Hypothetical: What Salary going forward for Kirk Cousins

[goskins10]

Right.  If I had the time, I'd love to go back and see what folks were saying back then.  Even the talking heads applauded the move at the time.

 

 

So I will mea culpa. Maybe others will. I didn't like the trade when I heard it. I thought it was too much to give up. However, after 2012 I stated in this forum repeatedly that I was glad we made the trade and glad RGIII was on our team. I felt we had our QB for the future. I was all in!

 

I have been an ardent supporter of his right till he was benched at the start of this year. I was a little skeptical of him being benched as Cousins performances up that point were not very inspiring but the professionals made a call and I am after all a Redskins fan first. People can say what they want but the data all pointed to a career back-up and anyone saying they saw more in him are full of ****. They just didn't like Robert and as is typical in Washington, the most popular person in the city is the back-up QB.

 

I have been a fan since 1968. I have been through them all since then. Hell, most people wanted Mark Rypien tossed from the team even after he won the SB! I never liked him as our QB. He was a one year wonder. But I digress.

 

Now the real professionals who saw all the practices and all the class room activities and all the team interactions, they obviously did see something. Although I am not sure some of the change in QB was an effort to get out from under the drama that comes with RGIII (Most of which is not Roberts fault but drama does follow the young man). Totally my opinion, No data to support it.

 

I am glad they made the change. It's starting to be fun to watch football again. This time it feels for real. But I will never understand the need to trash Robert and over exaggerate and over dramatize him time here. Some seem to get some kind of perverse pleasure out of it.

 

Robert is a great guy who is proving daily to be a great team-mate, husband, father and solid community member. He just has not worked out as our QB. Let it go. Let them man be. Stop beating the **** out of him.

[Wildbunny]

It was all of them.  (Maybe not Kyle.)

 

The decision to make the worst trade in Redskins history was made jointly by Dan (knows nothing about football), Bruce (not a real GM), and Mike (good coach, not much of a personnel guy).  All three of them were involved.  I think some people in this thread need to look up the dictionary meaning of that word.

 

By the way, Bruce was hired by Dan, and Mike was hired by Dan and Bruce together.  There wasn't a real GM in the room with them, because Dan didn't hire one, because that's what Dan wanted. 

 

Now we have a real GM, one who won't sign off on trading four high picks for ESPN's flavor of the month. 

 

But Dan is still involved.  He is involved more than any owner should be, especially an owner with his horrific track record.

 

I disagree, there was a GM in the room, that was Mike Shanahan, because that's what Shanahan wanted: Full Control.

You can only blame Danny for trusting a 2 times SB winner.

 

Edit: I'll stop here, this thread have been derailed for too long...

[pjfootballer]

But Dan is still involved. He is involved more than any owner should be, especially an owner with his horrific track record.

Jerrah Jones says "hey."

[Warhead36]

The meddlesome Dan Snyder narrative is so overblown its ridiculous.

[clskinsfan]

Right.  If I had the time, I'd love to go back and see what folks were saying back then.  Even the talking heads applauded the move at the time.

 

Not everyone liked the move. I personally hated it. And was plenty vocal about it on here. But I did eat my crow at the end of 2012. And I am not claiming that I was ultimately correct. If Griffins stays healthy who knows where we are now.

[TimmySmith]

The meddlesome Dan Snyder narrative is so overblown its ridiculous.

It's well earned.  The ghost of the Griffin trade will be with the Skins for a long time. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

The fact that the owner is not involved at all in his franchise is as frightening as the owner meddling in play calling and starting lineup...

You need the owner to be involved in the process of hiring guys, be them GMs, President, HC, or whatever. You need him to have an overview of what's going on in the building.

 

If you work in a company and your boss doesn't know what the **** is going on in is company, he's a terrible boss. So Dan have to be involved, up to some point. And I do think it's been a long time since he haven't been involved in all of those things above.

 

 

It's apples to oranges. The only role an owner must play is financing the team. The statement I underlined above is technically true, but not necessarily applicable to a NFL or business owner. 

 

Let's say I started a company called TD, Inc. (I'll give you guys a discount on whatever I'm selling) but decide that I am tired and don't want to be involved anymore. TD, Inc. wouldn't succeed if no one ran it, but that person doesn't have to be me. If I appoint someone who shares my values and ideals to run the day-to-day operations, I can be checked out and just spend time counting my money. 

