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

[JSSkinz]

56 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

But the transition tag was perfectly viable before the trade.  Months back, I  personally didn't think think the transition tag was the best scenario but people in the business explained its by a mile best case scenario.  Tandler got into it in depth.   The transition tag keeps the starting point at 28 million.  And it allows Kirk to negotiate with another team.  The Redskins pose the threat to both Kirk and the other team by having the ability to match an offer.  And for a team like Denver it would present an opportunity (in a trade) for them not to go nuts front loading a deal.

 

"As for clearly it was not option." Clearly to whom?  

4

 

I wrote months ago the transition tag was the way to go and most didn't agree.  The only reason I liked the option is that I believed Kirk wanted to be here and it was only a question of him getting what he felt he was worth.

 

Here are 2 reasons why the transition was no longer an option as things progressed.

 

1. After the town hall, it was clear to some of us that Kirk didn't want to be here.

2. If we hold off on the trade and transition tag Kirk he now has us backed into a corner, if he ended up accepting an offer that was too rich for us and we don't match, by the time that process works itself out it's likely there would be no QB's left on the market.

 

The fact that Kirk wanted to wait until free agency opened is the reason we had no choice but to pull the trigger on another QB, there was no trust on either side so we had to limit the risk.

 

Personally, I would have been ok with the risk involved in option #2, if we couldn't match the deal then we just roll with Colt BUT we have free agents we need to sign and veteran players on this team that don't trust hanging next seasons hopes on a rookie QB, especially one that would be drafted outside of the top 3 or 4 options.

 

 

[FrFan]

 

[Skinsinparadise]

46 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

I'm not sensitive, make fun of me all you want. I can take it

 

 

That was me responding to someone else (not you) about the length of my post.  

46 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Now to your point do you truly expect the Chiefs to come out publicly and say they were in cap hell? I don't, maybe you take them at face value and think they weren't pushed up against the cap? 

 

This has ZERO to do with anything relating to my bottom line point.  

 

46 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Bottom line:

1. Your moving the goal post here. You went from "high" draft pick to "top of the 3rd round pick" which is refreshing because honestly a 3rd round pick isn't a high draft pick as you said before. 

 

Also ZERO to do with anything relating to my bottom line point.

 

46 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

If you want to ignore Fuller's contract being attractive to a team with no cap space that's your prerogative. You seem to be thinking things that just aren't true about the Chiefs and this deal now anyway. Why stop with just your takes on Alex Smith lol

 

Weird tangent. That has ZERO to do with my bottom line point.

 

46 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

And I don't care if you and I can't agree with the way things have gone down here.

 

Neither do I.   I am pretty sure I am following the point you are making.   My problem is this isn't even about agreeing about anything because you are off the rails on your own separate track.  I am on a different track and either you aren't following my point or don't want to.  

 

I've bottom lined my point to you multiple times in my posts.   To use an analogy, I am arguing that McDonalds Cheeseburgers aren't good.   We get into a discussion about it.  You go off on tangents relating to things I said in the process about the lettuce, the fries, Wendy's, Burger King.  You've addressed my point before, lets stick to my actual point if  we are going to keep debating. The tangents are just wildly off topic.

 

For example, you are going on and on and on and on and on about age.   When I actually explained to you twice, its not a key part of my point.  I told you -- you can have it.  I let that go.  The age to me is more relevant to me on a different point which is do we draft a QB soon.  But its a sidebar in the soup as to my point.  I explained that to you but you don't want to let it go.  

 

If you make points and you tell me -- hey we are sidetracked on something, let me clarify and lets focus on this -- let alone tell me that twice. I'd presume hey the dude knows what he's meaning to say and what his key points are -- and I'd allow you to that and oblige.  You know your points-mindset of course better than I would.  It's vice versa. 

 

Again, bottom line: Apples to apples trading for Alex Smith versus drafting a young QB versus a FA.  And likely losing the opportunity to get trade value for Kirk.   If you want to trade discussion points on this topic. i'll engage.  But getting into discussion about Andy Reid's motives and Fuller's salary and the Chiefs salary cap has ZERO, to do with anything relating to point.  It's not even tangential where I can see even a peripheral connection to my point.   

[bobandweave]

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

We've done well with our 3rd rounders -- especially top half of the first round.  But regardless, my point on the specific debate is ALL the compensation.  ALL of it.  It seems to get lost in the weeds, including in your post (though I understand not intentionally), that there are three dynamics in play with the trade, not just one.  If people want to minimize the 3rd rounder.  If they want to minimize Kendall Fuller.  If they want to minimize the opportunity cost to trade Kirk.  You got to minimize all of it -- not the part that they think isn't meaningful. 

 

Did we just trade Alex Smith for a third rounder and called it a day?

 

Or Is it?

