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

[Butters20]

Kirk and his agent are brilliant 

 

by suggesting he is ok playing under the tag, he is taking a major dig at the leverage the skins think they gain with a tag. Most players immediately clamor for a LtD when they get the tag, due to the perception that they are being sent to their room by the team. 

 

Kirk said, ok I'd rather play in my room with all my toys anyways. 

 

So what do the redskins do next? lol. 

[Gregpeck99]

1 minute ago, Butters20 said:

So what do the redskins do next? lol. 

Punt!

[wit33]

1 hour ago, Butters20 said:

Kirk and his agent are brilliant 

 

by suggesting he is ok playing under the tag, he is taking a major dig at the leverage the skins think they gain with a tag. Most players immediately clamor for a LtD when they get the tag, due to the perception that they are being sent to their room by the team. 

 

Kirk said, ok I'd rather play in my room with all my toys anyways. 

 

So what do the redskins do next? lol. 

 

As a fan of the Skins, you celebrate this? 

 

My thoughts differ, as I believe it sucks "we" have a QB willing to do this.  What other leverage does a team have if not a long term deal? 

[Butters20]

No I don't celebrate it and In fact it really irritates me. 

 

But I still acknowledge and recognize the deliberate strategy Kirk and his agent are using. 

 

Our leverage is not a LTD. that is our end goal. 

Our leverage(if you can call it that at this point) is the LACK of long term security that comes with a franchise tag. 

 

Kirk just seems to be calling The bluff publicly, much to our chagrine. 

[wit33]

2 minutes ago, Butters20 said:

No I don't celebrate it and In fact it really irritates me. 

 

But I still acknowledge and recognize the deliberate strategy Kirk and his agent are using. 

 

Our leverage is not a LTD. that is our end goal. 

Our leverage(if you can call it that at this point) is the LACK of long term security that comes with a franchise tag. 

 

Kirk just seems to be calling The bluff publicly, much to our chagrine. 

 

Is a LTD leverage or not for the team? 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Man, I saw this on twitter just now...

 

 

 

 

 

...then after my heart pounded in my chest for a second I read the rest...

 

 

 

i hate twitter lol...

 

 

[carex]

2 hours ago, Butters20 said:

Kirk and his agent are brilliant 

 

by suggesting he is ok playing under the tag, he is taking a major dig at the leverage the skins think they gain with a tag. Most players immediately clamor for a LtD when they get the tag, due to the perception that they are being sent to their room by the team. 

 

Kirk said, ok I'd rather play in my room with all my toys anyways. 

 

So what do the redskins do next? lol. 

 

the Redskins did not put him under the tag because of leverage they put him under the tag so no one else can sign him

[Morneblade]

1 hour ago, Butters20 said:

No I don't celebrate it and In fact it really irritates me. 

 

But I still acknowledge and recognize the deliberate strategy Kirk and his agent are using. 

 

Our leverage is not a LTD. that is our end goal. 

Our leverage(if you can call it that at this point) is the LACK of long term security that comes with a franchise tag. 

 

Kirk just seems to be calling The bluff publicly, much to our chagrine. 

 

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

 

As a fan of the Skins, you celebrate this? 

 

My thoughts differ, as I believe it sucks "we" have a QB willing to do this.  What other leverage does a team have if not a long term deal? 

 

What on earth are you talking about? What do you WANT him to do, say he would NOT play under the tag, like several players have? Instead, he says the tag tells him that Redskins value him. And you guys are getting pissy about it?

 

It's very hard to take you seriously.

[wit33]

6 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

 

What on earth are you talking about? What do you WANT him to do, say he would NOT play under the tag, like several players have? Instead, he says the tag tells him that Redskins value him. And you guys are getting pissy about it?

 

It's very hard to take you seriously.

 

It's not hard for me, so it makes it easy for me to discuss. 

 

Is is it normal place what he's doing as the QB? Is it normal place for a franchise to not sign a competent QB?

 

The answer to both is no. So of course there's going to be ongoing conversation about it, especially in April. 

 

You could be on the right side and this being the new NFL, similarly to that of the NBA , where players run the league. For me personally, that's when I'll draw back and dedicate time elsewhere. That's just me though. 

 

Not a right or wrong thing. 

