Scott McCloughan: Honest Evaluation and Contract Renewal

[TheGreek1973]

23 minutes ago, PortisBetts said:

The thing is, he was playing RT until Moses started to come on. so we shifted him to RG to get our 2 best guys on the field (why we arent doing that with Nseke and Williams, IDK, but I wish we would as Lavauo is our weak point right now). I see where people's concern is, (you dont draft a guard at 5), but why not draft a g at 5 if he is a mauler that can protect your qb and give him time? I never understood why people were so up in arms about Scherff being moved to guard. He killed it there from day 1 and has solidified what was a HUGE weak point for us before he was drafted. Remember, the 4-12 year, our interior offensive line was a disaster.

 

We run a ton of 4-3 alignments. At this point, it is simply a designation. There are plenty of times that Kerrigan and Murphy both have their hand in the ground, so it is essentially semantics. We need to sure up the MLB spot with someone that is passable as we have 2 backups at best as starters. Foster and Compton are terrible. Compton tries, but he is just not athletic enough for it and Foster is hit and miss. Either pretty good or really bad. That is our biggest weakness. I honestly think it is a ties between safety and d-line as well. We are horrific at safety and it has cost us many times this year in busted coverages and missed tackles. The dline has not been good, but we have been able to create a semblance of a pass rush, but cannot stop the run to save our lives. Overall, we are spending most of our time resigning our own offensive players and hopefully signing free agents for our defense (except for Baker. I love Baker and would love to see him with another passable d-lineman as i think he is a stud). 

 

Also, it is easy to fault SM on Cousins, but what were you thinking after week 2? I know I was on the "****, looks like SM may have made the right call" train. There are too many qb's that have had a few good games one year, get the huge contract, and are absolutely atrocious the year after. Osweiler, Cassel, Foles, etc. It is extremely hard to tell and at the time, it was the right move. Remember, we didn't beat any winning teams last year. Not all on Cousins, but he didnt play well in a lot of early games against top notch competition, so it was a valid concern and warranted the franchise tag. Now that Cousins has proven it, pay him what he wants. He has more than earned it and I don't think there will be any problems or hesitancy in us doing that. 

 

Doctson, yeah, that sucks that he was injured. I dont now that i agree about him becoming Art Monk (thats a pretty high mark to hit), but I do think he will be a huge contributor for years to come. 

I agree with most of your post except the bolded line.  Scottie is payed insane amounts of money to make that call before "well lets make sure" kind of thought.  Essentially his indecisiveness cost this team two things.  A chance to have for the next 5 years 30+ million of additional cap space that can be used on needs in FA. And second the chance, small or not, that Cousins will not sign for us in the offseason, forcing us to tag him again, or worse letting him go.

 

The Redskins have never had a QB since Sonny that is borderline elite.  No one in here can tell me that Cousins, with his work ethic and his passion for this game will not at least have a decent chance to reach that level in a year or two.  And yet here we with an uncertain future at our QB position because Scottie failed to make that right call when he is paid huge amounts of money to do exactly that.  Hell if a GM has the luxury of having players "prove it first" why do we need a GM?

[daveakl]

8 minutes ago, TheGreek1973 said:

Hell if a GM has the luxury of having players "prove it first" why do we need a GM?

Every GM has that luxury. 

Drafted players have to prove it in college. 

Players 4 years in have to prove it for their next contract. 

Cousins is no different.

 

He had a fantastic stretch last year but leading up to the Tampa game he wasn't a 20 million per year guy.

 

Would you rather have paid him whatever it took and he turned out like Brock O? Or pay him 24 million and be safe in your evaluation that he's a franchise guy?

[PortisBetts]

1 minute ago, TheGreek1973 said:

I agree with most of your post except the bolded line.  Scottie is payed insane amounts of money to make that call before "well lets make sure" kind of thought.  Essentially his indecisiveness cost this team two things.  A chance to have for the next 5 years 30+ million of additional cap space that can be used on needs in FA. And second the chance, small or not, that Cousins will not sign for us in the offseason, forcing us to tag him again, or worse letting him go.

 

The Redskins have never had a QB since Sonny that is borderline elite.  No one in here can tell me that Cousins, with his work ethic and his passion for this game will not at least have a decent chance to reach that level in a year or two.  And yet here we with an uncertain future at our QB position because Scottie failed to make that right call when he is paid huge amounts of money to do exactly that.  Hell if a GM has the luxury of having players "prove it first" why do we need a GM?

While I don't agree and never will, I totally get your view. It is 2 separate houses of thought. One is more aggressive, which in this case, would have paid off. I think there are more cases where that type of gamble simply did not pay off and handicapped franchises for a few years with a sub-par to poor quarterback. Again, the aggressive stance would have been the right call in this case as we have seen him grow into what we want to see as a franchise qb, but there were inconsistencies in his game last season and the level that he played at towards the end of the year were typically unsustainable over the long haul. The question I think Scot had was would Cousins lean more towards the qb of the beginning of the year, or the end of the year. He proved this year it was the latter, which in our case, works out great, but unfortunately will cost us a little more money now. I think the gamble on SM's side was the prudent course of action.