A.  High third round pick

B.  Kendall Fuler

C. Opportunity cost to trade Kirk for a first rounder and more or at I'd presume at worst a 2nd rounder.

 

The biggest malfunction with your posts isn't that you gloss over important details that actually matter, including that Kirk wasn't staying here no matter what, its that you refuse to admit that the time to trade Kirk was before the NFL trade deadline which as I said was today 113 days ago. Not today, not yesterday, not a month ago either. The time to move Kirk has long been gone. 

 

Trading for Alex clearly marked the end of the road for Kirk in Washington. No question about it. The Redskins traded for Alex because they needed a replacement QB. Alex's market was not going to last forever and the Chiefs wanted to get it done so the Redskins had to act. The team got themselves a chance to replace a good QB with another good QB. Something that is incredibly rare in the league. 

 

What makes you think the Chiefs who were being offered deals by many teams at that time for Alex Smith would have waited for the Redskins to decide what to do with Kirk before moving Alex to Washington? Of course they wouldn't have waited. You have to strike when the deal is offered.

 

 

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

This part isn't directed your way.  A and B tend to be argued by some at times as separate points of discussion.  But they aren't.  Its both.  And the kicker to me is C.  You'd think C doesn't even exist.  Who cares that we had a fighting chance to transition tag Kirk and get trade value?

 

Because the transition tag was an option at one point is no long important. Why? Because Kirk told the whole world he wasn't signing here long term on radio row before the Superbowl. Once he did that this transition tag issue became a bad deal. The transition tag was neither 

 

A). A good option (17 million vs 28 million for the 2018 season for the same QB)

B). Giving the team any clarity as to the next few years (They would have been likely stuck with him for one more year at an outrageous price)

C). Making Kirk want to work with us to get him a long term deal here (He sure doesn't today sound like a guy who wants to do anything for this team)

D). Making Kirk want to work with us to get him a long term deal somewhere else (How many different ways did he say he loved playing on one year deals before you can believe it?)

 

Because the transition tag wasn't used means absolutely nothing. Once it became public knowledge which Kirk did himself before the Superbowl that he wasn't talking to the Redskins before the tag period ended the writing was clearly on the wall that he was gone. Once the team knew he was gone they had a responsibility to make that right so they did. They made it right. Sorry you think that they didn't but they did. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

And the guy I am mostly debating this point on is making a big deal about losing a late 3rd rounder in 2019 as a key reason why we don't sign a FA -- smarter to give up trade capital in the whole bowl of soup to land Alex. 

 

Not one of the Free Agent QB's you speak about are as good of a QB as Alex Smith is. None of them. You want to go with a complete unknown like AJ McCarron? An oft injured guy like Sam Bradford? Case freaking Keenum?

 

And on top of getting a worse QB you want to ensure that the team gets  jack and crap for Kirk Cousins. 

 

Come on man. Name one FA QB today who is better then Alex Smith. I dare you to. You can't. Alex Smith is a top 16 QB in the league, and getting a third round pick for Cousins is something. That's not nothing. If that's your new tune today when yesterday you were shouting "high" round draft pick you keep moving the target and I'm done with this nonsense. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

As for the pick.  His points don't add up together.  The high third rounder can't be a whatever I am not losing sleep over the pick (with a nod to our old friend Vinny who traded 3rd rounders like candy) while its a really really really big deal to get that late third rounder for 2019.   

 

But again this wasn't a 3rd rounder for Alex.  This was Kendall Fuller.  A 3rd round pick.  And likely no shot at compensation for Kirk.  And like I told Bobweave -- if Bruce ends up pulling off some crazy miracle and gets trade value for Kirk, that changes the game for me.  But at the moment, that seems like a stretch.  But yeah if we are talking tomorrow about hey can you believe Bruce got a first for Kirk.  I'll back track. 

 

My point here isn't anything negative about Alex.  I like the dude.  It's about losing Kirk for just about nothing and giving up capital at the same time.  Picking apart parts of the point -- doesn't mean anything to me.  This wasn't a multiple choice trade where we can focus on just one part of it -- its the whole thing.  Considering everything is it a good trade or not.  To me its getting assets for Kirk and what did they give up to replace him.  Does it all add up to job well done?  If people like the whole ball of wax.  That's cool.  To me it's not a job well done.

 

If you don't think this was a multiple option scenario for the team after saying yourself that this was a multiple choice option post Kirk for the team you have lost it.

Of course they had options.

 

None of them were as good as Alex Smith. That doesn't mean Alex is the GOAT or anything stupid like that. It means for the price (17 million), loaning a third round pick this draft for one next draft, and losing our third cornerback beats the hell out of any thing else they could have done.

 

Unless you think that one of the FA QBs was worth completely losing Kirk for nothing because that's what would have happened if they went for a free agent QB. 