 

So, I don't agree that an absent owner is necessarily an issue, unless no one has been appointed as president/CEO. Then, it's an issue. Just like it's not necessarily an issue for an owner to be involved at a low level...it just helps if he's qualified to do so. If Ozzie Newsome won Mega Millions tomorrow and bought the Jags, I think Jags fans would be perfectly fine with him playing dual roles there. 

[pjfootballer]

^^ Wow. So you think that all any owner of any team in any sport does is sit behind a big, oversized mahogany desk, smoke cigars and write checks? Pretty naive view.

Cooke was very involved. Yet he doesn't get chastised because we started winning. You guys realize he almost fired Gibbs when we started 0-5, thinking he'd made a mistake?

[TimmySmith]

Cooke was very involved. Yet he doesn't get chastised because we started winning. You guys realize he almost fired Gibbs when we started 0-5, thinking he'd made a mistake?

Cooke made yes or no decisions on money matters based on what Beathard and Gibbs advised him.  He made ZERO decisions about draft picks.  If Gibbs and Beathard wanted a high dollar FA they had to convince him.   I really don't think Cooke came close to firing Gibbs, even though it makes a great story.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

^^ Wow. So you think that all any owner of any team in any sport does is sit behind a big, oversized mahogany desk, smoke cigars and write checks? Pretty naive view.

Cooke was very involved. Yet he doesn't get chastised because we started winning. You guys realize he almost fired Gibbs when we started 0-5, thinking he'd made a mistake?

 

I never wrote that I "think that all any owner of any team in any sport does is behind a desk and write checks" for his team. I wrote that that's all an owner technically NEEDS to do. I know that many stay involved because they enjoy it or want that level of control. What other things do you put on an OWNER of a team that also pays a CEO? 

 

Cooke made yes or no decisions on money matters based on what Beathard and Gibbs advised him.  He made ZERO decisions about draft picks.  If Gibbs and Beathard wanted a high dollar FA they had to convince him.   I really don't think Cooke came close to firing Gibbs, even though it makes a great story.

 

Exactly - Cooke chose to be involved in some high-level decisions. He mainly approved financial decisions and broke ties between our coach and GM. To my knowledge, there wasn't another executive-level type also on the payroll. So, Cooke played two roles from my point of view (owner and team president). Currently, we have Snyder who oversees Allen who oversees the GM/coaching level. 

 

In my mind, if I own something and hire a CEO (Allen), I'm delegating the day-to-day operations, strategy, vision, etc. to him. 

[Wildbunny]

That's turning into a Owner debate, and has nothing to do with Kirk. It would be good to start a new thread no?

 

^^ Wow. So you think that all any owner of any team in any sport does is sit behind a big, oversized mahogany desk, smoke cigars and write checks? Pretty naive view.

Cooke was very involved. Yet he doesn't get chastised because we started winning. You guys realize he almost fired Gibbs when we started 0-5, thinking he'd made a mistake?

 

Owners sitting back only do so if they have a real trusted man in position.

You can't blame Danny for being involved. You can blame him for hiring Cerrato that was really dumb. But any intervention he add over Cerrato might as well be him trying to right the ship.

 

What matters more is how much does Danny trusts Bruce and Scott. If they do a good work, and the team keeps on grinding, he'll lay back and let them sail the ship, and he'll count his money. Winning constantly being the best way to earn money (see Patriots).

 

And technically TD, I'm pretty sure every owner doesn't sign checks anymore, they must do some transfers...

[Tsailand]

It's well earned.  The ghost of the Griffin trade will be with the Skins for a long time.

Our 2014 first round pick hits free agency in 2018, or 2019 if the 5th year option is picked up. After that point, we have to find something new to blame our problems on.

[Tsailand]

^^ Wow. So you think that all any owner of any team in any sport does is sit behind a big, oversized mahogany desk, smoke cigars and write checks? Pretty naive view.

What do you think Kraft does?

Cooke was very involved. Yet he doesn't get chastised because we started winning. You guys realize he almost fired Gibbs when we started 0-5, thinking he'd made a mistake?