 

I am not of that aggressive mold (in terms of money. Put me into a playcallers position and I am the total opposite, foot on the throat, pedal to the metal type). I am always more conservative, so I thought the wait and see approach was the better option considering what we have seen in the past with flash in the pans. I think it is easy to say he should have offered him last year now as it would have saved us money, but if Cousins failed, it would have cost us even more money in the long run with no way out. 

 

Also, we are going to see a nice increase in the cap this year, which I think also may have played a part in the decision as well. I dont think Cousins is going to be crazy and say no if we offer him 23-25 million a year just to sit on another franchise tag and potentially get injured/have a terrible season(which i dont think he will, just saying). I think stability for a person may play a huge factor. Not that we will get a hometown discount, which wouldnt be fair to Cousins anyway, but a fair contract on par with what the top qb's in the market are earning should be enough to keep him around. 

[Wildbunny]

33 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I think there's going to be a major investment and changes this offseason.

Most likely, except he have set up the basis roster and culture with the kind of players he wants to have.

 

Scot build it from bottom to top, which imo is the best way not the opposite. At least, we know we have an OK basis that can win us game, even if it's not always pretty.

 

Next step is starting to put on a show. You're not gonna make it with a lead guitar if you don't have solid bass and drums line behind it.

[TheGreek1973]

15 minutes ago, daveakl said:

Every GM has that luxury. 

Drafted players have to prove it in college. 

Players 4 years in have to prove it for their next contract. 

Cousins is no different.

 

He had a fantastic stretch last year but leading up to the Tampa game he wasn't a 20 million per year guy.

 

Would you rather have paid him whatever it took and he turned out like Brock O? Or pay him 24 million and be safe in your evaluation that he's a franchise guy?

Contract could have been made for us to get out of it in year 3 with minimum CAP implications.  Even if he was average this year, what do you do dump him for who?  Colt?  If anything it made a lot of sense to take the plunge at 20 million a year with 50 guaranteed so we can REALLY evaluate if this guy is it.  There is a reason only Brees got the FA tag and SD hedged it by drafting Rivers before they let him go.  Who did we have in the wings?  

 

And please lets stop with this Brock O crap.  The dude barely played 6 games, got replaced by a shadow of Manning and then Denver didn't really make a move to keep him. That should have been major red flags for the Texans.  Cousins was no where near that situation.  He got this team a division title with a very iffy D, and put up record franchise numbers. Totally different.

[daveakl]

Explain how a 50 million guaranteed contract with an out at three years would work.

 

If he was average this year (playing on the franchise tag) then you have a lot of options.

 

A) we had a crappy record and we draft a qb.

B ) we sign one of the large amount of FA qbs and draft a guy to groom for 2 years.

C) we resign Cousins cheaper and draft a guy to groom

 

Brock got replaced my Manning when he hurt his knee against San Diego. 

 

Denver wanted to resign him but not at the huge contract Houston paid him. 

[elkabong82]

1 hour ago, TheGreek1973 said:

Contract could have been made for us to get out of it in year 3 with minimum CAP implications.  

 

What if Kirk was asking for $23 million per year last year and wouldn't come down off that number?

 

Your entire position is based on the idea that Kirk would have signed for $20 mil but that is a complete unknown.

 

Osweiler is a relevant point, as is Foles and any other QB with a short resume who got a large deal and then floundered. They are proof that risks are real. Heck, even proven QBs have gone to other teams on big deals and then played poorly. It's happened to this team more than once.

 

No matter how good a GM is, they are not fortune tellers and any number of things can happen that affect a QB's play. You're position on the matter seems to completely disregard risk with the assumption that top GMs are always right on these things (they aren't) and "should know," ignoring that Kirk's sample size in Gruden's offense was small.

 

I get the argument that we should have had faith in Kirk and signed him long-term last year, but there has to be an acknowledgement that doing so would have been a big leap of faith, that there was definite risk involved. There also needs to be acknowledgement that Cousins could have had contract demands that were top 5, which at that time would have been unreasonable. Cousins has a long history of betting on himself, and he's very smart, so it's not crazy to think he asked for top 5 money knowing that if the team said no, he could just go out and play at a high level and earn it the following year. He knows it's a risk, but it's also likely why he was so eager to sign the franchise tag. Your position does none of this. You disregard all difficult aspects of the decision, make assumptions to benefit your argument  and because of that you make an invalid argument.

 

A VALID argument would be: Yes, there is risk involved but Kirk was dynamite down the stretch and Gruden had him for 1 year as a starter and 1 year as a back-up. So long as his contract demands were around $20 mil or so, we should have made that leap of faith. 