 

You don't get to make up rules whenever you feel like it. You don't get to lose Kirk, pickup a FA QB, and get a draft pick for Kirk. That's not how this worked. Now you know this and you pretend that you care about draft picks so loaning a third round pick in 2018 for one in 2019 means we lost what exactly? What did we lose pick wise? The third comes back to them. They now have a good QB when they lost a good QB. Kendall Fuller? Come on man. After all this time passed since the news you need to be more like DJ with this trade and accept it

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000916722/article/dj-swearinger-at-peace-with-alex-smith-trade

[Skinsinparadise]

13 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

 

I wrote months ago the transition tag was the way to go and most didn't agree.  The only reason I liked the option is that I believed Kirk wanted to be here and it was only a question of him getting what he felt he was worth.

 

 

 

I recall, there were a couple of people who agreed with you and most disagreed.

 

I was the opposite, I was initially opposed to the transition tag but being the masochistic media hound I am as for Kirk contract stuff -- upon listening to insiders close to the action I got swayed by them -- they explained the transition tag ultimately was the only hope.  The key context for it to work as we discussed was that the team Kirk wanted to do a deal with wasn't a team with a ton of cap room like the Jets or the Browns.

 

Kirk could negotiate with other teams with the transition tag which he can't do under the exclusive franchise tag.  And if it was a team like Denver they don't have the cap room to front load a deal.  And if Kirk as you say didn't want to be here that helps not hurts the process because the idea of a trade would be helped by the Redskins leverage of matching the deal.  If Kirk sincerely didn't want to be here then the Redskins matching the deal would be perceived as unwelcome and thereby a genuine threat.

 

But for arguments sake lets say some of these insiders are wrong about the transition tag.  Then in 2017, if the FO felt that Kirk wouldn't be back.  Trade him then.  That's how successful franchises operate they know how to obtain assets in return especially when it comes to their QBs.

 

Teams have given up a kings ransom over the years for QBs.  We got a QB that some teams might be willing to pay 30 million a year and is already on the front covers of other cities newspapers and we likely at best get a 3rd rounder in 2019?  Yuck.  That's my point.     

 

 

[bobandweave]

33 minutes ago, FrFan said:

 

 

I love Warren Sharp. He's a top Vegas bettor and his decade record is over 70% bet right. I listen to him all the time and follow him on Twitter as well. Since you posted that I thought you might find this interesting, 

 

Warren does his own thing betting wise but another bettor I've mentioned here before Ross Tucker came out with a podcast this week where he discusses Kirk Cousins in particular the Vegas odds on which team gets Kirk next and in particular how many wins does getting Kirk Cousins mean to a team. 

 

https://www.podcastone.com/Even-Money-With-Ross-Tucker

 

There's the link if you want to listen, great podcast I really enjoy. Warren Sharps website is phenomenal if your into stats and such 

 

https://www.sharpfootballstats.com/

 

Won me some draftkings money with that site last season and highly highly recommended. These guys are awesome. And what you posted there is true. DVOA for schedules 2017 was the 8th hardest in the league and 2016 was the hardest schedule in the league

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamoff2016

 

Kirk is a good QB and the numbers don't lie

 

[Llevron]

5 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

Kirk is a good QB and the numbers don't lie

 

 

Funny. That is both the truth and the problem. Only us lol

[bobandweave]

41 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

This has ZERO to do with anything relating to my bottom line point.  

 

You don't get to decide what is important and what is not. The truth about this situation is it is a complicated mess. You can't dictate what isn't important with me sorry, what's important to me is the whole story. Not a piece of it like "Sam Bradford got traded for a first and fourth round pick" without giving that information some context. You my friend are like me, miles away from Washington and we are both fans of the team and I like discussing things. So anyway down to business

 

 

41 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Again, bottom line: Apples to apples trading for Alex Smith versus drafting a young QB versus a FA.  And likely losing the opportunity to get trade value for Kirk.  If you want to trade discussion points on this topic. i'll engage.

 

Okay cool. Engage. I've asked you which free agent QB was the better option to replace Kirk? Please tell me what FA QB is better then Kirk

 

http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2018QB.php

 

Lets start there please. 

 

Drafting a QB at pick 13 I've already spoken about. If you want I will copy/paste my thoughts on that for you to dissect. I don't think realistically that was a real option. But I'd like to hear your thoughts on it

[Skinsinparadise]

49 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

The biggest malfunction with your posts isn't that you gloss over important details that actually matter, including that Kirk wasn't staying here no matter 

 

Again zero to do with my bottom line point.   

49 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

What makes you think the Chiefs who were being offered deals by many teams at that time for Alex Smith would have waited for the Redskins to decide what to do with Kirk before moving Alex to Washington? Of course they wouldn't have waited. You have to strike when the deal is offered.

 

Pretty far from my bottom line point.  But its at least a few miles closer.    I get what you are trying to say here.  I actually agree that their desperation forced the timing to be what it was.  But so what?    I am sure you recall when we debated this well over a month ago I said I didn't like the idea and that was with me assuming normal timing.  But yeah if your point is would I have liked it better if this was done after they got a trade for Kirk.  Yeah by a mile.   But it didn't go down that way.  And I'd only grade the FO on a curve if this was their ONLY option.  But it wasn't.