[TSO]

Talk of whether or not anyone is celebrating this situation is ridiculous. There isn't some argument to be made here about who is right or wrong, it's simply the reality. 

 

1) The team created Kirk's market when they tagged him twice. Which is the only thing unprecedented here, Kirk's side's  reaction is just that; a reaction to what is unprecedented so, by default, that reaction would be unique. They are automatically stating his value to them by paying him that percentage of the cap now two years running, with talk of even being willing to do it a third time. 

 

2) Because of this, Kirk has absolutely zero incentive to accept any amount of guaranteed money below this because he's willing to bet on himself. He's young for a QB, plays at a position and with a style that is not remotely at high risk of injury, and is extremely unlikely to regress. Furthermore, he's extremely confident of all of these things and has no reason not to be. 

 

It's that simple. There really isn't anything "brilliant" about it, and the only thing unfortunate is that the team should've recognized this earlier.

 

Now, of course there was some rationale behind them not doing so, but it'd have also been nice if they had shown better foresight on the matter. That's what making great moves is all about in the NFL, not figuring things out after the fact or creating a tough situation you have to work your way out of. 

 

This was and always has been in the team's hands. They controlled what they did with him whether it was applying the tag, offering him an acceptable deal (of which isn't as hard to identify as some are positing here), or trading him. 

 

The only thing we'd be able to actually fault him for is IF the team offered him a contract that guaranteed him the money they're already willing to guarantee him via all of these tags, as well as long term security in addition to that, and THEN he rejected that... well, yeah, then he doesn't want to be here and there's no question about it. 

 

But even then I personally wouldn't hate him for it because, as a fan, I've been so frustrated with our seeming inability to have any semblance of stability at the highest levels along with constantly seeing those we hire here leave in bitterness that it'd be hypocritical of me to point the finger. As much as I'd detest the situation because I want what's best for the team, and would want him to feel the same way, I can't trash anyone for feeling otherwise.  

[Butters20]

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

 

Is a LTD leverage or not for the team? 

 

The threat of Not having one is, yes. 

 

Not many players get scared into a short term deal with the threat of a LTD. 

24 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

 

What on earth are you talking about? What do you WANT him to do, say he would NOT play under the tag, like several players have? Instead, he says the tag tells him that Redskins value him. And you guys are getting pissy about it?

 

It's very hard to take you seriously.

 

I believe the only point was that Kirk has responded in a way that takes our perceived leverage away. By doing exactly the opposite of a typical player receiving the tag. 

 

interpret that however you will. 

 

The rest was trying to explain to someone who disagreed or didn't understand. 

 

 

[Morneblade]

24 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

It's not hard for me, so it makes it easy for me to discuss. 

 

Is is it normal place what he's doing as the QB? Is it normal place for a franchise to not sign a competent QB?

 

The answer to both is no. So of course there's going to be ongoing conversation about it, especially in April. 

 

You could be on the right side and this being the new NFL, similarly to that of the NBA , where players run the league. For me personally, that's when I'll draw back and dedicate time elsewhere. That's just me though. 

 

Not a right or wrong thing. 

 

So, because the FO didn't sign Kirk to a LTD is now his fault? If you should be blaming anyone, it's the FO. They are the ones that were cheap and short sighted.

 

6 minutes ago, Butters20 said:

 

 

I believe the only point was that Kirk has responded in a way that takes our perceived leverage away. By doing exactly the opposite of a typical player receiving the tag. 

 

interpret that however you will. 

 

The rest was trying to explain to someone who disagreed or didn't understand. 

 

 

 

We never had any leverage once 2016 ended. His body of work demanded that he was going to get paid top dollar. The fact that he wasn't an asshole about it should be seen as a good thing, and yet people here are looking at Kirk and saying he's greedy, or something else inane.

[Butters20]

Perhaps, but I'm not saying he's greedy. 

 

Im not saying anything except he's smart

[dyst]

Redskins have no leverage. Only leverage they have is if Kirk gets a huge injury this year otherwise, Kirk is in charge fully.

[Rattlesnake88]

10 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

We never had any leverage once 2016 ended. His body of work demanded that he was going to get paid top dollar. The fact that he wasn't an asshole about it should be seen as a good thing, and yet people here are looking at Kirk and saying he's greedy, or something else inane.