 

[The Consigliere]

4 hours ago, PortisBetts said:

The thing is, he was playing RT until Moses started to come on. so we shifted him to RG to get our 2 best guys on the field (why we arent doing that with Nseke and Williams, IDK, but I wish we would as Lavauo is our weak point right now). I see where people's concern is, (you dont draft a guard at 5), but why not draft a g at 5 if he is a mauler that can protect your qb and give him time? I never understood why people were so up in arms about Scherff being moved to guard. He killed it there from day 1 and has solidified what was a HUGE weak point for us before he was drafted. Remember, the 4-12 year, our interior offensive line was a disaster.

 

Also, it is easy to fault SM on Cousins, but what were you thinking after week 2? I know I was on the "****, looks like SM may have made the right call" train. T

 

I hated the Scherrf pick because Williams was there, he was nowhere near worth the slot, especially considering how many quality RT's and interior lineman were available in that draft, and because of my belief that certain positions are so cost prohibitive in FA (Think Haynesworth) and in draft capital (think of how often elite DT's go top 3-5, how rarely elite DT's fall compared to interior OL's).

 

The fact that he was moved to Guard made me happy, not pissed. All the available evidence I had heard from scouts, from analysts, from Ross Tucker and anyone who knew lineman (I'm not great at evaluating) agreed he was not an NFL LT, would be at best a solid RT, but could easily be a pro bowl and maybe better Guard. To me if that's true, and it was/is, then you move him to Guard and fill the RT need with someone else, like say TJ Clemmings who fell 3 rounds and quickly became a starter for Minnesota before injuries messed him up, ditto La'Ell Collins, ditto Tre Jackson (who was one of the core guys I thought we should draft for Guard in round 3-5 instead of Scherrf-he is also hurt-all these guys are hurt except for Scherrf, and Cam Erving whose been stunningly bad for Cleveland). Being angry he was moved to tackle seems silly to me, once he was picked it was a sunk cost, at that point you put him in the best position you can for him to succeed, you don't start him in a position where he'll be less than his best. The mistake already made, meant we needed to make a RG or LG out of him, not a RT. 

 

On Cousins I wanted to wait as well. The sample size was WAY WAY WAY too small to pay him like a top 10-12 QB before he'd really proven it, and my reasoning was the same as my reasoning for trading up for RGIII, if you're wrong, the solution is easy. Would anyone here have been pissed to be paying a QB producing top 6-8 QB seasons in back to back years like he was a top 10 QB between 1993-2011? I sure as hell would have been fine with it. If you have an elite QB, you pay him top dollar. They are the ultimate asset in the NFL, easily the most important and valuable. The only negative is when you end up paying him Flacco money where it causes you to have to let everyone go whose a FA. Hopefully Kirk's demands, in comparison to cap money, won't be as looney as Flacco's four years ago. But even so, you pay him, heck if we'd gotten him on the cheap in the '16 offseason whose to say he doesn't become incredibly unhappy and a potential cancer because he's being paid say, starting 15th-20th caliber QB money, instead of franchise QB money by the '18 offseason? (btw my RGIII reasoning was simple-yes the cost was exorbitant, but if you were right, you have a franchise QB, and when you have one, nothing else matters remotely as much, especially losing a couple of high picks (unfortunately VERY VERY high picks, although it's hilarious that the Rams used the highest one we've ever had in my lifetime (2nd), and drafted a bust with it (the LT Robinson). LOL!. Anyway back to the reasoning, my reasoning beyond that was, if you're right, you have the franchise QB, and if you're wrong, by the time we realized we didn't have a franchise guy, we'd have our first rounders back, and sure enough, that's exactly what happened, by the '15 offseason it was clear RGIII was a bust, and we had our own first rounder, and happily, we had a hidden potential franchise QB on our roster anyway).

[The Consigliere]

5 hours ago, crabbypatty said:

 

Hey, speaking of rumors, remember pre-draft in 2012 when these rumors about RG3 being selfish and unlikable started popping up, and everyone (myself included) were full of righteous indignation and wrote those rumors off as sour grapes, people trying to "hurt" RG3, etc.

Look at what happened with that, the guy turned out to be a toolbag of the highest order and those rumors were right for the most part.

Where there's smoke there's fire..

Yep, they nailed Newton in '10 and RGIII in '12. I was ready to believe the rips on Newton because it was obvious he was a jerk, and a thief to boot. With RGIII I really bought into the military family, disciplined, hard working, good family background. Turns out, none of that mattered (kind of like Javale McGee having a basketball player mom, so he must be a serious and hard worker, not an idiot), he was a narcissist, clueless, and terrible in terms of base level social skills (the presser's were so damn bad, the self-inflicted mistakes with the media for someone as smart as him were totally inexplicable and can only be traced to personality and character). 

