Will Cousins Play For The Skins In 2018

[Boss_Hogg]

So now the Browns are a more attractive destination than Washington. 

 

Tells you everything you need to know about our front office. 

 

 

[KDawg]

3 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

 

So, we sign Landry for $14M/year. Kerrigan is approximately $12M next year. We're a better team with Landry/Kerrigan and Colt at QB than we are with no Landry/Kerrigan and Kirk at QB? I really doubt it.

 

This is how this reasoning seems to go -- don't pay the QB so we can have 2 other players that (even combined) have less of an impact than the QB. 

 

We could be a better team with Landry + Kerrigan. Depends who the QB is. I know you’re saying Colt, but who knows who it would be. But that’s one hell of a gamble.

 

WWBD. What would Belichick do...

 

First, he would have avoided this mess. Second, he’s probably move Norman, Kerrigan and let Cousins walk.

[purbeast]

What FA wide receiver is going to want to come here and have Colt McCoy throwing them the ball?  The only way they would want to do that is if they are getting a huge salary.  And if they are going to require an inflated salary, that will hamstring us elsewhere, just like you're claiming Cousins would do if he stays here.

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, purbeast said:

What FA wide receiver is going to want to come here and have Colt McCoy throwing them the ball?  The only way they would want to do that is if they are getting a huge salary.  And if they are going to require an inflated salary, that will hamstring us elsewhere, just like you're claiming Cousins would do if he stays here.

 

Not sure who you’re replying to, but if it’s me:

 

Read my posts. I’ve routinely said I’m not sure what to do with Cousins. There’s a lot of peripheral information that I don’t have to make an informed decision.

 

At this point I’m just trying to keep things rational on both sides

[mistertim]

So we're basically hamstrung either way unless we keep Kirk and he lights it up and takes us to the playoffs next year with mostly the same cast as he had this year.

[Tay]

Are people seriously convincing themselves that the Browns situation is better than our situation?

 

The Browns could develop over time, but it's not going to happen overnight. That team is going to be extremely young. If Kirk is willing to wait 3 years before having the opportunity to compete again, then the Browns could be a solid landing spot.

 

Otherwise the Browns rumors are out there for leverage. Again, it's in Kirk's best interest to be interested in everything. If going to the NBA and getting a fully guaranteed contract was an option for him, I'm sure we'd hear a rumor about that as well.  

[purbeast]

4 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Not sure who you’re replying to, but if it’s me:

 

Read my posts. I’ve routinely said I’m not sure what to do with Cousins. There’s a lot of peripheral information that I don’t have to make an informed decision.

 

At this point I’m just trying to keep things rational on both sides

Not you specifically.  I was just mentioning that because the talk of bringing in FA WR's was on topic right now.

[KDawg]

5 minutes ago, mistertim said:

So we're basically hamstrung either way unless we keep Kirk and he lights it up and takes us to the playoffs next year with mostly the same cast as he had this year.

 

Yes. That or we don’t sign Kirk and get someone cheaper and sign maybe one quality FA in conjunction with them and then maybe find success.

 

I think the correct phrasing is: “We’re hamstrung no matter what, now we have to hope we pull a rabbit out of a hat no matter which direction we go. #HTTR”

[ThomasRoane]

16 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

Then it all just depends on whether teams truly think Kirk is a guy that can lead them to a SB win.

 

 

Lead a team?  Who said that?  But with a middle of the pack defense, middle of the pack running game, and at least one receiver who can win 1v1 any TEAM can win a Super Bowl with Kirk Cousins. 

[wit33]

2 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 Non-elite QB's will continue to break contract records, year over year, until the NFL stumbles and the salary cap stops going up.

 

This is a new thing (Paying mid tier QBs record breaking deals) and not a proven consistent model. Just not a whole lot of data to prove either way, IMO. 

 

The NFL and teams use to also pay rookie QBs silly contracts and that was proven to be not smart and crippled many teams. 

 

The market will will trend the other way at some point, IMO. It appears the league is catching onto the fact that building a good roster with a competent QB gives you a chance. 

 

** This line of thinking excludes the truly elite QB. 

[fordranger76]

57 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

 

So, we sign Landry for $14M/year. Kerrigan is approximately $12M next year. We're a better team with Landry/Kerrigan and Colt at QB than we are with no Landry/Kerrigan and Kirk at QB? I really doubt it.

 

This is how this reasoning seems to go -- don't pay the QB so we can have 2 other players that (even combined) have less of an impact than the QB. 

