ESPN.com: Kirk Cousins contract talks with Redskins on positive track

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, zoony said:

Not sure exactly why, but I think I feel less optimistic than I ever have that a deal gets done.  My gut is starting to tell me he is gone after this year.  Just too much baggage at this point from both sides

 

Sigh, hope Im wrong

What if we use a transition tag and let the market formally set his value and match it?  I don't feel confident about this either, and the definition of insanity is using do the same franchise tag every year to try to get the perfect deal done.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

3 hours ago, goskins10 said:

1) If he doesn't sign he has to be willing to hold out. Why would you hold out when you are guaranteed at least $28M and then become a FA with no chance of being tagged?

- Because you want what every player wants: a long term deal at fair market value. The Skins will be saying loud and clear that they don't want to give him a LTD if they franchise tag him again, so why NOT hold out and force their hand to either come up with a LTD or trade him or rescind the tag and let him go to free agency.

 

2) Fair - but it's a small risk. Despite the doom and gloom, the fact is there are just not many if any teams ready to pay any QB more than $28M, not even for just one year. 

- But the point is, signing him to a 3 year deal eliminates it altogether, which is better.

 

3) Fair but let's but my point is it's not really much better. If you can't lock him up for 4 or 5 yrs, may as well just play the FT thing and hope to sign him next year. I do not like this idea and don't want them to do it but it still makes more sense than a 3 yr deal.

- $24 M a year is always better than $26 M a year, especially when you get him for an extra year at a cheaper price. Why pay him MORE money and "hope to sign him" when you can play him less money and KNOW he's signed, then hope to extend it at some point by 2020?

 

4)  I agree but a 3 yr deal is just one additional year and that's my point. If you don't; want him past 3 yrs then you should not sign him for 3. Transition tag him and draft another QB.

- You are only looking at the length of time and not the reasons applying the FT year after year after year is a detriment. So you gain far ore than just one more year.

 

5)  He already has $44M reasons to stay. If he is not sold on by now, then move on. 

- What he already earned $$$ wise plays no role in what he feel he deserves moving forward. Not sure too many players have ever said "Yanno what, you guys have paid me so much already, I'll just go ahead and accept your offer and stay even though I'm positive if I hit free agency I could get more per year." However, if you make the circumstances he would be leaving more appealing--which achieving some real success with this team and this coach would do-- it becomes another selling point on signing with us.

 

5) There will always be someone else. There are always QB needy teams and most have mega CAP space because they are not currently paying a franchise QB. It may be different teams - but there will always be someone.

- No, there is not "always" gonna be QB-needy teams with a ****load of cap space, and with teams being more willing to go with rookie QBs their contracts don't take up very much cap space...so a lot of times teams with a lot of cap space have their QB still on their rookie contract...and the Skins could position themselves better in terms of cap space in the 3 years he's signed with us to better compete with whatever teams that are out there.

 

6) Same as #4 - you are repeating... lol

- Actually this was just one of the reasons that would fall under #4 lol...

 

7) This is more just kicking the can down the street for later. Again, just FT him again if you are going to do that. You still have the same problem as it's not like the FT resets. His next tag after this would be 3 and he would get compensated accordingly.

- if you feel it's gonna be the same problem 3 years down the road that it will be in 1 year, then you must already be thinking the Skins have a viable plan when Cousins leaves in 1 year. I'm convinced they don't. However, 3 years from now they could actually have a plan B in place. I'd rather they go in a direction that minimizes the possibility of the team wandering around for several seasons with backup-quality QB play while they try and solve the problem.

 

 

 

[SkinsPassion4Life]

Here's my question.....Why would the 49ers, Jets or Browns pay Kirk 25+ Mil per year; when they can get one of the really good QB's in the draft next year on a rookie contract?     These teams will be drafting in the top 5

[Momma There Goes That Man]

3 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

Here's my question.....Why would the 49ers, Jets or Browns pay Kirk 25+ Mil per year; when they can get one of the really good QB's in the draft next year on a rookie contract?     These teams will be drafting in the top 5

 

Because you know what Cousins can do and any rookie you draft is always a gamble plus you have to wait thru the growing pains and development. 

 

Youd feel pretty damn good if any of them turned into Kirk so why not just grab Kirk right now? 