 

I do feel bad for him as I believe Shanny and the Org were criminally negligent in how they handled his injury in Dec '12/Jan '13, particularly in the playoff game where it was patently obvious he couldn't step into his throws and didn't have faith or confidence in his knee stability, and Shanny, scumbag to the end, threw RGIII under the bus with the total b.s. excuse of "he said he was good to play,"?!?!?!?! What football player isn't going to say, "Coach! Put me back in! I can get it out! Put me back in!," other than Jay Cutler (who thankfully for him, even though he was a jerk, made the smart decision back in that other playoff game). It was such an epic scumbag move for Shanny to do that, and then justify it when he knew full well it was his responsibility to take RG3 out for his own health/career, and for the sake of the team as well, as a rusty Cousins would still be 1000x better than a crippled RGIII. 

 

 

[TheGreek1973]

3 hours ago, daveakl said:

Explain how a 50 million guaranteed contract with an out at three years would work.

 

If he was average this year (playing on the franchise tag) then you have a lot of options.

 

A) we had a crappy record and we draft a qb.

B ) we sign one of the large amount of FA qbs and draft a guy to groom for 2 years.

C) we resign Cousins cheaper and draft a guy to groom

 

Brock got replaced my Manning when he hurt his knee against San Diego. 

 

Denver wanted to resign him but not at the huge contract Houston paid him. 

you paying him 20 to prove it.  Next year even if he was just about average you either pay him 24 or you cut him right?  That is 44 million. With an extra 6 you basically can say you gave this guy every chance for success.

 

The only way this scenario turns against the Redskins is if he sucked so bad this year, you couldn't afford to even have him in as a backup next year.  No way you're going to tell me after last year in this system KC would be that bad.  He wasn't hurt, he was improving since week 5 and in the end he broke the franchise records for yards.

 

That is why I don't understand the tag or at least why we didn't attempt to sign him to 90 million 45 guarantees for 5 years.  If KC has said no I get it, tag him.  But the offer Scottie and leadership offered him is close to a back up status for a QB.  Totally disrespecting if you ask me.  Also don't forget this guy was playing 4 years for this team for less than 700k.  If thought that way he already gave the discount to this team (I know he didn't have a choice but still).  And now you telling me we couldn't put the trigger on a top 8, 5 year contract?  BS man, lets face it people Scott and company screwed this royally.  Hell if Synder had nothing to do with the decision to Tag Cousins I would say he should be very pissed off right now. 

2 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

 

What if Kirk was asking for $23 million per year last year and wouldn't come down off that number?

 

Your entire position is based on the idea that Kirk would have signed for $20 mil but that is a complete unknown.

 

Osweiler is a relevant point, as is Foles and any other QB with a short resume who got a large deal and then floundered. They are proof that risks are real. Heck, even proven QBs have gone to other teams on big deals and then played poorly. It's happened to this team more than once.

 

No matter how good a GM is, they are not fortune tellers and any number of things can happen that affect a QB's play. You're position on the matter seems to completely disregard risk with the assumption that top GMs are always right on these things (they aren't) and "should know," ignoring that Kirk's sample size in Gruden's offense was small.

 

I get the argument that we should have had faith in Kirk and signed him long-term last year, but there has to be an acknowledgement that doing so would have been a big leap of faith, that there was definite risk involved. There also needs to be acknowledgement that Cousins could have had contract demands that were top 5, which at that time would have been unreasonable. Cousins has a long history of betting on himself, and he's very smart, so it's not crazy to think he asked for top 5 money knowing that if the team said no, he could just go out and play at a high level and earn it the following year. He knows it's a risk, but it's also likely why he was so eager to sign the franchise tag. Your position does none of this. You disregard all difficult aspects of the decision, make assumptions to benefit your argument  and because of that you make an invalid argument.

 

A VALID argument would be: Yes, there is risk involved but Kirk was dynamite down the stretch and Gruden had him for 1 year as a starter and 1 year as a back-up. So long as his contract demands were around $20 mil or so, we should have made that leap of faith. 

 

And your entire position is based on an imaginary 23 million dollar number which no one has even suggested that the Cousins camp asked.  What we do know is that  we offered him less than 5 million guaranteed of what THIS YEAR'S contract is which is insulting.  In the meantime we are throwing money at Reed (huge risk if you ask me with his concussion history), Kerrigan, and even Norman who really was also a gamble as he was a low draft pick and had about 1.5 years of high production.  But somehow we can't sign the one and only QB that the HC went to bat for.

[Darrell Green Fan]

Dang you folks write long posts here. I usually only read 2 paragraphs, then I get distracted by a shiny object in the room.

[TheGreek1973]

11 minutes ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

Dang you folks write long posts here. I usually only read 2 paragraphs, then I get distracted by a shiny object in the room.

i had a comeback for your post but I don't want to get banned.  LOL

[The Consigliere]

4 hours ago, daveakl said:

Before slotted rookie contracts you didn't draft a guard at 5 because what you ended up paying him was insane vs other guards and even other LT that were already in the league.

 

Now that you can lock him up for 5 years (4 plus the team option), drafting a guard (or really any position if they are that good) is a no brainer. Some media people are still locked into the old way of thought. 

 

Dude is a probowler in year 2. That's a solid top 5 pick.