 

49 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Because the transition tag was an option at one point is no long important. Why? Because Kirk told the whole world he wasn't signing here long term on radio row before the Superbowl. Once he did that this transition tag issue became a bad deal. The transition tag was neither 

 

 

I disagree I don't feel like explaining it again but I just did in two other posts a few minutes ago.  But its on point.  So thank you! 

 

49 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Not one of the Free Agent QB's you speak about are as good of a QB as Alex Smith is. None of them. You want to go with a complete unknown like AJ McCarron? An oft injured guy like Sam Bradford? Case freaking Keenum?

 

 

You are touting my 2nd favorite option (and I don't love it) not my first favorite which was the draft.   We covered this point before so don't have the energy to do into detail.    But in short, its not Alex Smith versus McCarron.  It's Alex Smith versus McCarron, Fuller, 3rd round pick and a shot at real compensation for Kirk.  

 

49 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

And on top of getting a worse QB you want to ensure that the team gets  jack and crap for Kirk Cousins. 

 

 

For a guy that's so dismissive of the third rounder this year.  It's just odd how somehow a third rounder in 2019 is like the Holy Grail.   For simplicity sake, I'll take Kirk out of this.  If you told me would you rather have a 3rd rounder in 2019 or Kendall Fuller.  It would be Fuller by a mile. 

 

49 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Come on man. Name one FA QB today who is better then Alex Smith. I dare you to. 

 

Every time you go in that direction.  Feels like Vinny Cerrato.  Dude just focus on the acquistion who cares what we gave up.  Lets just talk the player.  And yeah we've had this dance with Bruce, too.   Feels like you are swept up in the hype and it all smells roses.  Like I told you before I recognize that feeling.  I can't criticize it.  I've had the post trade fever-euphoria before. 

 

I'll grant that this is spilled milk at this point.   There is really only 2 things they can do that would make me like this.  1.  Get trade compensation for Kirk (wildly unlikely though). 2.  Bruce needs to gets some balls in FA and be aggressive for a change.  Alex Smith needs a supporting cast.   Some first tier FAs for a change.   If he does that, you'd see my enthusiasm perk up. 

 

 

49 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

 and getting a third round pick for Cousins is something. That's not nothing. If that's your new tune today when yesterday you were shouting "high" round draft pick you keep moving the target and I'm done with this nonsense. 

 

 

Yeah if you think that a third round pick a year later (getting less than what we gave up for Brunell) is really good for Kirk and how can anyone disagree?  Sorry to me that's comical.  I recall Laconfora among others saying just weeks ago, no way they are going to just lose Kirk for just a 3rder rounder in 2019 because if they did that its as dysfunctional as anything the Browns have done over decades.  

 

What the heck does it matter whether I use the term high draft pick or not?  I'll go back to it.   I know someone on this thread disagreed with me on it.  So what?  Was that some personnel guy speaking the law.  For me a first-3rd round pick is a high pick.  First three rounds to me are the upper ones -- especially top half of these rounds.

 

As for consistency check out my posts about Matt Jones who was picked in the bottom of the third round -- I said on one of those threads big difference to pick at the bottom of the round versus closer to the top. 

 

If your point is that I should see the Kirk compensation thereby as terrific since I consider a third round as a top half of the draft pick.  That's nonsense.  You can look up what teams have gotten for the QBs they traded.  I mentioned a bunch of these trades here.  And no a 3rd round pick a year later -- isn't a great haul for someone like Kirk.  It's a ridiculously small haul.  And who cares how I label it. 

 

Just because to me for example a 2nd round pick is also a high round pick doesn't mean a 3rd round pick and a 2nd rounder and a 1st rounder are all the same to me.  That would be crazy and I'd be a moron.  By top half of the draft i mean that the first three rounds to me are the picks that I don't like to give away. They are higher picks.  But yeah a third round isn't equal a 2nd rounder or a first rounder. 

 

And even if I played with your logic (and I am bit hesitant to do it because it propels tangents but I'll risk it), when teams trade a draft pick during the draft -- they trade off a round.  We did it ourselves in 2016.  You trade your 5th rounder for next years 4th rounder, etc.  So a 2019 3rd round pick is considered the equivalent of a 4th round pick this year.   But regardless, if you think I am the unreasonable one.  Just look up some recent QB trades and come back and explain how Bruce did good compensation wise. 

 

[NoCalMike]

Since Miami tagged Landry, if the 'Skins tagged Cousins could they trade player for player straight up, or do the players still have veto power in that situation?

[JSSkinz]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

But for arguments sake lets say some of these insiders are wrong about the transition tag.  Then in 2017, if the FO felt that Kirk wouldn't be back.  Trade him then. 