[Veryoldschool]

D

[Veryoldschool]

28 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Because you know what Cousins can do and any rookie you draft is always a gamble plus you have to wait thru the growing pains and development. 

 

Youd feel pretty damn good if any of them turned into Kirk so why not just grab Kirk right now? 

 

 

I agee with you.  I would rather have Kirk than 2 of the top QB picks.  

[theTruthTeller]

22 minutes ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

Here's my question.....Why would the 49ers, Jets or Browns pay Kirk 25+ Mil per year; when they can get one of the really good QB's in the draft next year on a rookie contract?     These teams will be drafting in the top 5

Here's a good article that ranks every QB draft class since 2000.  So few prospects end up being good, even first rounders. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000810915/article/ranking-this-millenniums-17-quarterback-draft-classes

 

[SkinsPassion4Life]

1 hour ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Because you know what Cousins can do and any rookie you draft is always a gamble plus you have to wait thru the growing pains and development. 

 

Youd feel pretty damn good if any of them turned into Kirk so why not just grab Kirk right now? 

 

Younger and cheaper options......Shanahan and Lynch signed 6 year contracts...they can wait on a young QB

[goskins10]

8 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Edit

 

1) If he doesn't sign he has to be willing to hold out. Why would you hold out when you are guaranteed at least $28M and then become a FA with no chance of being tagged?

- Because you want what every player wants: a long term deal at fair market value. The Skins will be saying loud and clear that they don't want to give him a LTD if they franchise tag him again, so why NOT hold out and force their hand to either come up with a LTD or trade him or rescind the tag and let him go to free agency.

 

 

Again, we will have to agree to disagree. To me you are addressing nuances in terms of difference of our position but looking at them more harshly. We see the same thing but you feel they are more important than I do. So, no reason to continue. It's Ok to disagree...  lol 

 

I will address the first one though as we see this completely different - He has already shown twice he is willing to play on the tag. If he really wants a LTD bad enough to hold out, wouldn't he do it now? Why wait till the 3rd tag - which BTW he will get paid at least $28M? Sorry, that makes no logical sense at all based on his actions so far. He is changing the paradigm that players hate the tag and want a LTD. He has quite successfully used it to his advantage.

 

Further, If they don't get a deal done this year and they tag him again next year, then they are both saying it's OK to part ways after 2018 (fill in the reason, Redskins not sold on him, Kirk wants to leave, etc.). So he gets to make $28M to wait for a LTD from someone else.

 

Edit: I will add that at least for me there is a huge difference between a 3yr deal starting immediately, and a 3 yr extension. If it's a 3 yr extension making him under contract with 4 yrs, I can totally see that from both sides. If it's a truly a 3 yr deal starting now, again I do not see enough value to do that.

[Koolblue13]

6 hours ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

Here's my question.....Why would the 49ers, Jets or Browns pay Kirk 25+ Mil per year; when they can get one of the really good QB's in the draft next year on a rookie contract?     These teams will be drafting in the top 5

Two of those teams have nothing and can take their time, so I doubt they'd be interested, but the Browns are turn key. You drop a good QB in there and they could compete for the division. 

[UK Skins]

"We figured out a way to do it so that we have the opportunity to sign the other guys that I think are important to this organization," Carr said. "That was really important to me. Not to just take every single dime that we could."

 

I thought I'd throw that quote from Derek Carr on NFL.com in there. It may be that Cousins just isn't saying things because he is still negotiating, but it would be nice to have a QB that wasn't just out to get every dollar he can. I know some of the press think he is. This is another way I hope Carr's contract influences our situation though, not just the actual monetary details of his contract.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Koolblue13 said:

Two of those teams have nothing and can take their time, so I doubt they'd be interested, but the Browns are turn key. You drop a good QB in there and they could compete for the division. 

 

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.

[goskins10]

13 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

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 tag with the franchise is insane especially considering all the other guys they have up for FA.

 

I don't see how Kirk is back in 2019 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 way to cap off the 2012 draft.   If you wrap the whole story up in that, 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 it ended up with Kyle.

 

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.

 

I do not necessarily disagree with your premise of it being somewhat easy for a team to front load a contract to steal a transitional player, it has not actually happened yet. So far only 4 players have been given the transitional tag. The only one to leave his team was Steve Hutchinson in 2006 which triggered the NFL's ruling on poison pills. The other 3 were:

2009

Max Starks - Signed a one year contract to stay with Pittsburg. He eventually signed a LTD after Pittsburg won the SB.