Let's keep it simple: 

 

Recent top DT signed via FA: Suh signs with Dolphins: 6 years for 114 million, and 60 Million guaranteed.

Recent top G signed via FA: Iupati signs with Cardinals: 4 years for 40 million, and 22 Million guaranteed.

 

Kinda big difference there. 

 

Let's add this angle. Go back through the drafts since the rookie wage scale was put into place (btw, I have no idea why more players aren't simply forgoing an agent when it comes to signing their first contract, they don't need one). But anyway, back to the topic: Since 2011 here are where the top 3 DT's and top 3 interior lineman could be found, in median and average terms on draft day:

 

1st DT on avg/med: 8th/12th overall

1st G/C on avg/med: 17th overal/16.5 overall

 

2nd DT on avg/med: 19th/18th overall

2nd G/C on avg/med: 25th/25th overall

 

3rd DT on avg/med: 27th/31st overall

3rd G/C on avg/med: 40th/31st overall

 

If you want to go based upon more recent drafts as teams have perhaps adjusted more to the cost benefit analysis you get:

 

1st DT on avg/Med: 10th/12th

1st G/C on avg/med: 18th/18th

 

2nd DT since '14: 22nd/27thl

2nd G/C since '14: 30th/28th

 

3rd DT since '14: 33rd/32nd

3rd G/C since '14: 44th/32nd

 

Looking at all of these numbers it's clear those of us who took issue with the pick using arguments including my market/pick value cost/maximization of assets argument are again, correct: Top level DT's earn 3x what top level FA interior lineman earn. Ergo to land one on cheap rookie deal is vastly more valuable to you than landing a good guard. Then consider how teams are actually using an asset. If you want to land the best DT in a draft in general you need a top 8-12 pick. If you want to land a top of the line interior lineman how much will it cost you? A mid first rounder, and bare in mind, these numbers are tweaked by me labeling Scherrf a Guard, even though he was drafted as a RT. If I labeled him a RT, it would plunge the interior lineman draft day cost down significantly further because he was one of only 3 outliers at the position (along with Warmack and Cooper). If you say to yourself, hey, I'm fine with the 2nd best option, lets trade down, then you're aiming for a DT in the late teens, want that 2nd best interior OL? Then you can grab in at the tail end of round one by trading down with a team that lost in the divisional round of the playoffs. 

 

I had many issues with the pick, the most significant of which resided around skipping the best player in the draft, but just as important was how damn expensive a Leonard Williams would cost us in FA or the draft. Because we skipped on Williams, if we want to land a Williams type in FA for our DL, we are going to have to shell out Haynesworth money AGAIN. If we had simply signed Iupati instead, he would have cost us 1/3 what say, Suh, cost, and then we could have simply drafted Leonard Williams, getting a DT on a deal that would be about 1/5 as expensive as Suh. Instead, if we want to land DL talent, we either have to go with cheap nonentities like we're starting right now, or we have to pay a massive amount of money/or draft pick value to move up for a guy.

 

This is what left me so incensed. Does Scott not understand this? Is there something I don't understand? Is it philosophical (we'll spend on CB's and LB's and go cheap on DL's?)? or did we waste a top 5 pick on a player and position that costs 1/3 of what a similarly elite DT would cost in terms of FA money, and at most about 2/3's as much in terms of draft pick value, and if that's true, and it is, then was getting a guy with a mean streak (as if Leonard doesn't have one) really worth that enormous cap cost, and draft pick cost?

 

For myself, I say hell no it wasn't worth it, it made no sense then, and it makes no sense now, and for me, saying hey, with the new draft compensation rules, taking a guard early is fine, ignores about 10,000 pieces of evidence suggesting it was a huge waste of cap and draft pick assets.

 

[elkabong82]

46 minutes ago, TheGreek1973 said:

And your entire position is based on an imaginary 23 million dollar number which no one has even suggested that the Cousins camp asked.  What we do know is that  we offered him less than 5 million guaranteed of what THIS YEAR'S contract is which is insulting.  In the meantime we are throwing money at Reed (huge risk if you ask me with his concussion history), Kerrigan, and even Norman who really was also a gamble as he was a low draft pick and had about 1.5 years of high production.  But somehow we can't sign the one and only QB that the HC went to bat for.

 

My position is about the flaws in your argument so it can't be based on 23 million, that's a strawman. 

 

One of your flaws is you assume Kirk only wanted/would sign for $20 mil. My position is you don't know what Kirk was asking for, that isn't an imaginary number, that is truth. I did, however, explain why Kirk wanting more, like $23 per, could be viewed as a reasonable assumption. Seems to me, just speculating, that if the two sides were at $16 vs $20 then that's close enough for something to be struck, so it would be reasonable to assume Kirk wanted more than that.

 

"Insulting?" You're being dramatic. Scott low-balled Kirk, sure, but if he's going to offer the franchise tag to him, he's not going to then offer a contract that would be viewed as "insulting." 