Cooke was before the salary cap era, so all player salaries came directly from his profits. In that era, yes, it was reasonable for him to care about how we spent his money.

These days, there is a minimum salary cap which is close to the maximum salary cap. Synder has to spend that $100M+ money regardless, but he should not be involved in deciding if it goes to RG3 or KC or Peyton Freaking Manning.

[TSO]

Yeah, as Wildbunny suggested (and Tsailand reported)... the next person who wants to comment on Snyder and continue this discussion, please make a thread about it. You can simply title it "Discussion on Snyder" or whatever. You guys can quote posts from here and copy/paste it in that thread.

 

Thanks.  

 

(Just quoting you guys so you all get the notification. )

 

That's turning into a Owner debate, and has nothing to do with Kirk. It would be good to start a new thread no?

 

 

Owners sitting back only do so if they have a real trusted man in position.

You can't blame Danny for being involved. You can blame him for hiring Cerrato that was really dumb. But any intervention he add over Cerrato might as well be him trying to right the ship.

 

What matters more is how much does Danny trusts Bruce and Scott. If they do a good work, and the team keeps on grinding, he'll lay back and let them sail the ship, and he'll count his money. Winning constantly being the best way to earn money (see Patriots).

 

And technically TD, I'm pretty sure every owner doesn't sign checks anymore, they must do some transfers... 

 

 

I never wrote that I "think that all any owner of any team in any sport does is behind a desk and write checks" for his team. I wrote that that's all an owner technically NEEDS to do. I know that many stay involved because they enjoy it or want that level of control. What other things do you put on an OWNER of a team that also pays a CEO? 

 

 

Exactly - Cooke chose to be involved in some high-level decisions. He mainly approved financial decisions and broke ties between our coach and GM. To my knowledge, there wasn't another executive-level type also on the payroll. So, Cooke played two roles from my point of view (owner and team president). Currently, we have Snyder who oversees Allen who oversees the GM/coaching level. 

 

In my mind, if I own something and hire a CEO (Allen), I'm delegating the day-to-day operations, strategy, vision, etc. to him. 

 

 

Cooke made yes or no decisions on money matters based on what Beathard and Gibbs advised him.  He made ZERO decisions about draft picks.  If Gibbs and Beathard wanted a high dollar FA they had to convince him.   I really don't think Cooke came close to firing Gibbs, even though it makes a great story.

 

 

^^ Wow. So you think that all any owner of any team in any sport does is sit behind a big, oversized mahogany desk, smoke cigars and write checks? Pretty naive view.

Cooke was very involved. Yet he doesn't get chastised because we started winning. You guys realize he almost fired Gibbs when we started 0-5, thinking he'd made a mistake?

 

 

The meddlesome Dan Snyder narrative is so overblown its ridiculous.

 

[CBass1724]

It's well earned.  The ghost of the Griffin trade will be with the Skins for a long time. 

 

No, it won't.

 

Take a look at the Rams.  They are a prime example of how much a crap shoot the draft really is.  They got all of those picks from us and we are still better than them.  They have not improved one bit.  We lost 2013 and 2014 dealing with an injured QB who had to change his style.  It's 2015 now and the ghost is absolutely gone.  Sunk cost. 

[goskins10]

What do you think Kraft does?

 

 

 

I just posted a response to this in the following:http://es.redskins.com/topic/383458-open-letter-to-dan-snyder/page-7?hl=snyder

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Getting off topic again but that Rams D-line looked like they had 8 pro bowlers rotating in and out last night. I never saw such domination.

[Newera]

He's going to get paid.   And it's going to be from us.  (At least that $16 mil committed to Robert).  Probably when season is over he is going to hold three Redskin records.   Completions (will probably break vs Buff), completion percentage, and most yards in a season (800  yards short).  All in his first year playing with a limited running game.  Three records in Redskin history his first year getting snaps.  Dude isn't even seasoned  yet.  Who knows how good he could become.  He's decent now. 

 

How good will he be two years from now with some continuity and even better talent around him.   I think as good if not better than Dalton.   With Kirk QB is the least of our problems for once.   We got our qb in 2012.  It just was the other guy.   The insurance.  Hey Mike. Thanks for Kirk and Jordan.  