The scenario I put down was with Cousins and the receiver not Kerrigan and a receiver, I brought it up because I want to know where the rest of the roster's money comes from in this case. I put Landry out there because one of the top reasons for spotty play out of Kirk from what has been argued is his lack of weapons. I have my reasons and weapons is not one of them. Well Landry would be a new toy for him which I have heard multiple times that he needs. So with the 14 million which he (Landry) will likely get with Cousins and the other roster parts that will be our only dip in FA which IMO is not going to cut it. We lose more depth in this scenario which I am not a fan of.

[mistertim]

35 minutes ago, ThomasRoane said:

 

Lead a team?  Who said that?  But with a middle of the pack defense, middle of the pack running game, and at least one receiver who can win 1v1 any TEAM can win a Super Bowl with Kirk Cousins. 

 

If a team pays a QB a record breaking contract to come to them you can bet your ass they're expecting him to be leading them to the playoffs and eventually SB regardless of whether they have a good defense or a top notch true #1 WR. There are going to be massive expectations for him if he goes to some team that breaks the bank for him. He's going to be seen as the savior who's going take them to the promised land, whether it's fair or not. That's going to be a ton of pressure. You think fans here have turned on Kirk before? Wonder what happens if he goes somewhere else for a king's ransom and doesn't perform very well.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I'm entertained by the thought process that Kirk needs elite weapons/"toys" to succeed, as if that's some sort of negative.

 

Ryan - Julio + monster running game

Brady - Cooks/Gronk + very good running game

Keenum - Theilen, Diggs + very good running game

Big Ben - AB, Bryant, Schuster + freaking Leveon Bell

 

Thats most likely your final 4 teams playing this year.

 

Match that up with what Kirk was playing with this past season.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, fordranger76 said:

Say we resign Cousins to a 27 million dollar deal. I don't think thats out of the question. A nice FA WR. Lets say Jarvis Landry. 14 million. I keep hearing he needs a top flight WR so lets get him. He needs more weapons right?

 

I like Landry but I wonder about him here because he's primarily a slot receiver.  And 14 million dollars?  That would make him in that case the third best paid player on the roster.    I like Landry a lot but not sure about the fit and I think we can get other guys cheaper who can make a big impact.

 

I don't think Kirk's problems is that he needs a top flight guy.  Garcon was good but not a top flight guy -- he doesn't sniff the pro bowl for a reason.  He IMO needs a good-competent receiver.  Heck Jordan Matthews, M. Lee, Allen Robinson, Paul Richardson. I think you can get one of them at around 8 million.

2 hours ago, fordranger76 said:

Say we resign Cousins to a 27 million dollar deal. I don't think thats out of the question. A nice FA WR. Lets say Jarvis Landry. 14 million. I keep hearing he needs a top flight WR so lets get him. He needs more weapons right? We are now left with 10 million of the 51 million in cap we had. Alright the majority of the board would like Zach Brown back yeah? Probably wants a raise eh? Lets give him one at 3.5 million.

 

OK, on that one.

 

2 hours ago, fordranger76 said:

We can't add more pieces to the Defense now to make it better now can we? I keep hearing that we need the D to help him too.

 

Lets say we spent 27 million on Kirk.  8 million on Zach.  8 million on a WR.   Based on the cap increase according to Hogs Haven they expect 55 million in cap room after the cap increase.  So that would leave them with another 12 million to spend.  And that's with making no moves to shed salary before that. 

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, wit33 said:

 

This is a new thing (Paying mid tier QBs record breaking deals) and not a proven consistent model. Just not a whole lot of data to prove either way, IMO. 

 

The NFL and teams use to also pay rookie QBs silly contracts and that was proven to be not smart and crippled many teams. 

 

The market will will trend the other way at some point, IMO. It appears the league is catching onto the fact that building a good roster with a competent QB gives you a chance. 

 

** This line of thinking excludes the truly elite QB. 

 

It's fascinating. So many teams have been burned in the past by paying FA QBs big contracts, yet they still seem to do it. I guess it's just hope. Pretty much any FA QB, outside of one of the top tier ones (who pretty much never hit FA anyway), is going to be a question mark on a new team IMO. You just never know how a guy is going to do in a different system with different players.

 

I remember many years ago there were plenty of people here who wanted us to give up 2 1st rounders to Denver for Cutler because they thought he had proven himself to be a top tier QB in Denver after a couple of good seasons, despite there still being question marks about his game. In the end, Chicago gambled and lost. They paid for a guy they thought was going to take them to the promised land and instead got years of mediocrity, interspersed with a couple good seasons that went nowhere in the end, and some really dreadful ones. Yet they were basically stuck with him.