 

And now you're off on some tangent with other players, none of it having to do with my post and also none of whom have contracts near what Cousins will pull, but 2 of them are elite and have played that way and the third is a seasoned Pro-Bowler, who also got the extension before Cousins was even a starter.

Reed 5 yrs, $46 mil, Kerrigan 5 yrs, 57.5 mil, Norman 5 yrs, 75 mil. Your hypothetical Cousins, 5 yrs, 100 mil. That's about the same as Reed and Kerrigan COMBINED. Perhaps if you actually acknowledged the risk in signing Kirk last offseason you'd understand the impact of such a contract. 

 

Also, I find it odd that you're willing to call Norman a gamble (and based in part on something as flimsy as draft position, guess we forgot Kirk was a 4th rounder, oops!) but refuse to admit Kirk was also a gamble. Norman had 2 full seasons as a solid starter and played elite and did it vs. elite competition. Kirk had half a season of great QB play, but not vs. elite competition. I'm a big fan of Kirk, I believed in him as the season wore on last year because I saw his improvement, and felt that despite opponents Kirk showed he was our guy down the stretch last year. But even back then I said if he asked for top 5 QB money I wouldn't blame the team one bit for waiting and having him prove it for a full season. It's a reasonable approach that reduces risk greatly, yet you ignore that.

 

There were positives and negatives to either outcome of the Kirk contract talks. They have been covered frequently and at length over the offseason. You have chosen instead to completely dismiss the negatives to your argument (contract risk, examples of bad contracts, assume Kirk could be signed at $20 mil) and dismiss the positives of Scott's decision (greatly reduces risk). That's disingenuous, stacking the deck, tilting the scale, etc. So your argument is invalid.

Oh, and yes, I do recognize that Kirk will now sign for likely more money now than he would have last year and that it is a negative for Scott. But I also understand that it is a preferred outcome to being wrong and in the hole 20 mil or more per year, which as we saw is also the cost of a Reed and a Kerrigan.

 

 

[elkabong82]

59 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

Let's keep it simple: 

 

Recent top DT signed via FA: Suh signs with Dolphins: 6 years for 114 million, and 60 Million guaranteed.

Recent top G signed via FA: Iupati signs with Cardinals: 4 years for 40 million, and 22 Million guaranteed.

 

I had many issues with the pick, the most significant of which resided around skipping the best player in the draft, 

 

This is what left me so incensed. Does Scott not understand this? Is there something I don't understand? Is it philosophical (we'll spend on CB's and LB's and go cheap on DL's?)? or did we waste a top 5 pick on a player and position that costs 1/3 of what a similarly elite DT would cost in terms of FA money, and at most about 2/3's as much in terms of draft pick value, and if that's true, and it is, then was getting a guy with a mean streak (as if Leonard doesn't have one) really worth that enormous cap cost, and draft pick cost?

 

For myself, I say hell no it wasn't worth it, it made no sense then, and it makes no sense now, and for me, saying hey, with the new draft compensation rules, taking a guard early is fine, ignores about 10,000 pieces of evidence suggesting it was a huge waste of cap and draft pick assets.

 

 

1. Your entire argument is that you should draft based on positions instead of by best player available.

2. You assume Williams was the BPA, but for Scott he obviously was not. The Skins felt Scherff was a better fit. So far, results favor Scherff and the Skins.

3. Results > money

4. You ignore that if you do draft the stud DT, that after 3 or 4 seasons you have to pay him that large contract to keep him, but you can draft 3 stud OL AND sign them long-term for just over the same amount as that DT. 

5. What's the bust rate of DTs in round 1 vs. OL?

6. Scott understands BPA. Can you sit there right ow and tell me the OL would be as effective with a journeyman at RG, that it wouldn't have impacted Moses' development or the rotation at C all season due to injuries? Instead we have a great OL, it's a strength, whereas the Jets' D is 16th in yards allowed, 29th in points allowed, 31st in sacks.

 

Even though it doesn't make sense to you, hopefully this will help because right now results aren't on your side.

[Est.1974]

Scherff was a great pickup. Also think Scott is doing a damn fine job. But to be fair, Williams was pure BPA at the time. No doubt.

[ILikeBilly]

2 hours ago, The Consigliere said:

Let's keep it simple: 

...

For myself, I say hell no it wasn't worth it, it made no sense then, and it makes no sense now, and for me, saying hey, with the new draft compensation rules, taking a guard early is fine, ignores about 10,000 pieces of evidence suggesting it was a huge waste of cap and draft pick assets.

 

Another point you miss is that without solidifying the line, it would have once again be so bad that it was impossible to fairly judge the QB skills. 

 

Playing devil's advocate, I say that if we draft Williams and not Scherff, Kirk becomes gun shy and banged up and we miss the playoffs last year.  Then, GM places franchise tag on Kirk, he does okay, but line still average at best.  We are out of playoffs around week 13 this year.  Rumors of coaching change, QB change and no one likes our GM. 

