Ron78

The (only!) official ES all things Kirk Cousins should we shouldn't we off-season thread.

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, RWJ said:

But Luck wasn't tagged a 2nd time either.

 

True

 

However QB contracts when they're not named Brady, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, or Manning take time. Our team needs to let the chips falls (free agency, draft etc) before they can really get down to biz with Cousins' agent. 

 

It won't be cheap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:
 
  •  

    Rob Carlin Retweeted Albert Breer

    If/when #Redskins move on from Cousins, you'll read tweets like this for years until they find another QB.. Enjoy that anti-Kirk crowd!

    Rob Carlin added,

    Albert BreerVerified account @AlbertBreer
    Per source, Josh McCown is visiting the Jets this weekend. Arrives in Jersey tonight, meets with the team tomorrow.
    0 replies0 retweets0 likes
     
 

giphy.gif

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Let me take a crack at the Bruce-Kirk-Scot narrative.  Going through all the reports from what I recall here are the things that have been said about it from people covering the team:

 

Scot 2015-2016

Didn't think when he was hired that Kirk was the QB of the future.

He changed his mind during camp -- not per se that Kirk was great but that he was the best on the roster

Jay wanted to start Kirk.  Scot and Jay helped convinced Danny and or Danny or Bruce depending on the source 

We've heard Scot's side of the story that he wanted to extend Kirk as early as in the middle of the 2015 season

We also heard he wasn't fully sold on Kirk but not sure on the timeline for that in 2015

 

Bruce 2015-2016

He's the money guy -- RG3 got his big money option year picked up 

I recall two different reporters talking about Bruce being a big Colt guy 

We didn't hear him taking the lead for pushing Kirk.  I gather he was either neutral on it or needed to be convinced

Scot's side of the story (assuming that's where the media got it from) Bruce didn't want to give Kirk a LTC

 

My conclusion:  we haven't heard any side to the story that Bruce wanted to extend Kirk a long term contract in 2015 or right after that season.  I think the part of Scot we can question is if he wanted Kirk but wasn't fully bought in, maybe he wanted Kirk on a cheap contract?  And if so who knows if Kirk would have signed it?   But again I've not seen a side of the story that Bruce was all in, then.  Most of the stuff points to Scot being more pro Kirk initially than Bruce or if Bruce was a big Kirk guy it went below the radar. 

 

Scot 2016-17

we got Scot telling 980, Kirk is one of the best 3 players on the team, blue chip

we got two different stories one was from Jason Cole -- one story indicating he'd be all in paying Kirk a hefty contract, another story implying the opposite

we got the jerry Brewer story about whether Kirk's stats are inflated and not meaningful

we got the how do you like me now drill 

we got the jerry brewer story that backed off of that story and said Kirk looks like the real deal

I asked Scot directly about it, he agreed with me that Colt isn't the answer. 

We got the Cole story suggesting that they might trade Kirk

 

Bruce 2016-2017

We got a story that he didn't want to sign Kirk at the end of this season after Scot's urging. (Mike Jones)

We got a story that Scot ultimately wanted to trade Kirk but Bruce didn't (Cole, Paulsen)

We got a series of reporters saying they feel Bruce will not pay Kirk 24 million plus so they don't think a deal will get done

We got multiple reporters (as recent as today) saying some in the building think Colt could be just as good as Kirk and it might be the smarter more economical decision to go that way

We got several reporters say that Bruce is unabashed about calling himself frugal and cheap when it comes to giving contracts

We have Scot out of the building for about 3 weeks and in that span the Kirk trade rumors have gotten hotter and we haven't heard of any progress. 

 

My conclusion:  I think the 2016 season and 2017 off season is the harder to make out.  We are hearing just about everything.   And its not hard to come up with theories to connect the dots.  

 

The most obvious pro Scot connect the dots narrative would be IMO:

Scot thought the time to resign Kirk was after the 2015 season.  He checked in with Kirk's agent after the 2016 season to talk contract but once he learned of Kirk's demands coupled with Bruce wanting Kirk much cheaper than that -- Scot goes we are spinning our wheels and wasting our time, we aren't going to get a deal done, we got to trade him.

 

The most obvious pro Bruce connect the dots narrative would be IMO:

Scot didn't want to pay Kirk the current market deal, and leaked stories to that effect.  Bruce was on board in giving Kirk the deal and was incensed with Scot leaking stories to the press that the team is looking to trade Kirk.