 

I 100% agree BUT did we have a legitimate chance to trade him after Scott turned down the 3yr $19.5M deal?  This is where my borderline disdain for Kirk comes into play. 

 

It doesn't feel like we ever had a chance after that negotiation.

 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, bobandweave said:

 

You don't get to decide what is important and what is not.

 

This sums it well.   You don't decide what my bottom line point is.  Just like I don't decide what your bottom line point is.   When I am quoting you, I am staying on your points specifically or at least trying to.   I am not coming up with my own version of what your bottom line should be.  You own your thoughts.  I own mine.  If you are going to refer to my thoughts where you are debating me.   Please use my actual thoughts.   Sometimes you do and sometimes you don't.  The problem I have is when you don't you are off by a mile as to my actual argument. 

 

And look sometimes people can get it wrong.  Me, too.  I get that and when I make a mistake I clarify.  But, I've done that in this discussion multiple times.  If you or another poster told me dude you got me wrong -- here's the bottom line of where I am going -- let alone they tell me that multiple times, I try to oblige and respect that.  

 

1 hour ago, bobandweave said:

 

 

Okay cool. Engage. I've asked you which free agent QB was the better option to replace Kirk? Please tell me what FA QB is better then Kirk

 

Kirk or Alex?

 

Again my top choice was the draft.  I am not a personnel guy.  I got my own opinions of who I like but I trust Jay and if Jay sincerely liked (Mayfield, Allen, Rudolph) that's good enough for me.  Trading up for one of the dudes or if they loved Rudolph trade down in the first round take him then.

 

For me to like the Alex Smith trade much more than I do now.  They need again IMO to get serious in FA.  If the idea is coasting at 8-8 for three years that to me makes the acquistion gag worthy for me.    That's not a hit on Alex Smith.  I like Alex Smith.  That's a hit on this FO.  They need to build a team around him and fast.

 

The idea that starting with a young QB is a step back in 2018 versus Alex Smith.  I actually agree with the premise.  But I disagree with the thought behind it.  To me its not a disaster to take a step back to take a step forward.  Think the Giants are crying that we went 7-9 and they had a bad year while they are sitting with the 2nd pick in the draft?  It's about the long view for me.

[Veryoldschool]

2 hours ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

Kirk is on record this offseason stating that he was not willing to negotiate a LTD prior to the FA period starting. That clearly demonstrates little good faith on his behalf to give us the option to secure a LTD prior to FA. If he had been willing to sit down in January or February to discuss a LTD, and we refused, he might have something to complain about. He didn't, therefore the team will argue that it couldn't leave the situation open any longer. We secured a back up option as we we're exposed to having no viable starting QB on the roster come March. Kirk is the one who publicly said he wasn't going to talk to us. That was a mistake.

 

The tag is clearly also available so that teams can protect its assets. Many teams do it and your can easily read between the lines where there is little interest in a LTD. 

 

We could even tag Kirk and make him a LTD contract offer. There is your good faith. He doesn't have to like the offer, he hasn't done for the previous two season but was more than happy with the NFLs tagging process then. What's he going to do about it? Offer him the same deal Smith, he wont take it. Are the league going to to uphold a grievance on that. And if Kirk signs the deal, trade him. All we have to do is keep is signing bonus low to protect our cap position. What's anyone going to do about that?

 

Simply don't buy this grievance story. We've pissed his agent off by trading for Smith whilst his agent was still revelling in the fact that they have been able to play us under the tag game. He's fallen asleep on the job.

 

Our FO has strong options here. Whether we take one of them is another matter.

 

The last time the Redskins pushed the boundaries they got soundly spanked with salary cap penalties, let's hope Snyder doesn't want to run his luck with a clearly dodgy franchise tag on Cousins after they traded for Smith.  I think the league would like to teach the Skins another lesson, a doofus like Synder invites wedgies. 

[skins island connection]

14 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

 

I have no idea how you can blame Kirk's agent in any way.  He is doing his job. And he did it beautifully.  He milked the Redskins into paying way more than they wanted to for 2 straight seasons, now he has a top 10-12 QB hitting the opening market, free to sign to wherever he wants which was the goal all along.   

 

He never said Kirk was the greatest thing since sliced bread.  He simply pointed out that his QB is one of the top 12 QBs in the world.  He knows there is huge demand for a guy like that and he is simply maximizing on his opportunity. This is America, sometimes you get to do stuff like this here. 

 

And there's not a damned thing wrong with it.

 

 So, I'm guessing you'd be perfectly happy with Smith's agent, or any other QB that comes here to do the same thing? 

 An agent is only looking out for 1 person; HIMSELF.  He could give 2 rats where his player ends up as long as he makes the most money out of it, which I'm guessing would be a bigger paycheck for the agent. Unless agents work for a flat rate like USPS, then an agent is along the lines of a lawyer, wrecker driver or an insurance salesman/woman; always going to be an uphill fight with em, and usually spells bad news for the current team.