 

My point is that having a solid O line makes the offense work.  Scherff was the glue for the right side.  Scherff is my 2nd favorite Scot pick.  Crowder is my favorite!! 

1 hour ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

Scherff was a great pickup. Also think Scott is doing a damn fine job. But to be fair, Williams was pure BPA at the time. No doubt.

Plenty of doubt.

[Darrell Green Fan]

I think that last post about protecting Kirk is very viable, I considered that at the time as part of his reasoning for drafting Scherff.  As for his decision to franchise and have another look it made perfect sense.  As posted earlier Kirk only had 1/2 of a good season to date, it was smart of SM to take advantage of this option that was available to him.   By waiting he will no doubt pay $2-3 mil/year more but it's sure better than flushing $30 million on another Foles.

[Skinsinparadise]

interesting take from Spags about stopping the Redskins offense, his line about the Redskins offensive line I think is interesting.

 

http://www.giants.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/Giants-gameplan-for-Redskins-offensive-weapons/fd1b6b46-9403-4a9d-8eb5-76b38a680788

 

“They might have more weapons than anyone that we’ve faced so far,” Spagnuolo said this week. “Every week, we put up the players that we need to stop. This week, the list was really long. Usually, you have three or four, but this week we ran out of room on the page. They’re scary good on offense. We have to figure out a way to slow them down enough so that our team can win a football game. They can move the ball and score points.” 

That they can. The Redskins are third in the NFL in yards-per game (411.3), second in yards-per-play (6.5), and second in passing yards-per-game (300.8). They have scored 386 points – 95 more than the Giants. Quarterback Kirk Cousins is second in the league with 4,630 passing yards, has completed 67.3 percent of his passes, and has thrown for 24 touchdowns against just 10 interceptions. Washington has three wide receivers (Pierre Garcon, Jamison Crowder and Desean Jackson), two tight ends (Pro Bowler Jordan Reed and Vernon Davis), and a running back (Chris Thompson) with at least 42 catches. Rookie running back Robert Kelley has been an impressive No. 1 back in the second half of the season, and the offensive line is huge from tackle to tackle and features Pro Bowlers in Trent Williams and Brandon Scherff. 

“We’ve played some teams that have had some skill outside, but the O-line has struggled, so you attack them and win that way,” Spagnuolo said. “This team doesn’t really have a weakness. They all can take short passes and go long. We know DeSean Jackson has been doing it forever. We just have to go in and do what we need to do. We have to be the best us. Try and stop the third-ranked NFL offense.” 

 

 

[The Consigliere]

39 minutes ago, elkabong82 said:

 

1. Your entire argument is that you should draft based on positions instead of by best player available.

2. You assume Williams was the BPA, but for Scott he obviously was not. The Skins felt Scherff was a better fit. So far, results favor Scherff and the Skins.

3. Results > money

4. You ignore that if you do draft the stud DT, that after 3 or 4 seasons you have to pay him that large contract to keep him, but you can draft 3 stud OL AND sign them long-term for just over the same amount as that DT. 

5. What's the bust rate of DTs in round 1 vs. OL?

6. Scott understands BPA. Can you sit there right ow and tell me the OL would be as effective with a journeyman at RG, that it wouldn't have impacted Moses' development or the rotation at C all season due to injuries? Instead we have a great OL, it's a strength, whereas the Jets' D is 16th in yards allowed, 29th in points allowed, 31st in sacks.

 

Even though it doesn't make sense to you, hopefully this will help because right now results aren't on your side.

 

1. No it isn't. I've always said, and I'm a firm believer in best available football player, and in never going after need first, although that's changed a bit since GM's and coaches are now so often prioritizing their career over the good of the franchise now because most owners today are far less patient than they were two and three decades ago, and not surprisingly, drafting a QB to sit on the bench for two years, drafting a raw but high ceiling OT like Robinson, only to let him learn until he's ready is out the window etc. I don't believe that should dictate choices but it does because of owner impatience and I should add FA, owners and GM's could be more patient when they didn't have to worry about FA. Anyway back to the topic, I have always been a BAFP guy, but always added the exceptions which were: TE, FB, S, interior OL, and MLB. In recent years I added RB because of the career arc issue, and the incredibly cheap cost of FA RB's, and the relative low draft pick cost of high end RB's, and WR because of the enormously high bust rate, and the supply of consistently good WR's typically available in the teens or later. The exceptions were simple: TE's take forever to develop and have a high bust rate, FB's are barely used anymore, you can usually land the best FS/SS or interior OL or MLB in most drafts outside the top 10-12, and in some cases outside the top 20. As a result, I viewed the top 10-12 blue chip zone, as an area to prioritize the most difficult to acquire positions via FA, and the draft in terms of elite talent: QB, OT, DT, DE/Edge Rusher, and CB. It's not based on needs, its based on positional value with the cap, and with draft picks.