 

My thoughts-guess

The truth is probably somewhere in between all of this.  I think there might have been some I told you so coming from Scot in 2017 directed at Bruce such as:  now we might lose Kirk or its going to cost us millions more.  Implying that Bruce screwed up.   Bruce is upset at Scot in kind suggesting that Scot wasn't always sold on Kirk and just because Scot wanted to sign him in 2015 doesn't mean Kirk would have taken the deal.   The scuttlebutt on Scot/Bruce has a lot of Kirk in that story so I gather it created some of the rift between the two guys.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Boss_Hogg said:

 

Easier and cheaper to sign a DE with 7 fingers than a franchise QB. 

 

Money is higher, negotiations are longer. Andrew Luck didn't re-sign his until June of 2016. 

 

I never claimed otherwise.  My point is centered on getting a deal deal that isn't per se a bargain.  Paying $15 million dollars to a 7 fingered DE actually in my view is a more risky investment (and isn't a bargain) than $24 million for a QB that you believe in -- assuming they do.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McLoughan left for two reasons...

 

1. The team didn't support him publically when Cooley suspected him of returning to alcohol abuse(whether true or not)

 

2. (bigger reason)He was overruled multiple times on personnel decisions, some major some minor, when he was told he'd have control over the roster when hired

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Draft the best RB, give Cousins the money. Cousins looked bad a lot of the time because we were crap running the ball. If he had Elliott then he would be the highest paid QB now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has Bruce done to warrant power of QB decisions? After his epic fails with McNabb and Griffin he shouldn't even have a job. Does he clean Snyder's  office and get his coffee in the morning? I just don't understand Snyder's loyalty to him. If it weren't for his last name he'd be working as a gopher at a law firm..

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Let me take a crack at the Bruce-Kirk-Scot narrative.  Going through all the reports from what I recall here are the things that have been said about it from people covering the team:

 

Scot 2015-2016

Didn't think when he was hired that Kirk was the QB of the future.

He changed his mind during camp -- not per se that Kirk was great but that he was the best on the roster

Jay wanted to start Kirk.  Scot and Jay helped convinced Danny and or Danny or Bruce depending on the source 

We've heard Scot's side of the story that he wanted to extend Kirk as early as in the middle of the 2015 season

We also heard he wasn't fully sold on Kirk but not sure on the timeline for that in 2015

 

Bruce 2015-2016

He's the money guy -- RG3 got his big money option year picked up 

I recall two different reporters talking about Bruce being a big Colt guy 

We didn't hear him taking the lead for pushing Kirk.  I gather he was either neutral on it or needed to be convinced

Scot's side of the story (assuming that's where the media got it from) Bruce didn't want to give Kirk a LTC

 

My conclusion:  we haven't heard any side to the story that Bruce wanted to extend Kirk a long term contract in 2015 or right after that season.  I think the part of Scot we can question is if he wanted Kirk but wasn't fully bought in, maybe he wanted Kirk on a cheap contract?  And if so who knows if Kirk would have signed it?   But again I've not seen a side of the story that Bruce was all in, then.  Most of the stuff points to Scot being more pro Kirk initially than Bruce or if Bruce was a big Kirk guy it went below the radar. 

 

 

...........

 

My conclusion:  I think the 2016 season and 2017 off season is the harder to make out.  We are hearing just about everything.   And its not hard to come up with theories to connect the dots.  

 

The most obvious pro Scot connect the dots narrative would be IMO:

Scot thought the time to resign Kirk was after the 2015 season.  He checked in with Kirk's agent after the 2016 season to talk contract but once he learned of Kirk's demands coupled with Bruce wanting Kirk much cheaper than that -- Scot goes we are spinning our wheels and wasting our time, we aren't going to get a deal done, we got to trade him.

 

The most obvious pro Bruce connect the dots narrative would be IMO:

Scot didn't want to pay Kirk the current market deal, and leaked stories to that effect.  Bruce was on board in giving Kirk the deal and was incensed with Scot leaking stories to the press that the team is looking to trade Kirk.

 

My thoughts-guess

The truth is probably somewhere in between all of this.  I think there might have been some I told you so coming from Scot in 2017 directed at Bruce such as:  now we might lose Kirk or its going to cost us millions more.  Implying that Bruce screwed up.   Bruce is upset at Scot in kind suggesting that Scot wasn't always sold on Kirk and just because Scot wanted to sign him in 2015 doesn't mean Kirk would have taken the deal.   The scuttlebutt on Scot/Bruce has a lot of Kirk in that story so I gather it created some of the rift between the two guys.  

