WP: Kirk Cousins breaks his silence after Redskins trade for Alex Smith

[Est.1974]

8 minutes ago, freakofthesouth said:

 

they then said Cousins has no leg to stand on with his grievance as there is no real way to prove that the team wouldn't want to keep him, especially based on the relationship the two parties have had with the tag for the past couple years, it's almost like, habituation.

 

I agree with this, even the signing of Smith doesn't detract from the fact Cousins has taken the tag for two years. He even said in one of his latter interviews he'd run to sign a third tag. 

 

The tag will indicate we want to retain our asset. He doesn't have to be anointed team captain and entrenched starter at the same time.

 

The whole concept of the tag will be undermined with a successful grievance.

 

Cap space is the matter that has to be worked around. Otherwise, tag him all day long.

52 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I'm really curious how the FO and coaches truly view Smith. Do they see him as a necessary stopgap that will be serviceable (and hopefully help them keep their jobs) but who they will only run with for a year or two while they decide on what to do for their QB of the future (draft one this year in mid rounds, draft one high next year, etc....IIRC most of these type of contracts have ways of teams getting out of them after a couple years)? Or do they honestly see him as their QB for the next 5 years who can potentially take them to the SB?

 

Maybe it's a combination and they'll be taking a wait and see approach.

 

I think Gruden has picked him to be his QB during the current remaining duration of Grudens own contract. He hasn't got time to develop a rookie in 2018. The seat is too warm. Once Kirk wasn't coming to lunch anytime soon, it was right in the phone to the Chiefs.

[Skinsinparadise]

18 minutes ago, freakofthesouth said:

 

If we can recoup some value from this whole ordeal then I'm all for it.  Teams obviously want him and the Jets are "willing to do whatever it takes" so yeah how bout them picks?!  I mean a 1st and a 3rd is a lot... we'll see.  Otherwise Cousins is on the market and in a bidding war so teams can get the rights to Kirk, pick up his tag and then negotiate a LTD.

 

Cooley has been really the only optimistic one that I can recall about the tag and trade working.   The beat guys are not just a little pessimistic -- they think its an incredible long shot.  I just saw Bill Polian saying that he thinks the Redskins would win the grievance but he doesn't think they'd be able to successfully tag and trade him.

 

I saw an article that the Jets are willing to do whatever it takes unless the Redskins tag him. 

 

You got me what happens.    I'd love to see them pull off a miracle or the next best case scenario for me would be for Bruce to be undressed publicly by McCartney again.   But much rather see a miracle trade.   The people close to the action seem to think its very unlikely.  

 

If Bruce does pull it off.  I confess its big for him.  He's been IMO made the fool throughout the negotiations.  He was wink wink publicly with I got this as for Kirk's contract in both 2016 and 2017.  He was proven incorrect.  The coverage of the contract with what's happening behind the scenes -- didn't make Bruce look good IMO.  The press release that he put out was embarrassing for him.    Him pulling this off would finally be a victory among his embarrassments.   Maybe the law of averages?   It can't always go wrong, can it?  That's my hope.

 

 

[Est.1974]

3 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I saw an article that the Jets are willing to do whatever it takes unless the Redskins tag him. 

 

We should just suggest to swop our #13 with their number #6 plus they throw in their extra second rounder. That's not much to ask is it 

 

If the talk that the Jets are willing to offer a fully guaranteed contract, say 3 year contract with totally banked money on signing, Kirks agent will be like a kid on Christmas morning. 

 

One can dream. Any deal, highly unlikely I guess, but you just never know. 

[Burgold]

The only way the tag possibly works is if Cousins is traded within seconds of being franchised. If it's possible to trade Franchise rights, I can see this being done. Bruce and co. just need to be working the phones with the players. If Cousins needs to play ball (IE sign the tag), I don't see a sign and trade working out and I don't think it's worth the bother to pretend.

 

I'm not opposed to having a three way negotiation, Cousins' people, the Redskins, and some team, but Cousins really doesn't have any reason to cooperate and from all signs over the last three years wouldn't cooperate even if it were in his interest. He wants unfettered free agency. He may want to screw Bruce Allen. I don't see him offering the Redskins a golden parachute. Why would he?