My biggest issue was his lack of accountability after the loss to the Giants week 17. It wasn't a bad throw by Kirk, it was DRC making a "good play". 

 

His priority in posturing for a big contract vs being an accountable leader was frustrating. 

 

That being said the guy has a good agent coaching him on the situation. Kirk has zero loyalty to the Redskins organization. Yet contrary to what many people tout around here, team loyalty and continuity means a lot to some players. Not seeing it from "our guy" is a little hurtful as a fan, however it is business. Im just hoping once we lock him up, which I still believe we will...That Kirk will have the pressure of the contract relieve him of some of his guardedness and allow him to be looser in his play, more accountable and maybe show some love to the D.C. Area/fanbase/organization.

 

You  also have made the point that our front office has blown it in the past with his contract. This is true. Honestly biggest culprit in the entire ordeal is them not locking him up when they had the chance.

[Morneblade]

2 minutes ago, Rattlesnake88 said:

My biggest issue was his lack of accountability after the loss to the Giants week 17. It wasn't a bad throw by Kirk, it was DRC making a "good play". 

 

The other guys get paid to play too.

 

2 minutes ago, Rattlesnake88 said:

His priority in posturing for a big contract vs being an accountable leader was frustrating. 

 

What posturing?

 

2 minutes ago, Rattlesnake88 said:

That being said the guy has a good agent coaching him on the situation. Kirk has zero loyalty to the Redskins organization. Yet contrary to what many people tout around here, team loyalty and continuity means a lot to some players. Not seeing it from "our guy" is a little hurtful as a fan, however it is business. Im just hoping once we lock him up, which I still believe we will...That Kirk will have the pressure of the contract relieve him of some of his guardedness and allow him to be loser in his play, more accountable and maybe show some love to the D.C. Area/fanbase/organization.

 

And you know this how?

 

2 minutes ago, Rattlesnake88 said:

You  also have made the point that our front office has blown it in the past with his contract. This is true. Honestly biggest culprit in the entire ordeal is them not locking him up when they had the chance.

 

So, the FO gambled and lost. It's 100% on them and they need to admit it and pony up.

[Rattlesnake88]

3 minutes ago, Morneblade said:

 

The other guys get paid to play too.

-right but with far less friction from their camp. More open talk about wanting to stay where they are.

 

What posturing?

-Did you not watch his post game presser week 17? Total lack of accountability. It was as if he wasn't mad they lost, but more protective of how it made him look.

 

And you know this how?

-"Zero" might have been slightly hyperbolic. However saying he has a duty to upcoming qb contracts vs a duty to his team is pretty telling. Everything he has said and done has been strictly business and lacked conviction to his team.

 

So, the FO gambled and lost. It's 100% on them and they need to admit it and pony up.

-Agreed.

 

[bowhunter]

Do you find it VERY disturbing that we've signed such low loyalty guys like Pryor, Swearinger, and Brown this off season......

 

[Morneblade]

57 minutes ago, Rattlesnake88 said:

 

 

The fact that he has already been working with the WR's, helping Pryor learn the offense and things like that could be looked at as trying to help the team, right?

 

Also, from what I have seen, Kirk doesn't talk much about ANYTHING. He seems to be pretty private. What little he has said has been positive. Art Monk was pretty private too, and he ended up with a unfair bad rap on him because of it. I'm not going to jump to conclusions on what he does not say publicly. I've heard nothing but good things about him from a locker room standpoint.

[carex]

I find the talk about wanting his contract to be something for future QBs to be kind of wrong headed.  I mean I suppose it's nice, but he should be wanting to QB a team that puts three other guys out on the streets yearly, embarasses them in the playoffs and Super Bowl, which are things the aren't conducive to getting big contracts ,you know?

[Morneblade]

8 minutes ago, carex said:

I find the talk about wanting his contract to be something for future QBs to be kind of wrong headed.  I mean I suppose it's nice, but he should be wanting to QB a team that puts three other guys out on the streets yearly, embarasses them in the playoffs and Super Bowl, which are things the aren't conducive to getting big contracts ,you know?

 

Now, this is a better argument.