2014

Alex Mack Cleveland - was offered a contract by Jacksonville - a 5 yr $42M that was matched by Cleveland.

Jason Worilds Pittsburg - Signed and played under his transitional tag contract then retired in 2015.  

 

Now I could see an argument being made that there have been so few transitional tags is the fear of losing he player. But at least so far that has not happened outside the one time when a poison pill was used and actually caused the rules to be changed.

 

I agree that if they do not get a LTD this year Kirk is gone after 2018. I just do not see them not getting this done unless there really are some ridiculous demands. Not going to hypothesize just yet. I am just waiting until July 17th then we will know all. Everything until then is just speculation.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

7 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I agree that if they do not get a LTD this year Kirk is gone after 2018. I just do not see them not getting this done unless there really are some ridiculous demands. Not going to hypothesize just yet. I am just waiting until July 17th then we will know all. Everything until then is just speculation.

 

 

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.

[Gregpeck99]

Kirk the choir boy ... but he won't accept less than he can get.

 

I'm convinced no deal by the 17th.

 

Put yourself in his shoes ... you know the ones with the sharpened cleats.

 

[goskins10]

9 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

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 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.

 

Until July 17th comes and goes without a deal, I consider all the local beat writer pessimism as complete bull**** born out of frustration that no one is really talking. The go to is to vilify the team regardless of anything factual to support it. Before you disagree hear me out.

 

In terms of these contract situations, I am not saying it's just a Redskins media only issue. The media just about always take the players side because fans do and that's really who gets them paid. It's just not sexy to say - "This is going just like it's supposed to." That does not generate interest. They need to create a villain and the team is the easiest target - again not just Washington. Look at Denver last year, New Orleans during the Brees contracts and most every other high profile NFL contract.

 

If a deal does not get done, people who actually know will talk. We will know what happened. But again, like you I am very confident that a deal gets done. I bet Bruce Allen is just as anxious for July 17th to get here as we all are. But he knows any deal he puts there now should be rejected since it can only get better. Both sides are just sitting tight with minimal contact until the dead line gets closer - like the 15th.

[Skinsinparadise]

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.  

[Momma There Goes That Man]

7 hours ago, SkinsPassion4Life said:

 

Younger and cheaper options......Shanahan and Lynch signed 6 year contracts...they can wait on a young QB

 

Because coaches and GMs are never fired before their contracts end ... 

[Skinsinparadise]

16 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Until July 17th comes and goes without a deal, I consider all the local beat writer pessimism as complete bull**** born out of frustration that no one is really talking. The go to is to vilify the team regardless of anything factual to support it. Before you disagree hear me out.

 

In terms of these contract situations, I am not saying it's just a Redskins media only issue. The media just about always take the players side because fans do and that's really who gets them paid. It's just not sexy to say - "This is going just like it's supposed to." That does not generate interest. They need to create a villain and the team is the easiest target - again not just Washington. Look at Denver last year, New Orleans during the Brees contracts and most every other high profile NFL contract.

 

If a deal does not get done, people who actually know will talk. We will know what happened. But again, like you I am very confident that a deal gets done. I bet Bruce Allen is just as anxious for July 17th to get here as we all are. But he knows any deal he puts there now should be rejected since it can only get better. Both sides are just sitting tight with minimal contact until the dead line gets closer - like the 15th.

 

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.

[goskins10]

17 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

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.

 

You are correct I am not saying the numbers they are reporting are incorrect. I am saying their take on it is slanted. And I totally disagree what they want most is to be correct. What they want most is to be read. That is their job. Now do they try to be right? Of course. Do they just completely make stuff up? No I don't think that either - at least for the most part. I do think they take things that are not confirmed and go with them hoping they are right rather than confirming - not all the time, but more than they should. They also take shreds and put serious slants to form a narrative.

 

I know what the prevailing theory is. It's to assume the team will not make a fair offer. I brought up the chance of Kirk asking something outrageous because it is a possibility. To be fair if they don't get a deal done by July 17th, we can't just assume it was the team's fault. I listed my %s before so again I didn't think I had to state the obvious. Here is where I am:

 

90% - the deal gets done.

9% - The team does not make a reasonable offer (although I am leaning towards that being even a smaller number. But staying consistent.