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

We should just suggest to swop our #13 with their number #6 plus they throw in their extra second rounder. That's not much to ask is it 

 

If the talk that the Jets are willing to offer a fully guaranteed contract, say 3 year contract with totally banked money on signing, Kirks agent will be like a kid on Christmas morning. 

 

One can dream. Any deal, highly unlikely I guess, but you just never know. 

 

My pessimism on this is mostly based on this.  I ignored some of the beat guys who were close to the action last time on the Kirk contract.  They ended up eerily on the money.  Those same people are saying tagging and trading Kirk is a fantasy.  So for me, I am not raising my hopes.

 

In addition, I don't think they will do it.  From what I understand they can lose the 3rd rd comp pick (granted its not much but its better than nothing) and it could impinge on the start of FA.  I think the FO are bluffing.  But I hope I am wrong I'd love to either see a miracle trade or Bruce embarrassed one more time.   Win, win -- as long as we don't lose the comp pick.

[mistertim]

28 minutes ago, freakofthesouth said:

Was just listening to Kevin and Cooley breaking down the Cousins' threat to file a grievance re the tag and trade, and i found it to be very compelling:

 

First they said the fact that this is news probably means they plan to tag and trade him and Kirk's camp is fighting it;

 

they then said Cousins has no leg to stand on with his grievance as there is no real way to prove that the team wouldn't want to keep him, especially based on the relationship the two parties have had with the tag for the past couple years, it's almost like, habituation.

 

Then Cooley went on to say, if they are planning to tag Cousins they probably have a suitor and he was talking like a 1st and a 3rd, which would just be incredible.  They make the point that, go easy in FA, you're already getting a 3rd so it would have to be more than that for a trade.

 

Aren't tag announcements happening feb 20?  so Wednesday?

 

If we can recoup some value from this whole ordeal then I'm all for it.  Teams obviously want him and the Jets are "willing to do whatever it takes" so yeah how bout them picks?!  I mean a 1st and a 3rd is a lot... we'll see.  Otherwise Cousins is on the market and in a bidding war so teams can get the rights to Kirk, pick up his tag and then negotiate a LTD.

 

Problem is that even if they have a suitor lined up (which is always possible) Kirk and his agent would have to play ball and agree to negotiate a LTD with that team, unless the team in question is idiotic enough to give up draft picks and $34 million for a potential one year rental. If Kirk signs the tag and then declares that he will refuse to negotiate a LTD with any team while on the tag then it could get super hairy.

 

But to be honest, from a business standpoint, it would make more sense for Kirk to play ball. If he refused to sign the tag then he'd essentially be out of football for a year without getting paid a dime. If he signed the tag and said he'd refuse to sign a LTD with any team then he'd be making a bunch of money but would still be out of football for a whole year most likely and would be in a miserable situation with the Skins. Both of those options would also likely lessen how much teams would pay him as a FA in 2019 as it would be super risky to spend a king's ransom on a QB who will be 31 and hasn't taken a snap in a year unless he's an elite first ballot HoF type.

 

Also, if he decided to either refuse to sign and sit out or sign and refuse to negotiate a LTD with a team he'd likely miss out on a team that he actually wants to go to now. Really almost impossible to tell what the QB market will look like in 2019 and who will be in need. That's just even more uncertainty for him. IMO it just makes more sense for him to say fine and then basically pick his team from whichever teams are willing to offer us picks for him to get first bidding rights. Then he gets the hell out of DC, goes somewhere he likes, and gets long term stability and a big contract.

 

Of course the Skins would also be in a **** situation if KIrk didn't play ball, since they'd be on the hook for his tag amount which would **** up their cap in a major way. I guess it just depends on how vindictive and petty each side decides to be. I'd hope business judgement would prevail, but judging by recent reporting, that seems unlikely. But who knows, maybe we'll get insanely lucky and pull it off. I'm not holding my breath though.