 

 

You think Bruce has real power?  I don't, I think he's Snyder's current hand puppet and he's lasted this long because of his last name and the well of goodwill for his Allen's father.  I think Snyder always runs things behind useful shields like Allen and for a time Scot Mccloughan.  It wasn't fun for Snyder when Marty ran the team and it hasn't changed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

You think Bruce has real power?  I don't, I think he's Snyder's current hand puppet and he's lasted this long because of his last name and the well of goodwill for his Allen's father.  I think Snyder always runs things behind useful shields like Allen and for a time Scot Mccloughan.  It wasn't fun for Snyder when Marty ran the team and it hasn't changed.

 

When it was Vinny, we outspent everyone in FA.

With Bruce, it's be cheapskate dates.

Bruce has been calling the shots.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Califan007 said:

There's some saying that goes something like "Intelligence is the ability to see things from a multitude of perspectives". There are always perspectives that makes things appear different than they first appear. We lose nothing by trying to find them.

 

Look, brother, I don't have enough passion here to be right. Not enough to actually debate this with you. I've got no pride here about my views. I hope, more than anything, I'm dead wrong and am being an idiot. There isn't an ounce of me that looks forward to some opportunity of saying "told ya so" or having the correct position like I was smart or something. I hate that I'm even expressing these views, cuz I don't want to bring anyone down here. 

 

I disagree with some (not all) of your points here and, believe me, I can provide a solid rebuttal. @Skinsinparadisetouched upon it already. 

 

But the above part I quoted (as well as the naive thing) rubbed me the wrong way, I'm sorry to say. I hope I got you wrong there, but I feel like calling my views naive or (what seemed like) lecturing me about seeing things from different perspectives is pretty insulting considering how far back you and I go here. I'd think you knew me well enough to not even remotely insinuate I'm being one-sided or not looking at this "from a multitude of perspectives". 

 

In fact, I might argue it's the opposite. Might.

 

You see, I've actually changed my views here in the last month. You know this, as we've been pretty much on the same side throughout. Furthermore, I always framed everything with the acknowledgement of many sides (for instance, I've frequently stated that both the media and organization can be at fault, it's not mutually exclusive). 

 

So I was saying one thing, and as more info kept trickling out along with actual - factual - occurrences (Scot not going to the combine, then getting fired, leaks in abundance coming from various levels within the organization, players openly expressing distaste/confusion, etc...), my view changed. I feel like you've got verifiable proof that I'm actually implementing the truth of what you just quoted there. That "intelligence is the ability to see things from a multitude of perspectives". 

 

I've literally just showed here over the course of this thing that I can see different angles to this, whereas you literally stated that your position has remained unchanged. I know that doesn't mean you aren't doing the same when arriving to your conclusion, but you see how this can be argued that it's advice you should take more than give to me? Can you see why I was insulted by that, at least? 

 

But that's ok. Like I said, I hope I'm being an idiot. I hope Bruce and Dan are clean in all of this. I hope it's all been overblown, the media is even more toxic than imagined, and all is well with the organization. 

 

I promise, I don't say that to condescend nor patronize. I don't begrudge you for your views. I'd love to feel the same way and part of me is jealous of you. I just don't right now, and I think I've earned enough benefit of the doubt here for anyone to acknowledge I'm not just being illogical, exclusively emotional or irrational.  

 

Hopefully they change my mind again like they did when they hired Scot. Or more info comes out shedding light on all of this in a clear way that exonerates them for me. But don't assume that, just because I haven't laid out exactly why I feel the way I do in detail with all the info I've gathered and processed, I'm being naive or not acknowledging various perspectives.  :) 

Edited by thesubmittedone
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Alexa, you answered your own question. He's George's kid. I'm sure Gibbs' son could get a pass from us X-gen folk.

 

@Morneblade , I agree. Poor Danny Boy. He can't win for **** in football. Make it rain$$=fail.......Be conservative=fail. Hire people to run the show but you still get all the blame.When we win in, it's in spite of Snyder they say. Some call him the worst owner in sports. I hope he gets a trophy some day.