1% - Kirk asks for something unreasonable. I only say 1% because it is indeed possible so you can't say it's 0%.

 

 

[goskins10]

39 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

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.  

 

I call bull**** on Derek Carr making a deal allowing them to sign other players. There is nothing about that deal that is that much different than Luck's deal other than a smaller signing bonus turned into big roster bonuses to avoid taxes. Does nothing to lower the CAP hits:

 

2017 $15.7M - as stated this helps him with taxes - not the altruistic I want to help the team.

2018 $25M - $15M roster bonus so his salary looks lower. But it's the same in terms of CAP.

2019 $21.6M

2020 $22.225M

2021 $22.225M

2022 $19.725M

 

I can't wait for Kirk to get a similar deal and have it be portrayed as greedy.

[RedskinsInFebruary]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

I call bull**** on Derek Carr making a deal allowing them to sign other players. There is nothing about that deal that is that much different than Luck's deal other than a smaller signing bonus turned into big roster bonuses to avoid taxes. Does nothing to lower the CAP hits:

 

2017 $15.7M - as stated this helps him with taxes - not the altruistic I want to help the team.

2018 $25M - $15M roster bonus so his salary looks lower. But it's the same in terms of CAP.

2019 $21.6M

2020 $22.225M

2021 $22.225M

2022 $19.725M

 

I can't wait for Kirk to get a similar deal and have it be portrayed as greedy.

 

But didn't you just point out Carr's deal wasn't as altruistic and pro-team as he claimed?  If Kirk gets a "similar deal" he'd land on the greedy portrayal side for the same reasons.

 

I know personally I'd choose hall of fame, potential superbowls--achievements--over a few extra million in the short term. Achievements and fame turn into long term cash cows all the same anyway.

[Taylor 36]

5 minutes ago, RedskinsInFebruary said:

 

But didn't you just point out Carr's deal wasn't as altruistic and pro-team as he claimed?  If Kirk gets a "similar deal" he'd land on the greedy portrayal side for the same reasons.

 

I know personally I'd choose hall of fame, potential superbowls--achievements--over a few extra million in the short term. Achievements and fame turn into long term cash cows all the same anyway.

Show me where Carr's deal is being portrayed as a "greedy" deal on the side of Carr.  It is being written about in the exact opposite fashion currently, with Carr being made out to look like he took a Brady deal to help his team.  If Cousins signs a deal that is exactly the same as Carr's, the narrative will be very different than what is being said about Carr in the media and even by some of our fans.  

 

I believe that is what GoSkins is pointing out in his post. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I read his post to not so much call Carr greedy, but just to point out that Carr's deal is not as team friendly as the media and Carr himself are trying to sell, and that Cousins will not receive such puppy-dog treatment with his deal, even if it is the same as Carr's.

[goskins10]

1 minute ago, Taylor 36 said:

Show me where Carr's deal is being portrayed as a "greedy" deal on the side of Carr.  It is being written about in the exact opposite fashion currently, with Carr being made out to look like he took a Brady deal to help his team.  If Cousins signs a deal that is exactly the same as Carr's, the narrative will be very different than what is being said about Carr in the media and even by some of our fans.  

 

I believe that is what GoSkins is pointing out in his post. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I read his post to not so much call Carr greedy, but just to point out that Carr's deal is not as team friendly as the media and Carr himself are trying to sell, and that Cousins will not receive such puppy-dog treatment with his deal, even if it is the same as Carr's.

 

@RedskinsInFebruary What he said above! But nice try twisting it so you can take a shot at Kirk.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

I just don't understand the need to drag it out like this. We were told that the Redskins wanted to see Kirk prove it and would have no problem paying him or actually overpaying at that point (compared to locking him up cheaper after 2015) if he performed well again. He did, so they should have been prepared to make a strong offer and get this done quickly, which is what teams that believe in their QB do 99% of the time. This isn't comparable to Von Miller or other franchise tags. This is the great QB on a QB starved team. You don't treat franchise QBs like this. If the Redskins believed in him even after 2016 they would have locked him up right away because it's pointless and stupid to go thru all of this otherwise.

 

All this makes me believe the Redskins still don't believe in Kirk or they think he can be easily replaced and it's why no deal will get done. I said after we tagged him the first time that it was a mistake and it was going to cost us Cousins down the road. I think he's gone.