[Tay]

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

My pessimism on this is mostly based on this.  I ignored some of the beat guys who were close to the action last time on the Kirk contract.  They ended up eerily on the money.  Those same people are saying tagging and trading Kirk is a fantasy.  So for me, I am not raising my hopes.

 

In addition, I don't think they will do it.  From what I understand they can lose the 3rd rd comp pick (granted its not much but its better than nothing) and it could impinge on the start of FA.  I think the FO are bluffing.  But I hope I am wrong I'd love to either see a miracle trade or Bruce embarrassed one more time.   Win, win -- as long as we don't lose the comp pick.

 

They won't lose the comp if they rescind the unsigned tag. The only way it works is if a team is willing to trade compensation to have exclusive negotiating rights with Kirk, while being willing to eat $34M.  I think it's highly unlikely, but we'll have to wait an see.

[mistertim]

2 minutes ago, Tay said:

 

They won't lose the comp if they rescind the unsigned tag. The only way it works is if a team is willing to trade compensation to have exclusive negotiating rights with Kirk, while being willing to eat $34M.  I think it's highly unlikely, but we'll have to wait an see.

 

How late can an unsigned tag be rescinded?

[Est.1974]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

and it could impinge on the start of FA.  I think the FO are bluffing.

 

I'm not worried about the start of FA aspect. In reality it can't drag on into FA. That just isn't viable at all. This would have to be something negotiated before FA started. I'm sure we will know by time the combine works through where this is heading, and how much there really ever was to this tale. Interesting all the same.

 

I said at the weekend though, the timing of the grievance talk is very telling. That's smacks to me of an agent on the back foot. It's very out of place with how Kirks team have dealt with the saga over the last two years. It's the first public sign of them NOT being comfortable with something we are proposing to do. All that has gone before has been more assured IMO.

 

The Smith deal has shacken this one up nicely.

[Tay]

2 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

How late can an unsigned tag be rescinded?

 

Anytime before it's signed. The problem for the team is that the $ counts against the cap whether signed or unsigned.

 

If they have a trade lined up, they could technically apply the tag and let it sit right up until the point they want to sign someone and need cap space.

[Skinsinparadise]

11 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

I'm not worried about the start of FA aspect. In reality it can't drag on into FA. That just isn't viable at all. This would have to be something negotiated before FA started. 

 

For that to happen before FA though you need Kirk's cooperation.  The vibe right now is they aren't going to get it.

 

11 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

The Smith deal has shacken this one up nicely.

 

The Smith deal if it plays out the way it looks was a godsend for Kirk and bad for the Redskins in terms of getting compensation.  Before that deal, the tag and trade couldn't be challenged the same way it might be challenged now.  Better yet, it killed the transition tag as an option to trade out of.  Before the deal, the transition tag looked to be the best option (according to insiders close to the action, including Joel Corry) as was discussed on the Kirk threads weeks ago.

 

Unless, Bruce pulls off a stunning miracle trade.  The Alex Smith trade was a gift for Kirk and his agent.  It set them up for unfettered FA with nothing the Redskins could do to impinge on that party.  Will see.

[Skinsinparadise]

20 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

If he refused to sign the tag then he'd essentially be out of football for a year without getting paid a dime. If he signed the tag and said he'd refuse to sign a LTD with any team then he'd be making a bunch of money but would still be out of football for a whole year most likely and would be in a miserable situation with the Skins.

 

I was listening to Polian who thinks Kirk signs the tag because it guarantees the money and why wouldn't he since that's a lot of money.  But in turn he doesn't think the Redskins successfully trade him.  If so can you imagine?  I posted this Seinfeld clip before but to me it so apt its worth repeating.   It would be the most amusing showdown I can think of in sports of Kirk signing the tag and the team is stuck with him on the roster.   Bruce said not so long ago that you need TWO QBs these days to win -- citing the Eagles.  Maybe this was his secret plan all along?

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

The Washington Redskins can technically prevent Kirk Cousins from hitting free agency if they use the franchise tag on him for a third consecutive season, but they do not have as much leverage over the quarterback as you may think.