Edited by TheShredSkinz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheShredSkinz said:

, I agree. Poor Danny Boy. He can't win for **** in football. Make it rain$$=fail.......Be conservative=fail. Hire people to run the show but you still get all the blame.When we win in, it's in spite of Snyder they say. Some call him the worst owner in sports. I hope he gets a trophy some day.

im-out.gif

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

 

:drooley:

17 minutes ago, Stefanskins said:

lol Well, I'll just excuse myself too... : )

 

 

 

:drooley:

lemmings-off-the-cliff-o.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

You think Bruce has real power?  I don't, I think he's Snyder's current hand puppet and he's lasted this long because of his last name and the well of goodwill for his Allen's father.  I think Snyder always runs things behind useful shields like Allen and for a time Scot Mccloughan.  It wasn't fun for Snyder when Marty ran the team and it hasn't changed.

 

I don't know.  But I got no problem with people wanting to use Danny and Bruce interchangeably.   Albert Breer said that the Scot/Bruce drill is driven by Bruce with no Danny involvement. But who knows?  Maybe Bruce is just doing his job and doing what Danny asked him to do.  It's all plausible to me.   if you saw one of my recent posts I laid out that Danny has been the one constant in the common thread of issues with this team over the years. 

 

And again I give both Danny/Bruce an out if they do the right thing and ultimately resign Kirk and if the Bruce interfering with Scot is overplayed than I think Bruce can help prove so by who his next GM hire.  My point about Danny/Bruce in all of this isn't to condemn either one but I don't see how they get the benefit of the doubt either.  And I think there is a decent chance we will never get the full story.  It's rare that we do.   And if so, we go with our guts on it.  My gut is Bruce/Danny interfered and Scot was out of hand.  I buy into both stories.  But I'll ease off on Bruce/Danny if they resign Kirk and hire a real GM not a crony. 

 

Back to Kirk, as I thought through the timeline and what's been said.  The one thing I've not seen contradicted is that Bruce/Danny didn't want to give Kirk a long term contract during the 2015 season and post 2015 season.  My fear is if Bruce was the guy making the recommendation not to resign Kirk back then -- Bruce is on the spot now to show that his decision didn't cost the team tens of millions of dollars coupled with losing all leverage in negotiations.   And if so, it could explain his seemingly stuck in the mud position in what they are offering him.   The bottom line then for Bruce is to show not resigning Kirk back in 2015/early 2016 wasn't a bad decision after all, where it will barely cost any more now then it would have if they resigned him back then -- versus reality which is from a money stand point/leverage stand point it was a very costly decision.  That's just a theory on my end which I find plausible and hope its not true.

 

It's also equally plausible to me that Bruce/Danny plan to up their bid and get it done and will take it up to the July 15th deadline.  I've said the same many times on this thread.  I've come off this theory some because its been one heck of a bumpy ride leading up to it so far -- so for my own sanity :ols: I'd rather they get this done sooner.   People used the Andrew Luck contract situation as a comparison to defend what's going on here -- but to me the Luck drill wasn't a bumpy ride at all, it came off smooth with no narratives about Luck wanting out, being unhappy or the Colts wanting to trade him.   We can blame it all on the media.  But as Cooley/Sheehan said (and I agree with them) stuff like Kirk asking to be traded (when he was inquiring about whether they plan to trade him) to Danny and that gets out -- that likely got out from someone at Redskins Park so its tough to blame this all on the media manufacturing stories out of thin air.

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the most dysfunctional organization I've ever seen at the so called "professional" level.  To let the Kirk Cousins situation get to this point is completely absurd and it reeks of "I don't know what the hell I'm doing".  Can someone tell me what tangible benefit there is to dragging this out any further?  Kirk's position will only get stronger the more they wait....he has the upper hand on everything.  All it does it make us more desperate the longer we wait.  Another QB solution is not a solution at all.  Everyone and their mother knows that you must have continuity to have success in the NFL.  This off-season has left a very foul taste in my mouth and I'm rapidly loosing faith in this franchise.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, srtman04 said:

This is the most dysfunctional organization I've ever seen at the so called "professional" level.  To let the Kirk Cousins situation get to this point is completely absurd and it reeks of "I don't know what the hell I'm doing".  Can someone tell me what tangible benefit there is to dragging this out any further?  Kirk's position will only get stronger the more they wait....he has the upper hand on everything.  All it does it make us more desperate the longer we wait.  Another QB solution is not a solution at all.  Everyone and their mother knows that you must have continuity to have success in the NFL.  This off-season has left a very foul taste in my mouth and I'm rapidly loosing faith in this franchise.  