 

The vision of being in the top 12 of a profession where there is limited access to any individual on the planet, paints it as being like a country club.

Personally i'll be glad when its all over; and wherever KC goes, I wish him nothing but failure. I'm not a fanboy of any player, only the Washington Redskins, and any person or team which threatens any form of negativity towards them, I can only hope they bite the dust, including the current FO which screwed this up to begin with.

[mistertim]

So...random question here that just popped up in my head. If we did a transition tag on Kirk and a team offered him a deal and he took it...could we match it and then turn around and just trade him right back to that same team for picks?:

[RandyHolt]

Now now now, that would be a violation of The Almighty Spirit

[Est.1974]

3 hours ago, mistertim said:

So...random question here that just popped up in my head. If we did a transition tag on Kirk and a team offered him a deal and he took it...could we match it and then turn around and just trade him right back to that same team for picks?:

Tag him. Offer him a deal, good faith covered off. Trade him for whatever is going.

[OVCChairman]

5 hours ago, mistertim said:

So...random question here that just popped up in my head. If we did a transition tag on Kirk and a team offered him a deal and he took it...could we match it and then turn around and just trade him right back to that same team for picks?:

that would mean HE would have to accept the deal which is no guarantee if he's willing to file a grievance if we try to do a franchise tag and trade.  If I'm Kirk and I'm not willing to accept a tag and trade w/ extension, why would i want to give the Redskins the option to match?  I'd play the year on the tag again and hit free agency.  

 

I guess it could work if you had a dance partner and Kirk played ball.. and that a team like the Jets didnt offer a number in the 1st year that would exceed our cap availability.  

[Skinsinparadise]

11 hours ago, skins island connection said:

 

 So, I'm guessing you'd be perfectly happy with Smith's agent, or any other QB that comes here to do the same thing? 

 An agent is only looking out for 1 person; HIMSELF.  He could give 2 rats where his player ends up as long as he makes the most money out of it, which I'm guessing would be a bigger paycheck for the agent. Unless agents work for a flat rate like USPS, then an agent is along the lines of a lawyer, wrecker driver or an insurance salesman/woman; always going to be an uphill fight with em, and usually spells bad news for the current team.

 

The vision of being in the top 12 of a profession where there is limited access to any individual on the planet, paints it as being like a country club.

Personally i'll be glad when its all over; and wherever KC goes, I wish him nothing but failure. I'm not a fanboy of any player, only the Washington Redskins, and any person or team which threatens any form of negativity towards them, I can only hope they bite the dust, including the current FO which screwed this up to begin with.

 

I think though the undertone of Kirk-Kirk's agent with Bruce gets lost sometimes in the mix.  If I am the agent and I think the President of the Team is a douche and was a jerk to me and the player at times.  And turned down my offer in 2016 without even acknowledgment.  Then, I'd think I'd have a little fun sticking it back to him.

 

Emotion-personality is a powerful thing in most negotiations.

 

Then, we got this below which I've posted before. Lombardi worked with Bruce for years, he knows him.  Considering all of this, if I were Kirk's agent I'd probably have a beer with him (post Alex Smith trade) and enjoy getting the last laugh at Bruce.  We are talking now about trading Kirk and it would help obviously if Kirk's agent and Kirk would oblige.  That's part of the problem though when you potentially create hostility with an agent -- why would they want to help you?

 

I almost lost the house I ended up with because my real estate agent and the seller's agent learned to hate each other in the process.  I had to intervene and made it happen. But I wasn't part of the hostileties.  At least some of the people covering the story allude to Kirk not liking Bruce either. So I don't see why Kirk would leapfrog his agent.  In the scheme of things, if so, I think it matters big time.  

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/michael-lombardi-former-nfl-executive-says-bruce-a/

 

“Bruce thinks sometimes he’s smarter than the agents,” Lombardi said. “And the agents called his bluff every time. And they never really bought into Kirk Cousins that he was ever going to do it and they thought they were being cute. And now, all of a sudden, their cuteness is going to cost them a lot of money.

[Audible_Red40]

I have a question about the exclusive franchise tag.

 

Let's say Cousins signs that ridiculous rumored deal with the Jets, that is front loaded with 60 million in the first year.  If a QB gets tagged with the exclusive tag next year by a team, do they get the 1 year deal averaging out the top 5 QB's which would take into account the $60 million deal Cousins would be making?

 

Does that not seem a little ridiculous?  I am sure owners won't like that situation.  You know the spirit of the cap type thing

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

3 minutes ago, Audible_Red40 said:

Does that not seem a little ridiculous?  I am sure owners won't like that situation.  You know the spirit of the cap type thing

 

Cooley floated an idea similar to this last offseason right when it appeared nothing was going to happen on a LTD for Kirk.  He said Dan could fear being blackballed by the other owners if he made Kirk the highest paid player in the league or created a unique contract with less APY and more guarantees to make up for it.  I personally thought he was aware at the time that no deal was going to be struck and he had to get something out there on behalf of the team.