Ian Rapoport of NFL Network said Monday that the Redskins tagging Cousins again is “simply not going to happen.” One reason for that is that his guaranteed salary for 2018 would be around $34 million, which is an enormous chunk of the salary cap. Perhaps more importantly, Cousins would not be willing to negotiate a long-term extension with any team if Washington tried to tag and trade him.

http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/report_kirk_cousins_would_not_sign_long_term_with_new_team_if_tagged_and_traded/s1_127_25750313

[Est.1974]

@Skinsinparadise man, we do indeed see this from complete opposite angles 

 

Very interested to see how it's plays out though..

[Skinsinparadise]

3 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

@Skinsinparadise man, we do indeed see this from complete opposite angles 

 

Very interested to see how it's plays out though..

 

Cool but I don't see how we have complete opposite angles unless you think this?

 

A.  The odds are good that a tag and trade happens

B.  To that end, Kirk and his agent will cooperate to make that happen.

 

If you think the opposite of those 2 points that would mirror my point of view. 

 

Edit:  considering the article I just posted from Rapoport (granted he gets a lot wrong) if its true.  The best angle (still I think a long shot) I see is Polian is right and Kirk will sign a tag because heck that's a lot of money and in turn the Redskins trade him to a team that will take him for a year.

 

Rapoport also says the Redskins won't do it.  That's been my position -- i think its a bluff

[Est.1974]

14 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

........is Polian is right and Kirk will sign a tag because heck that's a lot of money and in turn the Redskins trade him to a team that will take him for a year.

 

In theory that doesn't have to be just one year. Although the tag number would escalate again in 2019, a couple of teams have serious cap space to burn. How true is it that the Jets are all over Kirk, how desperate are they? If a team is reportedly willing to offer a fully gtd contract, are subsequent tags post 2018 totally out of the question. Again, highly unlikely but technically not impossible, I think  

[mistertim]

19 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

The Washington Redskins can technically prevent Kirk Cousins from hitting free agency if they use the franchise tag on him for a third consecutive season, but they do not have as much leverage over the quarterback as you may think.

Ian Rapoport of NFL Network said Monday that the Redskins tagging Cousins again is “simply not going to happen.” One reason for that is that his guaranteed salary for 2018 would be around $34 million, which is an enormous chunk of the salary cap. Perhaps more importantly, Cousins would not be willing to negotiate a long-term extension with any team if Washington tried to tag and trade him.

http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/report_kirk_cousins_would_not_sign_long_term_with_new_team_if_tagged_and_traded/s1_127_25750313

 

I feel this is a bit misleading...on the face of it it seems to state for a fact that Kirk would refuse to negotiate a LTD with other teams, as if that's something that is a rumor that has actually come out from Kirk's team. But the article doesn't actually cite anything to back that up. I think at this point him signing and refusing to consider negotiating a LTD with another team is still just conjecture.

 

What WOULD be pretty amazing is if we did find a team or two willing to part with picks and pay the $34 million on the assumption that they would be able to work out a LTD with Kirk on their own after acquiring him. That would completely swing the leverage in the Skins favor because we could say "Look you have two choices, We have x team lined up to trade you to and there's zero you can do about it. Or you can work with us and get traded to a team you'd prefer to go to and work out a LTD with them. Your choice". Kirk would have pretty much zero leverage at that point.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

On 2/18/2018 at 1:22 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I was working on responses for specific points but my computer crashed and I am too lazy to redo that all.  

Seriously, I hope you go back and point-by-point it at some point.  I was kinda expecting you to do it, and looking forward to reading it.    

 

On 2/18/2018 at 1:22 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

So I'll go for highlights:

 

2017 season ended 3-3 after Chris Thompson got hurt.  They won 2 out of the last 3. They were decimated and it got even more comical at the end with Zach Brown, Thompson, Jordan Reed, Nicholson, Trent all out for the count.

What they did at the end of the season is quite frankly irrelevant.  They blew the game against the Saints where they had a 2 score lead in the 4th, got super conservative, and allowed Drew Brees to torch them.  Going conservative and allowing leads to slip away is a common theme over Gruden's 3 years with a legitimate starting QB here.  