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

It's fascinating. So many teams have been burned in the past by paying FA QBs big contracts, yet they still seem to do it. I guess it's just hope. Pretty much any FA QB, outside of one of the top tier ones (who pretty much never hit FA anyway), is going to be a question mark on a new team IMO. You just never know how a guy is going to do in a different system with different players.

 

This argument is making the case that Kirk might not succeed elsewhere and a FA QB we sign or trade for might bomb here.  That = bad for the Redskins.

 

I don't think the prime concern for anyone here is how well will Kirk play for another team.  But its if you let him go, how will it play out here.  You are laying out an argument for why we should be concerned for Plan B here. 

[zCommander]

10 hours ago, wit33 said:

Pryor is going to be upset. 

 

 

Why? The Browns will take him back and Pryor will have 1400+ yards with Kirk as his QB. 

 

 

[mistertim]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

This argument is making the case that Kirk might not succeed elsewhere and a FA QB we sign or trade for might bomb here.  That = bad for the Redskins.

 

I don't think the prime concern for anyone here is how well will Kirk play for another team.  But its if you let him go, how will it play out here.  You are laying out an argument for why we should be concerned for Plan B here. 

 

Honestly, I wasn't really making a case one way or the other. Just observing that, even though they've bombed plenty in the past, teams still seem to keep paying big contracts for FA QBs. We'd certainly be in that potential dilemma if we let Kirk walk, though I'd be incredibly surprised if they didn't draft a QB in the 1st in that case (assuming they have some on their radar that they really like).

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

5 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

It's fascinating. So many teams have been burned in the past by paying FA QBs big contracts, yet they still seem to do it. I guess it's just hope. Pretty much any FA QB, outside of one of the top tier ones (who pretty much never hit FA anyway), is going to be a question mark on a new team IMO. You just never know how a guy is going to do in a different system with different players.

 

I remember many years ago there were plenty of people here who wanted us to give up 2 1st rounders to Denver for Cutler because they thought he had proven himself to be a top tier QB in Denver after a couple of good seasons, despite there still being question marks about his game. In the end, Chicago gambled and lost. They paid for a guy they thought was going to take them to the promised land and instead got years of mediocrity, interspersed with a couple good seasons that went nowhere in the end, and some really dreadful ones. Yet they were basically stuck with him.

Teams continuously get burned for being wrong about quarterbacks in general, be it a draft selection, thinking they've found a gem for cheap, or paying a bad one too much money. 

 

I agree with you that you never know how a guy is going to do in a different system, which is why I have a hard time with the 'plan' to "get this guy" and he'll be just as good, marginally worse or better than Kirk, for a little less money.

 

I'm not a big Jay Cutler fan as I feel he's a poster child for wasted talent.  A guy that could have had the world in his hands but never fully engaged himself to being the best qb he could be.  But at the same time, there are other reasons those Bears teams never reached the promise land that don't have much to do with Jay Cutler.

[mistertim]

That's fair. The Bears certainly didn't do him any favors with many of their personnel and FO moves. But yeah he definitely was extremely talented but it ended up being for nothing. I was never really a fan either and I was really glad when we didn't give up 2 1sts for him. I just thought he was way too prone to boneheaded plays. He'd make a brilliant one and then 5 minutes later make just as much of a horrible one.

[markmills67]

What are the chances that Allen will give Cousin's an offer in the next week or so?. I can't see any reason at all why we can't get this sorted asap. I can understand that Gruden said the 1st week after our last game was for player evaluation, but it's now over 2 weeks since we last played. If I was Gruden I would be banging down the doors of Allen's office and asking him what the **** are your plans for cousin's. 

 

HTTR 

[Skinsinparadise]

11 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Honestly, I wasn't really making a case one way or the other. Just observing that, even though they've bombed plenty in the past, teams still seem to keep paying big contracts for FA QBs. We'd certainly be in that potential dilemma if we let Kirk walk, though I'd be incredibly surprised if they didn't draft a QB in the 1st in that case (assuming they have some on their radar that they really like).

 

Sure, they can draft a guy.  That's the poison I'd pick if I had to pick a Plan B poison but the crap shoot element of the draft is even more pronounced then FA when it comes to QB.

 

I am much more concerned about the opportunity cost in the draft then I am in FA.  That's the part that drives me the most crazy about using the draft to solve the Qb issue.  Though I'd still take it over the other alternatives which I hate more.   