 

hate.jpg

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, srtman04 said:

This is the most dysfunctional organization I've ever seen at the so called "professional" level.  To let the Kirk Cousins situation get to this point is completely absurd and it reeks of "I don't know what the hell I'm doing".  Can someone tell me what tangible benefit there is to dragging this out any further?  Kirk's position will only get stronger the more they wait....he has the upper hand on everything.  All it does it make us more desperate the longer we wait.  Another QB solution is not a solution at all.  Everyone and their mother knows that you must have continuity to have success in the NFL.  This off-season has left a very foul taste in my mouth and I'm rapidly loosing faith in this franchise.  

 

To base the ineptitude of the franchise in relation to the Kirk situation is unfair. There's two sides to this situation and the circumstances are highly unique. 

 

Everything else thats gone on, sure, it's madness lol. I agree. 

 

I feel compelled to pound the table and state if you agree that Cousins is doing right and should look for every bit he can get, then don't blame the franchise for engaging in similar actions. Can't have it both ways. 

 

 

Edited by wit33
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, srtman04 said:

This is the most dysfunctional organization I've ever seen at the so called "professional" level.  To let the Kirk Cousins situation get to this point is completely absurd and it reeks of "I don't know what the hell I'm doing".  Can someone tell me what tangible benefit there is to dragging this out any further?  Kirk's position will only get stronger the more they wait....he has the upper hand on everything.  All it does it make us more desperate the longer we wait.  Another QB solution is not a solution at all.  Everyone and their mother knows that you must have continuity to have success in the NFL.  This off-season has left a very foul taste in my mouth and I'm rapidly loosing faith in this franchise.  

 

Yes!  A thousand times yes!  Even if the they come to a long term deal with Cousins Snyder has shredded the hope I had since August 2015 when SM & JG benched Griffin and they started to function like a real NFL team.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Veryoldschool said:

 

You think Bruce has real power?  I don't, I think he's Snyder's current hand puppet and he's lasted this long because of his last name and the well of goodwill for his Allen's father.  I think Snyder always runs things behind useful shields like Allen and for a time Scot Mccloughan.  It wasn't fun for Snyder when Marty ran the team and it hasn't changed.

 

He's lasted this long because he's increased the team value by a couple billion dollars. At the end of the day the NFL is a business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

McLoughan left for two reasons...

 

1. The team didn't support him publically when Cooley suspected him of returning to alcohol abuse(whether true or not)

 

2. (bigger reason)He was overruled multiple times on personnel decisions, some major some minor, when he was told he'd have control over the roster when hired

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with any of your points but what's confusing is that I've been reading that Scott just made the board and handed it off so he was never really a full decision maker, just scouting.  I think that was in the last article by Breer. I imagine Scott knew this was the chain of command and took the job anyway, plus he already went through one season under this protocol, I guess it could have become an issue if it started with him making full personnel decisions and then it changed after he was hired but I'm not sure there's any meat here on that being a reason to want out.

 

Your first point could be true, but I don't think the Skins wanted anyone to know the truth which is why they were quiet, unfortunately our friends in the media took care of that and in doing so they embarrassed Scott, none of this needed to come out, as fans we shouldn't be guaranteed information that is personal and sensitive, that goes for any disease not just alcoholism.

 

The media sucks, this is why they have a lower approval rating than President Cray Cray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, wit33 said:

 

To base the ineptitude of the franchise in relation to the Kirk situation is unfair. There's two sides to this situation and the circumstances are highly unique. 

 

Everything else thats gone on, sure, it's madness lol. I agree. 

 

I feel compelled to pound the table and state if you agree that Cousins is doing right and should look for every bit he can get, then don't blame the franchise for engaging in similar actions. Can't have it both ways. 

 

 

 

I'm not blaming Kirk at all.  I'm blaming this highly dysfunctional FO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

 

He's lasted this long because he's increased the team value by a couple billion dollars. At the end of the day the NFL is a business.

 

Well, not nearly that much. According to Forbes in 2010 the team was worth 1.6 billion, 2nd behind the Cowboys (which took 1st place from us in 2006). Right now we're worth 2.95 billion, but only in 5th place. So, it's not so much what he has done, but the market in general for the NFL, in which we are actually lagging behind some.

 

Edited by Morneblade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.