 

2. I don't agree. I believe Scott had Scherrf as high as he did because of intangibles and not talent. I think he loved his mentality and approach, and the pick was an imprimatur selection, leaving the stamp, the signage of the new regime with a tough mean streak OL to pair on the right side with Silverback on the left. Two lunch pail monster OL's to build the offense around and protect the young QB and RB 's in training whomever they may be. I also think it's highly possible he knew the '16 draft was loaded with DT's and very weak in terms of OT's and especially interior OL's which it was. Can't be certain of course, but look at McCloughan's quotes. How many reference his technical abilities compared to his mental make up, his approach and mentality? 

 

3. Yes and Leonard Williams is already an absolute monster DT, on ab cheap deal for what he provides compared to similarly talented DT's. While Scherrf is a good G, on a typical deal for the position. Results in this league are about maximization value when you build. For all the p----ing and moaning I've heard about not resigning Cousins when it would have been cheaper I've heard zero commentary on how Leonard is producing at a pro bowl/all pro level while making 1/5 of an all pro DT's salary. Whats better an iupati and a Leonard Williams or scherrf and the garbage we run out at DL other than baker and maybe hood.

 

4. So why not sign the stud guard who is so much cheaper and a known quantity, and roll the dice with a DT on a cheap as hell contract, and then decide down the line whether to resign him?

 

5. Higher, definitely higher. But Williams was the #1 rated player in the draft before the injury rumors started, and he's lived up to that status as well.

 

6. The '15 and '16 FA classes at Guard were actually quite good. Why get a journeyman for the position when you could have signed a known proven and known quantity? 

[daveakl]

3 hours ago, TheGreek1973 said:

you paying him 20 to prove it.  Next year even if he was just about average you either pay him 24 or you cut him right?  That is 44 million. With an extra 6 you basically can say you gave this guy every chance for success.

Except you want to sign him to a 50m guaranteed contract with an out at year three. Show me how you structure that. My point is going to be that it's virtually impossible to do what you are saying and convince a QB to sign.

[The Consigliere]

41 minutes ago, ILikeBilly said:

Another point you miss is that without solidifying the line, it would have once again be so bad that it was impossible to fairly judge the QB skills. 

 

Playing devil's advocate, I say that if we draft Williams and not Scherff, Kirk becomes gun shy and banged up and we miss the playoffs last year.  Then, GM places franchise tag on Kirk, he does okay, but line still average at best.  We are out of playoffs around week 13 this year.  Rumors of coaching change, QB change and no one likes are GM. 

 

My point is that having a solid O line makes the offense work.  Scherff was the glue for the right side.  Scherff is my 2nd favorite Scot pick.  Crowder is my favorite!! 

Plenty of doubt.

 

and why couldn't we have signed one? guards of quality are reasonably priced in FA compared to other positions. Additionally the '16 draft had plenty of quality interior lineman not named Brandon. Btw I agree that having a quality line in place was essential for evaluating cousins or a potential draftee replacement. I just would have gone about it differently.

[daveakl]

32 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

and why couldn't we have signed one? guards of quality are reasonably priced in FA compared to other positions. Additionally the '16 draft had plenty of quality interior lineman not named Brandon.

Go back to the 2015 draft where we took Scherff.

 

Which G do you draft instead and what round?

Which G would you have signed that was a FA that year?

[TheGreek1973]

54 minutes ago, daveakl said:

Except you want to sign him to a 50m guaranteed contract with an out at year three. Show me how you structure that. My point is going to be that it's virtually impossible to do what you are saying and convince a QB to sign.

 

WTF are you talking about.  Maximum CAP hit would be 50 million.  I wanted us to sign him for 5 years, 90 million with 50 guaranteed.  Simple.  So basically if by the end of the second year you want to move on you can.  What we have done now is essentially paid 20 million for one year and if we tag him again another 24 for 44 million GUARANTEED for just two years.  Not to mention the cap hit is 100% on this money, while if we signed him we could have had it spread out over 5 years.

 

Again guys, this is why QBs don't go on a TAG.  Jesus man, the Eagle resigned Cox for more money that this.  We will be lucky if Cousins signs for the same money that Luck got, especially if he plays well against the Giants and we win.  You don't think his agent knows the CAP is going up and QBs like Stafford are up for a new contract?  Personally I wouldn't be surprise if Scottie tags him again.

 

Now do I know Cousins would have gone for this?  No I don't but then again what we offered and then never bothered to continue negotiations was pathetic.

[daveakl]

except contracts don't work that way.  That was my point.  On your 5/90 with 50 guaranteed what's the signing bonus?  I'm going to assume it's the 50.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Year 1: 6 salary / 10 bonus

Year 2: 8s / 10 bonus

year 3:  10s / 10 bonus

year 4: 12s  / 10 bonus

year 5: 14s / 10 bonus

 

Now if you cut him after year 2 you are on the hook for 30 million in dead space.  You can always designate it as a post June 1 and stretch it over 2 years, but contracts like that are a great way to get you in cap hell.

 

What did we offer him?  What did he respond with?