 

I certainly understand why Kirk would feel this way when you consider how for the vast majority of the life of the NFL the players have been very disposable, and how long term effect of the game have been pushed up the rug.

 

But I will also admit that It would be nice to see some fire, and not just right after a game. But, I think it's pretty obvious he's very aware of how words can be manipulated and tends to be VERY PC. I'd like to see him be a little more vocal about beating Dallas, and things like that, but that might not be him.

[wit33]

I thought reports were Kirk and reps were always operating under tag money compensation as a negotiating starting point, even before being tagged last year and continue to do so today. 

 

Is this not true? 

[TSO]

2 hours ago, wit33 said:

I thought reports were Kirk and reps were always operating under tag money compensation as a negotiating starting point, even before being tagged last year and continue to do so today. 

 

Is this not true? 

 

No. Not in terms of guaranteed money, at least, which is what matters most.  

 

Quote

According to “a source with knowledge of the Redskins’ decision,” Cousins’ camp offered the Redskins a “three-year deal last February worth $19.5 [million] a year with significant guarantees.” That offer was still on the table in July.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.hogshaven.com/platform/amp/2017/3/9/14866610/report-redskins-rejected-kirk-cousins-deal-for-3-years-19-5-million-per-year-last-offseason

 

We don't know what those guarantees were, but let's just accept that they were "significant" as the report indicates. Either way, it's going to be less than the total amount there of 19.5/year, so that means they weren't "operating under tag money compensation as a starting point". Heck, the 19.5/year is less than the tag was at that point (19.953 million) without even taking into account the increases of tagging him again (and again). 

 

 

3 hours ago, Morneblade said:

Now, this is a better argument.

 

I certainly understand why Kirk would feel this way when you consider how for the vast majority of the life of the NFL the players have been very disposable, and how long term effect of the game have been pushed up the rug.

 

It's actually not a better argument (I think you were just being nice  ), because @carex fails to mention the context of Kirk's comment. He's not the only one to do this, it's become a thing. 

 

But to phrase it like it's "Kirk Cousin's talk", as if he's just randomly bringing this up and saying he's got to do this for all other QBs, is a gross misrepresentation at best. 

 

The guy was asked a total troll question by some reporter about why he wouldn't just accept whatever the team offered him or a "team friendly deal". 

 

To be honest, I'm not sure I've ever heard a reporter ask that to a player directly. I was sincerely impressed at how he responded, because when I heard it I was thinking, "really, dude?"

 

I don't know how I would've reacted were I in his shoes. 

 

I guess players shouldn't dare negotiate, have agents, recognize their value, etc... and should just accept whatever their team or any other team offers them and that's that. Amazing that question was even asked and he was put in that extremely awkward spot.

 

I don't want to trash the reporter because his intent may have been only to allow Kirk to explain to the rest of us what the reporter knows and believes himself about it. Still, it's not a good look to me. 

 

But I guess it would've been nice for Kirk to say "I'd take a discount, sure" just so we can sleep better as fans even though it'd be utter bull**** like it is 99% of the time. 

 

Remember Galette last offseason after he had tweeted a million times about his loyalty to Scot and the organization, his tattoo, all of that crap... and then he goes on to play hardball in negotiations to re-sign him, only to then say "I just wanted Scot to sweat a little" or something like that? Or how about Garçon initially saying, frankly, that he'll play wherever he's paid and we even found out he had asked for a trade... but then he's on NFL Network decked out in Redskins' gear and tugging at our heart strings this offseason?  

 

And don't think for one second I'm putting those players down. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I only want the players we do pay to put in the work, accept their coaching, and do everything they can to succeed while they're on the team. That's enough for me to root for them. The fluff talk or lack of fluff talk outside of this is just that. Fluff.

 

Meh. 

[carex]

no, actually I didn't reacall Gallette doing anything in negotiations especially since he ended up signing  very team friendly deal.  I do remember Garcon, and I remember people not liking his comment.

[TSO]

2 hours ago, carex said:

no, actually I didn't reacall Gallette doing anything in negotiations especially since he ended up signing  very team friendly deal.  

 

Well, we were all annoyed with him last offseason. It happened. And he had way fewer options than most players. 

 

Either way, that's just one example out of many. It's extremely naive to think otherwise.