mark for contract negotiation, if we can settle for a contract lower than that, we're great. If we can't, we'll find compensation elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTskin Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 This came from Kirk's camp and was purely a negotiating tactic. By saying that Kirk will only sign a LTD with the 9ers removed other suitors from the equation. Right when we thought Kirk couldn't have any more leverage... I was all about signing Kirk last year, as were many. And, I still would be fine giving him $24M this year... But now he's taking this above a business level and it's becoming obviously personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliffmark1 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 33 minutes ago, Rattlesnake88 said: Are you sure about that? We will see soon I suppose. Because the way it's looking now, 23-24 was his price two weeks ago if we had jumped all over it. What? 27 minutes ago, Peregrine said: So if we are to believe all of this stuff the media has put out, with zero sources, it would be that: A. Kirk Cousins knows he holds all of the cards, is really smart, and wants as much money as possible, he wants to go to the highest bidder B. Kirk Cousins has inexplicably then limited himself to the SF 49ers. A and B are contradictory. If someone held all of the cards, and was in it for the most money possible, why would they limit themself to one team who now knows they get a discount? That means *gasp* at least half of this must be made up, if not all of it. did you just use logic on a extremeskins?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlesnake88 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 @Cliffmark1 the price I believe is higher than 23-24. But again this is just speculation based on contract trends and leverage. I don't think he wants anything but a FT before hitting the market next season for a long term deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliffmark1 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Just now, Rattlesnake88 said: @Cliffmark1 the price I believe is higher than 23-24. But again this is just speculation based on contract trends and leverage. I don't think he wants anything but a FT before hitting the market next season for a long term deal. interesting. I just assume he would take the FT price as a base yearly. That is an assumption but I think he would have a tough road to plow getting above 23.9 per year from any team this year. I also assume if he balls out in 2017 he will definitely be able to negotiate something higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 10 hours ago, PartyPosse said: Granted, I do admit that my impression of Kirk's personality now is based mostly off of speculation, but if there's anything that's been consistent it's that the stories of him being unhappy here and him being upset over the offer last year and as we've all said, where there's smoke there's fire. Again it is all speculation but I haven't seen a lot of the speculation that he wants to be here and it's the Skins not willing to open up the checkbook. I think a few years ago it would be true that where theres smoke theres fire. But is there even smoke here? A week or so ago there was a big article that said Bruce Allen had muzzled the staff, and since then they have moaned and complained about how nobody from the Redskins has said ANYTHING. So then, if no one has said anything, where are they getting it, OTHER than making it up? It is a massive contradiction for the media to say "Everybody with the Redskins is silent, and we cant get them to tell us anything, so they stink!", and then "We are getting all of this great information on whats going on behind the scenes". Its one or the other. One half of that must, by definition, be a lie. As for why there hasnt been speculation he wants to be here, the answer is, why would there be? Thats not what silence creates. One fact of human attitudes and emotions is that when there is no news, humans assume the worst. Always. They want to be soothed, told things are okay, hear comforting words. If there is silence, speculation is ALWAYS in the negative. Try and find a case of any contract negotiation where when there is no news, speculation would be positive. I have worked in real estate for a decade, and have made my clients $10-20k in a single transaction just by being silent to someone for a day. Its an amazingly effective tactic, you just allow people to entertain their fears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 He's gone. I predict we trade him to San Fran for the #2 pick and maybe some more(we never rip teams off though, so we'll probably only get the #2 pick). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 27 minutes ago, PigskinRedskin said: Did Kirk actually say that its only SF, or is just more sources? Here are some tweets from Keim on the subject John KeimVerified account @john_keim 3h3 hours ago More Folks: Never said Kirk Cousins wouldn't accept a trade elsewhere. Said the team he'd sign a LTD with right now would be SF. 1/2 John KeimVerified account @john_keim 3h3 hours ago More If another team traded for him, they'd have to do some strong convincing to entice a LTD w/Cousins. Gamble? Yes. impossible? Nothing ever is John KeimVerified account @john_keim 3h3 hours ago More Last one: KC would sign a LTD here; was talking about in a trade. Skins haven't come close tho. Again, key words: "Right now." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Consigliere Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 3 hours ago, Veryoldschool said: Why can't the Redskins even do obvious things gracefully? Teams do not let 28 year old All Pro QBs who have the trust, confidence and affection of their teammates and coaches go, especially after they carried the team to the first consecutive whining seasons.... When you were watching us get shredded by Pittsburgh in the opener, and saw and heard how his teammates reacted, and trashed him, you thought that was a sign of trust, confidence and affection? I sure as hell didn't. I'm of two minds about this: #1 I definitely think our FO was played and could have handled this better and #2 I also understand why they did not want to blow the doors off with an offer after a half of season of quality play in his career, before which he was making the history books in terms of turnover rate and horror show ineptitude. Not surprising to me that the FO was not ready to pay him Drew Brees or Ben Roth Money when for most of his career he'd played like Mark Malone and early Vinny Testaverde. At this point, I can't decide whether or not all of this is smoke, or if Kirk really is this much of a colossal idiot and really has no interest in competing. Niners are his #1 target? Really? The team with a bottom 5 OL and running game, the team with the worst collection of WR's in the NFL, and a defense totally bereft of talent outside of DT and Safety? If he goes there, that team is on a 5 year soviet style rebuild plan, with a GM who has no background to speak of in scouting or FO work, and an acting owner whose fired three coaches in the past three years, and is generally regarded as a completely incompetent James Dolan doppleganger. And Kirk wants to go there?!?!? Then don't hit the door, as they say, but let's max out comp, maybe not do my brothers suggestion (sign 5 out of work kickers and start them as his OL in Week 16 next year), but yep, get best comp available, and pushing back for the much better '18 QB class is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tay Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Just for my own personal information, I put together a list of the top 18 paid QB in the league and their average annual salary as a percentage of the cap of the first year their contract became effective. I used this to calculate what I thought was a reasonable range for Kirk's contract, just to see which side seemed to be the most unreasonable. Here's the list starting w/ greatest % of cap: 1. Ryan 16.9% 2. Rodgers 16.5% 3. Wilson 15.3% 4. Roethlisberger 15.2% 5. Manning 14.7% 6. Luck 14.6% 7. Rivers 14.5% 8. Palmer 14.5% 9. Newton 14.5% 10. Brees 14.4% 11. Stafford 14.4% 12. Brady 14.3% 13. Flacco 14.3% 14. Smith 12.8% 15. Tannehill 12.4% 16. Dalton 12.0% 17. Osweiler 11.6% 18. Bradford 11.3% Based on this info, in my opinion the floor for a reasonable salary should be 12%, mid point being around 13%, and the upper end around 14%. If we would have signed him last year the average salaries low-mid-high would be 18.6M-20.2M-21.7M. This year those salaries should fall at 20.2M-21.8M-23.5M. It is also noteworthy that some of the salaries in the range I've mentioned are "team friendly", so the teams can bail. That isn't a an option here. A contract in the $25M/yr range as many people have suggested would put Kirk at 14.9% (top 5) in the league. I think that's very high for Kirk. While I don't like the idea of losing Kirk I definitely understand the team's stance if Kirk is holding firm at $25M+ per. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebestian Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 2 hours ago, onedrop said: Good lord did you hear there was a sudden opening? Nothing has happened, Kirk has said nothing. Don't let rampant imagination fueled by silence and lack of activity dictate your position. To everyone complaining about Cousins, it's YOU, picture yourself with one MAYBE two chances at securing the vast majority of your career pay....Wouldn't you be careful? Wouldn't you want the absolute maximum that was deemed fair? In real life most football careers are a blink of the eye, they must get what they can when they can. Some seem to realize this when discussing, oh I don't know, anyone BUT Cousins. To anyone suggesting Kirk owes us a home town discount, grow up. This isn't the 70s, that crap ended with FA and mega money (just like the relevance of the pro bowl). Would you take a pay decrease when a rival company made you a better offer, simply because some current customers or fans liked your previous work? NO you wouldn't and if married your spouse would probably light you up for at minimum not considering it. The reality of the current situation...... Void, the big nothing.... Hello, it's us Skins fans, anyone there? Please say something. Silence We SAID helloooooooooo, say something NOW Crickets Fine, then you better DO something...soon Stillness Media witch awakens, stirs pot of bull**** WE KNEW IT, the sky is falling and on fire...alas woe is us say something, you've seen the bait, FALL for it and say ANYTHING Yawn That's IT you didn't do what we wanted so were gonna cry and show our mighty anger by demanding beheadings, immediately. Some action is better than continuing to wait AND no matter the ramifications we can just blame the FO and use more imaginary bull**** as evidence later. ------------------------------------------------------------- I swear, some people need to get out more and get some real **** to worry about. As for our one and only football team, I'll wait until something actually occurs. So. Would I take an offer from a rival company or be loyal. That depends on what I am about. Your response tells me abreast deal of what you are about. I am am a full blown, business owing capitalist that would sell my mother to make a deal. However we are not talking about true business, we are referring to football business. If his goal is to make sure that the qb' that followbehind him make enough based on his contract, I do not want him leading an organization I invest time and money, notwithstanding union pressure. HELLO. he is not that good, he is that good any many fans eyes simply because his the the "best" (expressed very loosely) of a lousy lot. The best option out of mediocrity. 