 

A. At best, you take whomever falls to pick #13 -- Mason Rudolph? And that's an opportunity cost missed for example to take a stud run stuffer D lineman like Payne, Vea -- or heck maybe even a MLB like R. Smith if he falls.

 

B. At worst, you are trading up and likely giving up this years 2nd round pick and probably next years first.  So now you are both missing out on the run stuffer D lineman or whatever and a potential stud RB like Harris and Michel in the next round AND likely your next rounder next year.

 

So you are boxed in to a flier at QB who might take awhile to develop or might bust and lose a major opportunity to upgrade in the draft.  I don't lose sleep about how much of a FA spree you can engage in during the off season.  To me its about the draft. 

 

[fordranger76]

19 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Lets say we spent 27 million on Kirk.  8 million on Zach.  8 million on a WR.   Based on the cap increase according to Hogs Haven they expect 55 million in cap room after the cap increase.  So that would leave them with another 12 million to spend.  And that's with making no moves to shed salary before that. 

Alright we can go off of that. We still need another ILB starter. We still need LG starter money. Questions at RB which many result in a FA. Even if we did sign a big name WR we would still need to resign Grant or someone comparable plus depth. OLB questions in Murphy and Gallette which will get decent money. Breeland might get a contract but I doubt that one. Also need money to sign our FA depth. And the rookies. Now granted more than likely one rook will fill a starters role. I guess I just see a lot of holes on the roster with little money to help fill them. My biggest worry is if we don't do enough to make the playoffs what do we do then back up against a cap wall? Yes I know it could go haywire the other way too with a new QB that costs less but this is a serious turning point in this franchise that has to be 100 percent right. With the questions that surround Cousins on various things, true or not, is it worth it in the long run? To me I say no.

[zCommander]

3 minutes ago, fordranger76 said:

Alright we can go off of that. We still need another ILB starter. We still need LG starter money. Questions at RB which many result in a FA. Even if we did sign a big name WR we would still need to resign Grant or someone comparable plus depth. OLB questions in Murphy and Gallette which will get decent money. Breeland might get a contract but I doubt that one. Also need money to sign our FA depth. And the rookies. Now granted more than likely one rook will fill a starters role. I guess I just see a lot of holes on the roster with little money to help fill them. My biggest worry is if we don't do enough to make the playoffs what do we do then back up against a cap wall? Yes I know it could go haywire the other way too with a new QB that costs less but this is a serious turning point in this franchise that has to be 100 percent right. With the questions that surround Cousins on various things, true or not, is it worth it in the long run? To me I say no.

 

Who will be leaving that can help in the cap space though?

[Skinsinparadise]

6 minutes ago, fordranger76 said:

Alright we can go off of that. We still need another ILB starter. We still need LG starter money. Questions at RB which many result in a FA. Even if we did sign a big name WR we would still need to resign Grant or someone comparable plus depth. OLB questions in Murphy and Gallette which will get decent money. Breeland might get a contract but I doubt that one. Also need money to sign our FA depth. And the rookies. Now granted more than likely one rook will fill a starters role. I guess I just see a lot of holes on the roster with little money to help fill them. My biggest worry is if we don't do enough to make the playoffs what do we do then back up against a cap wall? Yes I know it could go haywire the other way too with a new QB that costs less but this is a serious turning point in this franchise that has to be 100 percent right. With the questions that surround Cousins on various things, true or not, is it worth it in the long run? To me I say no.

 

I was just going through the roster, pretty easy to shed another 5 million.  you got teams like the Jets shedding 50 million, we could figure out 5 easily.  That leaves us with 17 million to play with.  The one thing I'll say nice about Bruce is he doesn't stick us with a lot of long term money obligations.

 

And heck the cap goes up almost 10 million a year.  You can stagger contracts.  That's what they did to sign Norman for example.  His cap hit ballooned in year 2.

 

But even if I didn't see this financial flexibility, I really don't give a rats behind about building the team in FA.  I like FA in doses but I am not building my team that way.  The Saints jumped from a 7-9 team to a Superbowl thread this year largely by nailing their first and 2nd round picks.    And here we got scenarios being discussed that subtracts our draft capital to build a team by using it to draft a QB or trade for one.   That's what I hate more than anything. 

 

We aren't going the Saints direction.  They had their car is drive mode.  We are talking about putting our car is reverse mode.  And some are selling (not saying that's you) as hey we might even be better, if we do it?      I agree on only one condition -- we get better if we get very lucky.   

 

•