 

The situation you just presented is way worse than that though.  There would definitely be hell to pay on this one.  It would also put Cousins in one of the best tough spots a man could be in, in that even if he doesn't want to play for the Jets, how can anyone possibly leave a 60M guaranteed first year deal on the table?

[bobandweave]

 

15 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Kirk or Alex?

 

Again my top choice was the draft.

 

I am not a personnel guy.  I got my own opinions of who I like but I trust Jay and if Jay sincerely liked (Mayfield, Allen, Rudolph) that's good enough for me.  Trading up for one of the dudes or if they loved Rudolph trade down in the first round take him then.

 

Trading up has a huge cost to it. Last year the Bears moved up one spot in the first round to get Mitchell and it cost them the No. 67 overall, No. 111 overall and their third-round pick in 2018 simply to move up one spot. The year prior the Eagles traded up to get Wentz. It cost them the No. 8 pick in 2016, the No. 77 pick (third round) in 2016, the No. 100 pick (fourth round) in 2016, a 2017 first-rounder and a 2018 second-rounder. Think about that for a second. If your so upset about the third round pick traded to the Chefs for Alex, one that comes back to them a year later, what would you think that it takes for them to give up to get in front of all of the teams in front of them that need a QB too? 

 

Sure anyone could plug their ears saying things like "I like the draft" while completely ignoring the cost to move up in the draft to get a good QB, sure they can ignore the two most recent trades for QB's in the draft but doing that is stupid.

 

Money talks bullspit walks. That's what this has always been about to me. It's my bottom line.

 

This has never been a question like "In a perfect world if everything had the same price who would you want to QB the Redskins" because there are costs with every option here so costs more then others. The cost is what I've always cared about and why I beat a drum for Alex Smith. He by far was the best option here. 

 

There are no choices that don't have a good and a bad side to them. Every single choice has positives and negatives. 

 

When I challenge you asking "'which free agent QB was the better option to replace Kirk? Please tell me what FA QB is better then Kirk" you change your tune to saying you want them to draft a QB. Oh look you move the goal post again. 

 

And when you say "Draft a QB" and don't name any names and at the same time say "I trust Jay" what the heck sense does that even make? 

 

Do you simply refuse to see that Jay had to be behind trading for Alex or that doesn't get done?

 

If you trust Jay and Jay could have beat his drum for any of the QBs out there FA or draft pick and he choose Alex why are you so against that decision?

 

If you trusted Jay you get behind the decision because he had a hand in making it.  

 

 

15 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

For me to like the Alex Smith trade much more than I do now.  They need again IMO to get serious in FA.  If the idea is coasting at 8-8 for three years that to me makes the acquistion gag worthy for me.    That's not a hit on Alex Smith.  I like Alex Smith.  That's a hit on this FO.  They need to build a team around him and fast.

 

Build a team around him fast...

 

Lets start with the comparison between the Chiefs and the Redskins. 

 

Chiefs Defensive Ranks:

Passing Defense DVOA Rank - 23
Rushing Defense DVOA Rank - 32

 

Redskins Defense Rank
Passing Defense DVOA Rank - 6
Rushing Defense DVOA Rank - 29

 

Yet the Chiefs won 10 games last year. Interesting right? 

 

And what about the comparison between the offenses?

 

Chiefs Offensive Ranks:

Passing Offense DVOA Rank - 8    
Rushing Offense DVOA Rank - 5

 

Redskins Offensive Ranks:
Passing Offense DVOA Rank - 14
Rushing Offense DVOA Rank - 28

 

Again interesting right? 

 

Clearly the biggest difference between all of these stats is the Chiefs rushing offense was tons better then what the Redskins had last year. What that should mean to you is that the Redskins need to draft a good RB or find one in FA. And the Redskins offense needs to find themselves a better receiver. Considering who's out there I wouldn't mind picking up someone like Carlos Hyde in FA, and draft WR Calvin Ridley. Or if they drafted Derrius Guice and picked up Marqise Lee in FA. Either way the comparisons between these two teams isn't vastly different. And going crazy in FA doesn't need to happen. 

 

 

15 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The idea that starting with a young QB is a step back in 2018 versus Alex Smith.  I actually agree with the premise.  But I disagree with the thought behind it.  To me its not a disaster to take a step back to take a step forward.  Think the Giants are crying that we went 7-9 and they had a bad year while they are sitting with the 2nd pick in the draft?  It's about the long view for me.

 

Ah Mark Cuban are you SIP now? LOL I'm kidding, but this team as I posted above is not anywhere near needing to be blown up. The needs on this club are obvious

 

1. RB

2. WR

3. Run stuffing DL/NT

 

This isn't a team that should be tanking. 