[Wildbunny]

The fact that he's going to get paid is obvious. Someone will. But that might not be us if Kirk and his agent (never underestimate those guys) forces a bidding war by hitting FA.

 

Guessing where he will be in two years is not an easy task. Sure he can keeps on improving, and all signs leads to this way because the guy is smart and seems to be coachable (which makes me thinks that I'll have to work on a coaches evaluation thread some of them are unnoticed). But there's also plenty of QB with one or two good seasons that fall from grace as quickly as they rose.

 

Still no good at numbers anyway, I'll leave it up to Bruce, Scott and Jay, bu I'm puzzled with offering someone more than Tom Brady, when clearly Brady is still the better guy... But clearly, some QBs out there are overpaid... From what I've read here, 25M is way too much, 10/13M seems fair for both.

[goskins10]

The fact that he's going to get paid is obvious. Someone will. But that might not be us if Kirk and his agent (never underestimate those guys) forces a bidding war by hitting FA.

 

Guessing where he will be in two years is not an easy task. Sure he can keeps on improving, and all signs leads to this way because the guy is smart and seems to be coachable (which makes me thinks that I'll have to work on a coaches evaluation thread some of them are unnoticed). But there's also plenty of QB with one or two good seasons that fall from grace as quickly as they rose.

 

Still no good at numbers anyway, I'll leave it up to Bruce, Scott and Jay, bu I'm puzzled with offering someone more than Tom Brady, when clearly Brady is still the better guy... But clearly, some QBs out there are overpaid... From what I've read here, 25M is way too much, 10/13M seems fair for both.

 

I will predict it right here. Kirk Cousins will be here in 2017. I don't how good he or we will be but outside injury or a complete meltdown, I just don't see any scenario, good or bad that has Kirk anywhere but here. Even if they franchise him it will just be to give them more time to get a longer term deal done.

 

I posted what I thought the salary would be earlier and then revised it after looking a little harder at current contracts. Regardless of that, there is no way he gets $25M/yr. That would be $3M/yr higher than the highest paid player in the NFL. But he will get more than some think. My last prediction was in the $19M/yr for 5 yrs and $35M guaranteed area.

[kost203]

i saw 14-16mill a year. both parties want to be reasonable and want to win. a respectable team but average with incentives added in I would say.

[CBass1724]

The fact that he's going to get paid is obvious. Someone will. But that might not be us if Kirk and his agent (never underestimate those guys) forces a bidding war by hitting FA.

 

Guessing where he will be in two years is not an easy task. Sure he can keeps on improving, and all signs leads to this way because the guy is smart and seems to be coachable (which makes me thinks that I'll have to work on a coaches evaluation thread some of them are unnoticed). But there's also plenty of QB with one or two good seasons that fall from grace as quickly as they rose.

 

 

I can't see a bidding war here.  He might get a better offer but he knows his best chance at immediate success is in Washington.  You can't discount the fact he's been in the same system for 2 years and his head coach put his rear-end on the line to pencil him in as the starter.  Kirk isn't going anywhere unless Aaron Rodgers decides this offseason that he wants to finish out his career in DC.

[Wildbunny]

I can easily see that CBass. No doubt.

Problem I have is Kirk's agent. I don't know what's the guy's worth. If he's fair and doing what his client wants, that will end as you said before he even hits FA status.

 

But we also know that some of those agents are here to make money and will lure their customers into biggers contracts they might get elsewhere. In which case Kirk might follow his agent's advice , hit the FA status and start a bidding war. That's my unknown point here: Kirk's agent.

 

Still, I believe there's 95% chance it works as you described it.

[Voice_of_Reason]

I'm thinking that if they make the playoffs, they might actually have to franchise him while they negotiate a deal.

His agent would be crazy not to go for the moon.

I think a Kapernick style contract would've ideal if they can get it, the question is, can they.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

To kinda piggyback off of a discussion in another thread, the hype for Cousins lives here and dies elsewhere. Granted, national media's buy in isn't a requirement for GMs wanting a QB. It's also a QB starved league but it seems most everyone outside of DC is of the thought process that Kirk is pretty good IN JAYs SYSTEM. Not necessarily a plug and play QB in any system.

If GMs carry the same belief much of the media does, he's not going to cost the arm and leg many of you believe he will.