 

Then they played an uninspired game against an AWFUL Giants team and barely beat them at home. 

 

Then they got blown out against Dallas with the season on the line.

Then they got blown out by  the San Diego (I mean LA) Chargers.  Then the season was over, the collapse was complete, and everything else is irrelevant.  

 

Coming out of the bye week, they went 3-6, with a life/death win against the 49ers, a VERY GOOD win against the Seahawks, and then an uninspired win again the Giants. And losses against everybody else, including a 1-3 record in the division. 

 

I'm sorry, I don't give the team or the coaches a heck of a lot of credit beating an awful Cardinals team starting a QB who shouldn't be in the league, or a Denver team starting possibly the worst QB playing in the league after the season was over. Then they lost to an awful Giants team. 

 

That's a collapse.  And at least some of it was avoidable.  Again, I get the injury effect.  I really do. But they went 3-6 coming out of a bye, and included in that stretch going 1-3 against the division.  

 

 

On 2/18/2018 at 1:22 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

2016 season - yeah the Giants-Panthers games were painful.  I just don't think either team is a good matchup for the Redskins -- monster D lines that can quickly make the Redskins one dimensional = no good.  I put that more on the roster than coaching

There were 3 games that were bad down the stretch in 2016: Cardinals, Panthers, Giants (with nothing to play for).  My personal opinion is that they absolutely left everything they had out on the field in that loss to the Cowboys, realized they couldn't stop anybody under any circumstance, and  that loss ended the season.  The next week against Arizona was a fairly listless game.  They did get back into it, so credit there, but they went 2-4 down the stretch.  

 

That's not good.

 

As for being 1 dimensional, Gruden as a 3 year coordinator with the Bengals and 4 year HC here has never had a running game ranked higher than 18th in yards per game.  There's a scheme problem with the running game. Along with a personnel problem.  Which helps make the team one dimensional from the start.  NOTE: Andy Reid (who we'll get to in a minute) had a reputation of NEVER running the ball, and he flipped that script on the fly.  So it's more than possible for Gruden to flip that.  But he's going to have to want to flip it.  We'll see.  

 

I disagree somewhat on the matchup issue in 2016.  That year, the team had weapons.  Garcon and DJax helped Crowder and Reed tremendously.  The 'Skins OL isn't terrible, in face in 2016 it had 3 really good pieces in Williams, Moses and Scherff.  LG and C weren't terrific, but with the weapons they had, the QB they had, and the OL they had, they should have been able to do more than they did.

 

At least offensively.  If they lost those games 38-31 because they had a crap defense, ok, so be it.  I still would put some of that on Gruden for hiring the worst DC in the history of the game.  But at least you're able to make the best of the situation you are in. However they scored 23 against Arizona, 15 against the Panthers and 10 against the Giants, who weren't really trying.

 

That's somewhat, if not all, on coaching.  

 

On 2/18/2018 at 1:22 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

2015 season -- ended well.

Yes, it did.  Until they lost to the Packers after being up by 11 points in the playoffs...  (Trend) They got stuck on 18 points.  I don't really blame them for not being able to stop Rodgers, that's a tough ask.  Dom Capers figured out the offense, and shut it down. Now, if you want to blame McVay as a first year OC, I'm actually ok with that.  But the losing a double digit lead thing is a trend.  

 

On 2/18/2018 at 1:22 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

Shanny was bad at clock management.  Ditto Gibbs in his 2nd stint.  It's sadly common around the league.  Yeah ditto Jay.

People keep saying this as it excuses Gruden for being bad at it.  So what if others are bad at it?  That doesn't excuse Gruden from being bad at it.  And when you play conservatively, you better damn well be good at it because those decisions are going to cost you close games.  And they did this year, in KC and in NOLA.  

 

On 2/18/2018 at 1:22 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

As for the FO and owner.  IMO it looms as a major deal in the soup.     

I don't disagree.  Bruce is an idiot with an ego complex.  And Dan has no idea how to build an organization.