3 hours ago, DJD2 said: All Pro ? I must have missed this somewhere along the line. Lololololololololololooolooolololool i am still laughing at all pro. Couldn't agree with you more if he is an all pro I am dating the whole Victoria secret roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Keim just wrote another one, more or less the same as yesterday with some explanation added http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18789067/kirk-cousins-preferred-destination-san-francisco-49ers Kirk Cousins' preferred destination is the San Francisco 49ers, according to a source close to the quarterback. He loved playing for new 49ers coach Kyle Shanahan when he was the Washington Redskins' offensive coordinator. Shanahan is a detail-oriented coach, which meshes well with Cousins. The deadline for teams to use the franchise tag is Wednesday at 4 p.m. ET. It is expected the Redskins will use the designation on Cousins for the second straight year. Once Cousins signs the tag, he can no longer talk to other teams. However, the Redskins could give Cousins permission to speak with another team and then try to work out a trade. The source told ESPN that Cousins would not sign a long-term deal if he were traded anywhere else -- right now. But much of that is based on a desire to be in San Francisco and a lack of familiarity with other teams and their situations. Cousins is a stickler for routine and familiarity. Cousins would not block a trade to another team, but any team that were to trade for him would have to do a lot of convincing in order to get him to sign a long-term contract. Cousins' current stance could limit the market for Washington, but it's not impossible that Cousins would eventually agree to be traded to a team other than the 49ers. If the 49ers don't make a contract offer to Cousins' liking and decide to pursue another quarterback, Cousins would have no choice but to accept a trade to another team or stay in Washington for one more year. The Redskins can negotiate with Cousins on a long-term deal until July 15. At that point, there can be no deal struck until after the Redskins' season. Cousins will make $23.94 million under the tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebestian Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Llevron said: If he wont sign a LTD with anyone but SF it proves its not about winning for him. There is nothing in SF but Kyle Shannahan. Literally nothing. And if people think hes gonna be a good HC out of the gate cause he can draw up an offense then you haven't watched his predecessors. With that ownership and the talent there....he lasts 3 years MAX. Less if they pay Kirk the world and fail out of the gate. This. Everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. Brilliant post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said: Keim just wrote another one, more or less the same as yesterday with some explanation added http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18789067/kirk-cousins-preferred-destination-san-francisco-49ers Kirk Cousins' preferred destination is the San Francisco 49ers, according to a source close to the quarterback. Okay, then tag the **** and trade. Why pay top dollar for a 29 year old QB who doesn't want to be here? Lets stock up on some draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 "The Source told ESPN".. this has about as much veracity as my dog blaming the goldfish for pooping on the floor. Tomorrow can't get here soon enough. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 8 hours ago, Tsailand said: Following up my own post, since I realize that "Redskins will tag Cousins and he will sign the tag" is already common knowledge. The key part of my prediction is that he won't sign the tag right away this time, but take a couple weeks to fake-negotiate with his boys in Cali. I say fake because they won't seriously try to do a deal in 2017, but just plan for 2018. Heres my plan if I'm the Redskins GM. 1. Franchise tag Cousins and make him a long term offer at around the tag level on a per year with attractive guarantees. 2. Have him play on the tag if he declines the long term deal. Someone would have to blow me away for me to make a trade. Swapping first round picks with the 49ers for example is not blowing me away. Their 2nd this year and 1st next year might swing it (I'd rather have their first next year as its a much better QB class). 3. Assuming Kirk plays here this year under the franchise tag in 2018 I put the transition tag on him. Let someone else negotiate the deal. If I like the deal I match, if not I let him walk. 4. I'm drafting a QB high in 2018 come what may. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmiii Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I think the stories of Redskins demise, mismanagement, and poor handling of KC is grossly overstated. They elected to take a wait and see philosophy before last season hoping KC's performance would clearly unify the building. Unfortunately, it was not as clearly indicative as they had hoped. It's not the end of the world. They will franchise KC and ensure we will have a starting caliber QB to start the season. I will be surprised if he plays under the tag this year. I think the most likely option is he will get paid and sign a multiple year deal, but if SF or any other team presents an alternative that is enticing enough so be it. This is simply the business side of football. I'm a league where the organizations usually have all the leverage, it's not unexpected when the roles are reversed the player take all advantage possible. My personal opinion, pay him. They have worked the salary cap effectively so they can afford the hit and still have some cash left to help the team. If Shany is willing to sell the farm to get him, they will have to make some decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arftech Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Find a way to get the picks from San Fran and be done with this situation as I've grown weary of all this posturing in the media from both sides! Hail Em Up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onedrop Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 12 minutes ago, sebestian said: So. Would I take an offer from a rival company or be loyal. That depends on what I am about. Your response tells me abreast deal of what you are about. I am am a full blown, business owing capitalist that would sell my mother to make a deal. However we are not talking about true business, we are referring to football business. If his goal is to make sure that the qb' that followbehind him make enough based on his contract, I do not want him leading an organization I invest time and money, notwithstanding union pressure. HELLO. he is not that good, he is that good any many fans eyes simply because his the the "best" (expressed very loosely) of a lousy lot. The best option out of mediocrity. loyal to whom, the company that wont pay you as much or the family for which you must provide food, shelter, clothing, education, etc for EVER? that is an easy decision and THAT is the kind of man i am. funny that you bring loyalty into the equation at all and then state that you would "sell out your own mother". this is called relative morality and those that engage in it, IMO, do so generally to support an otherwise indefensible position or as an excuse because they hold themselves to a much lower standard than they hold everyone else. but hey, to each their own. 6 minutes ago, arftech said: Find a way to get the picks from San Fran and be done with this situation as I've grown weary of all this posturing in the media from both sides! Hail Em Up! yes! lets talk about all this posturing. you start, go.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebestian Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 6 minutes ago, onedrop said: loyal to whom, the company that wont pay you as much or the family for which you must provide food, shelter, clothing, education, etc for EVER? that is an easy decision and THAT is the kind of man i am. funny that you bring loyalty into the equation at all and then state that you would "sell out your own mother". this is called relative morality and those that engage in it, IMO, do so generally to support an otherwise indefensible position or as an excuse because they hold themselves to a much lower standard than they hold everyone else. but hey, to each their own. yes! lets talk about all this posturing. you start, go.... Your right. I am wrong. Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PigskinRedskin Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Thank you for the clarification @Skinsinparadise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arftech Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 9 minutes ago, onedrop said: yes! lets talk about all this posturing. you start, go.... It's to the point where I don't care if he stays or leaves and I'm not going to waste any further energy about the matter. Hail Em Up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Consigliere Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Rattlesnake88 said: This x1000. I don't recall many people what so ever screaming for the LTD to get done last year. Now after the chips fell, we have the armchair GM's and media sharks clamouring about "botching" the situation. Honestly **** Kirk if he won't take a market deal here with the Skins. I'm down to see him go if any of these(Kirk won't sign with Skins) reports have merit. My view as well. The guy was HISTORICALLY BAD before the Tampa Game in '15 and the following games. God Awful. We had a sample size of half of a season. Maybe that's kinda why we were skeptical? And Osweiler's deal was never the market rate, it was a panic signing by an incompetent franchise and now they're trying to get out from underneath it desperately. See the history of top free agent DT signings compared to Haynesworth, a huge signing doesn't always set a market rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsMayne Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 The only thing makes me think the front office has no idea what is going on is: 1) last year they decided to take their chances and not sign him to a long term deal. I admit, I was ok with that. But I'm not a gm. Now I'm wondering what the plan was. There were two basic possibilities, he'd earn a long term contract or he wouldn't. so, he did. Did the gm have no idea the bind it would put them in? Or did they just assume he would flounder enough to earn a spot as our back up. I feel like the gm wasn't playing two moves ahead, and I think that reflects badly on him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.