6 hours ago, mistertim said:

So...random question here that just popped up in my head. If we did a transition tag on Kirk and a team offered him a deal and he took it...could we match it and then turn around and just trade him right back to that same team for picks?:

 

I like the way you think but No I don't think that is possible.

 

The media is reporting that the Jets to keep themselves in this QB conversation are either going to front load the contract and give him like 60 million year one or fully guarantee the deal Kirk signs. 

 

If either happened the Redskins couldn't match. The only way what your saying is possible is if the deal Kirk signs works for our salary cap and that's doubtful. So more likely the Redskins would transition tag Kirk, a team like the Jets would sign him to a deal they knew we couldn't match, and he leaves for nothing.

[Audible_Red40]

6 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

If your so upset about the third round pick traded to the Chefs for Alex, one that comes back to them a year later

Don't be so sure it'll come back to the team.  The trade for Alex is a win now/stay competitive move.  It may continue into free agency, which could put an end to that idea.  You can't proceed as a team thinking about next year, when you think need to think about this year and day to day, if you stay cheap worrying about the 3rd round comp pick, the trade makes no sense.

 

9 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

The needs on this club are obvious

 

1. RB

2. WR

3. Run stuffing DL/NT

You better add CB to that list!

[bobandweave]

20 minutes ago, Audible_Red40 said:

Don't be so sure it'll come back to the team.  The trade for Alex is a win now/stay competitive move.  It may continue into free agency, which could put an end to that idea.  You can't proceed as a team thinking about next year, when you think need to think about this year and day to day, if you stay cheap worrying about the 3rd round comp pick, the trade makes no sense.

 

Say what? The third round pick is damn near guaranteed at this point. When they traded for Alex Smith knowing the redic contract that some team is going to pay Kirk, that locked it in for us. They could go out this off season and spend every single dime they had on other teams free agents and still get that pick. Why?

 

1. Alex Smith was a trade. Traded for players do not count against a teams compensatory picks when they lose a free agent to another team. 

2. Kirk's going to sign a massive deal on another team and thats going to be a huge net loss for the team

3. The Redskins have a lot of interesting free agents on the team now - Breeland talk is saying he's going to get 10 million plus a season, Brown talk is he's going to get between 7-9 million a season somewhere, Junior and Trent pass rushers are always needed by other teams and get overpaid, and there are other guys who likely go to other teams.

 

http://www.ourlads.com/nfldepthcharts/depthchart/WAS

 

Look at all of the red players on that list. All free agents.  

 

Which means actually that the Redskins could possibly get a lot more compensatory picks next year besides this one for Kirk.

 

If all of the free agents leave they will get a ton of free draft picks. Unless all of our free agent money goes to raiding other teams talent. In that case losing Breeland would be offset by who we got to replace him and so forth. The issue is that there is no one out there the team could sign that would offset losing Kirk on the books. 

 

If we lose all of the free agents and we replace them with other teams free agents we would only lose getting picks for losing our own free agents. Would not stop getting a pick for Cousins

 

https://overthecap.com/the-basics-and-methodology-of-projecting-the-nfls-compensatory-draft-picks/

 

That's the reason it always made sense to target Alex Smith, he wasn't a free agent. Those picks are only for losses of free agents. Not sure what you mean by win now or that we may lose that pick next year. They can't lose it 

 

Quote

 

You better add CB to that list!

 

If by this you mean Breeland leaves, sure. But they have Fabian and they have Dunbar. The CB depth is pretty good. I do see them getting another CB this draft. It's the thing they have been doing lately

[OVCChairman]

1 hour ago, Audible_Red40 said:

I have a question about the exclusive franchise tag.

 

Let's say Cousins signs that ridiculous rumored deal with the Jets, that is front loaded with 60 million in the first year.  If a QB gets tagged with the exclusive tag next year by a team, do they get the 1 year deal averaging out the top 5 QB's which would take into account the $60 million deal Cousins would be making?

 

Does that not seem a little ridiculous?  I am sure owners won't like that situation.  You know the spirit of the cap type thing

 

 

I keep hearing them say "$60 million guaranteed in the 1st year of the contract, so my assumption would be that could mean a very large part of that money would include a signing bonus... which would likely not be included when calculating franchise tag money.... Say it was $30mil signing bonus, $30mil year 1 (w/ $10mil signing bonus applied to this year), $20mil year 2 (w/ prorated $10 mil from signing bonus), $10mil year 3 (w/ $10mil prorated signing bonus), in GUARANTEES, then year 4 and 5 contingent upon whether he's on the roster.  All years COULD equate to $30 mil guaranteed but they step down each year after the 1st... which is very front loaded.  This would also give the team an out after year 3. 

 

It would be towards the cap. 

 

2018 - $40mil

2019 - $30mil

2020 - $20 mil

 

 

Thats your $90 mil guaranteed.