 

That doesn't mean that Gruden can't also be an average HC.  All three things can be true.  

 

On 2/18/2018 at 1:22 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

I didn't like the Barry hire either.  But I think he learned from it seeing how he chased Phillips the next time around.

Eh, I'm not sure how much he was really going after Phillips.  If memory serves, he was not high on the list of folks to interview, in fact, he never interviewed because he went immediately with McVay to LA.  If they really wanted Phillips, they would have hired him the day after the season ended.  Said, "screw it, we know this guy is a good DC, here's a contract, here's the brinks truck, your son is on the coaching staff, sign it."  They didn't do that. I remember that they were interested in the guy from the Bengals (Guenther?), another guy from Settle maybe, and a few other folks, and sorta lollygagged around and ended up with Manusky.  Who is fine.  But I'm not sure that they got any of the guys they targeted.  

 

Did he learn?  Yeah, maybe a bit.  But we still ended up with the "comfortable" solution who was already here and already known. 

 

On 2/18/2018 at 1:22 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

My point is we can take apart just about any coach save for Belichick and maybe a few others.  Is Andy Reid the culture building winner-innovator -- or is he the lost puppy with clock management and struggles at the end of the season?  

 

Andy Reid is a consistent winner in the NFL, one of the most creative and innovative offensive guys out there.  He can't manage the clock or win in the playoffs, but he's a MUCH better coach than Jay Gruden.  I'd be willing to bet a Reid coached Redskins team in 2017, with EXACTLY the same situation, wins 2-3 more games.  Same injuries, same players, same everything. His coaches. Then he probably calls a TO with 1:45 left in the game up by 2 and let (insert QB here) go down the field and kick a wining FG to lose in the playoffs.  Andy Reid might never win another playoff game. But he's a hell of a regular season coach, has a track record, and would do better than Gruden in just about every situation.

 

I also think the following coaches probably could have gotten at least 1 if not 2 wins (or more) out of the same situation:

 

Belichick

Arians

Pederson

John Harbaugh

Dan Quinn (but don't ask him to win a SB when it's already won)

Mike McCarthy (I'm iffy on this one, honestly. At least the same results, probably better.)

Mike Zimmer

Sean Payton

Pete Carroll

 

I'm not sure about Mike Tomlin (he always has a great roster so unclear) and McVay, due to inexperience.

 

There are a bunch of guys I think could have taken that roster and finished 7-9 in the same situation

 

There are also some guys who I think would have cratered, and fallen apart immediately.

 

Is Jay the worst coach in the league?  No.  Is he anywhere near the best?  No.  

 

Is he worth keeping around while Bruce is here?  Probably, because the replacement is probably one of those guys on the bottom list that would do worse.  

 

PS: This is the last post on Gruden I'm going to make in this thread because I really don't want to hijack it, and this isn't a Gruden thread.  I actually don't think there is an active Gruden thread at the moment.  

[HigSkin]

If you use the FA tag and KC signs it, are the Skins allowed to lesson the tag amount on a trade?  Say like absorb $6 mil of it and still trade him?  I ask because of teams that might balk at the $34 mil amount up front.

[Est.1974]

5 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

If you use the FA tag and KC signs it, are the Skins allowed to lesson the tag amount on a trade?  Say like absorb $6 mil of it and still trade him?  I ask because of teams that might balk at the $34 mil amount up front.

 

I don't believe you can.

 

Im sure a team like the Broncos would balk, and if they happened to be Kirks preferred option, well I guess he'd have to negotiate a LTD with them before being shipped out 

[Cliffmark1]

2 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

I agree with this, even the signing of Smith doesn't detract from the fact Cousins has taken the tag for two years. He even said in one of his latter interviews he'd run to sign a third tag. 

Mara would love nothing more than to deal another penalty to the skins for violating the spirit of something. So I disagree. 

 

3 hours ago, freakofthesouth said:

 

 

they then said Cousins has no leg to stand on with his grievance as there is no real way to prove that the team wouldn't want to keep him, especially based on the relationship the two parties have had with the tag for the past couple years, it's almost like, habituation.

 

 

[freakofthesouth]

Cousins saying he won’t sign a LTD is just kind of silly.  At that point, who cares?  Do what you want, be on franchise tags for the rest of your career, whatever.  It might slight his value some but yeah if he’s saying, “i’ll file a grievance, I won’t sign a LTD with trade partner,” I mean that’s all just kinda showing that something is going down. Give us the picks!!!  Dang even a 2nd rounder would be HUGE 

[Skinsinparadise]

35 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I feel this is a bit misleading...on the face of it it seems to state for a fact that Kirk would refuse to negotiate a LTD with other teams, as if that's something that is a rumor that has actually come out from Kirk's team. But the article doesn't actually cite anything to back that up. I think at this point him signing and refusing to consider negotiating a LTD with another team is still just conjecture.

 

I agree it could be just Rapoport guessing they'd refuse to do a LTD because it just makes sense to operate that way versus getting that info directly from the source.  Rapoport is no Schefter.  

 

[Skinsinparadise]

51 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

Is Jay the worst coach in the league?  No.  Is he anywhere near the best?  No.  

 

Is he worth keeping around while Bruce is here?  Probably, because the replacement is probably one of those guys on the bottom list that would do worse.  

 

PS: This is the last post on Gruden I'm going to make in this thread because I really don't want to hijack it, and this isn't a Gruden thread.  I actually don't think there is an active Gruden thread at the moment.  

 

This is just a large volume of points you are throwing out there.  It would take me some time to go point by point.  I'll get to it eventually.

 

But for now just to zero in on my own take of Jay, pros and cons and just the highlights

 

Pro

Good culture

Likeable

Good rapport with players

Really good passing offenses

Good with QBs

Calls a good game

Handling adversity

Good talent evaluator 

Dealing with the FO-owner 

 

Cons

Clock management

I don't like how he handles the end of halves-games in certain times

Running game

Handling prosperity

 

Neutral On

His defense

End of season comments you made

 

 

There is a double edge sword to many positive attributes.   If you are likable -- some see that as you could be a pushover.  Giving a lot of rope to players = loyalty or = being obtuse?  Typically coaches aren't just strong across the board on every attribute.  If you have a looser locker room it arguably sets you up well for certain games and under a certain context -- and then perhaps hurts you in another.

 

My difference with you on Jay is you think he's average.  I think he's good.  And I'd grade the good on a curve to very good considering how hard it is to coach in that environment.   Just think about all the noise that's nonstop that he has to deal with. 

 

Do I think he's a top 5 coach?  No.  But I do like him as the Redskins HC.  I like stability a lot.  And I love the fact that the dude's personality enables him to have a better chance to achieve stability in that zoo.   

 

You say you are cool with him in part because you agree we might find someone worse -- another Zorn, etc.  But considering how deep you've gotten into your criticisms of Jay, it comes off on your end stronger than that point. 

 

[HardcoreZorn]

I have touched on this before, but there are teams out there that have a lot more incentive to pull off a deal than many here and in the media are speculating. Heck, if he hits the open market does anyone actually think that a team wouldn't have to pay close to 30M on an annual basis over a long term deal? So why then is it so crazy to worst case scenario rent him at one year 34M? Then he walks the next year and that team can collect a compensatory pick the following year. Not that big of a risk IMO.

 

Again, you're a team like the Jets. You badly want Kirk Cousins. You are afraid if he hits the open market you will either get into a crazy bidding war which drives up his price even more or you lose out on him altogether because he prefers to go to the Vikings let's say. Why wouldn't that be worth something to you in draft compensation? ESPECIALLY when factoring in that said team that trades for him would then have the ability to then negotiate a LTD with him for a full year.

 

The ONLY way this becomes impossible is if Kirk doesn't sign the tag (not going to happen) or refuses to sign a LTD with anybody who trades for him (which would be moronic on his part because the team trading for him clearly WANTS his services and he's then eliminating a potential suitor the following off-season while also wasting away a year of his prime). It pretty clearly would be in his best interest to play along if this were to shape up like this.