The (only!) official ES all things Kirk Cousins should we shouldn't we off-season thread.

[MisterPinstripe]

1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

The whole "we can win with Kirk, despite him not being Rodgers, Ben, Brady, Manning....etc etc"  In theory, yes that is correct, you can certainly do that, but if you look at the QB's not in that elite level that have won a SB, most of them were carried by an elite defense and stout running game and ran more of a T.O.P. style of offense.

 

The entire idea behind paying those elite QB's what they make is because they elevate the players around them enough that you don't need the best WR tandem in the NFL or a roster full of skill position players that light up fantasy scoreboards every week. If you go ahead and pay Kirk somewhere in the ballpark of what those guys make with the knowledge ahead of time that he relies on a roster full of weapons to produce, then I am not sure how we become a championship team with him until the DNA of the franchise drastically changes.   

 

With that said, I would be perfectly fine with Kirk running the show if the goal of GMSM is to field a Top 5 defense and Running game, while the offense overall was middle of the pack, but that sort of team is not anywhere close to being this team at the moment. 

For a few years with Gibbs we had a top 5 defense and a great running game. But we had crap at QB so it didnt matter. You cant win a SB with a crap QB even with those two things, you still need someone at QB that is a difference maker.k

 

 

[goskins10]

8 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

I feel like the vast majority of you commenting on this topic have never entered into negotiations in your life. 

 

Like, have you ever even signed a lease at least? I mean... there were business locations I absolutely killed for, or wanted to stay in, but the last thing I ever did was let the landlord/broker know that. I'd totally bull**** and act like I had a million other options. "Yeah, I'm going to need you to lower that CAM and I think a 5% increase per year is way too high, I'll only accept 2%. I'm currently talking with another broker about x location who are offering a better package..." (in my mind, I was willing to take their original deal and I certainly wasn't talking with anyone else, lol). 

 

edit

 

Why is this difficult to see? 

 

Yet, here we are losing our collective minds and hanging on every word.  

 

 

There you go, making sense again. We have talked about this. There is clearly no place for common sense around here! What were you thinking?

[clskinsfan]

3 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

For a few years with Gibbs we had a top 5 defense and a great running game. But we had crap at QB so it didnt matter. You cant win a SB with a crap QB even with those two things, you still need someone at QB that is a difference maker.k

 

 

Trent Dilfer, Jeff Hostetler and Jim Mcmahon wouldnt agree with this post. Oh and Peyton last year as well.

[Voice_of_Reason]

8 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

Trent Dilfer, Jeff Hostetler and Jim Mcmahon wouldnt agree with this post. Oh and Peyton last year as well.

League has changed since then.  Only Dilfer won in the last 20 years. 

 

And enough with the "Peyton sucked last year." He got them into the right play 90% of the time, and they didn't need him to do more. Even if he has to pitch it underhand, he's still Peyton God**** Manning. 

[Llevron]

34 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

4 of our 8 wins this year were 4th quarter comebacks or game winning drives by Cousins and the tie was a 4th quarter comeback which should have been a game winning drive if our kicker doesnt shank it.

 

Look, I get that you want to defend the dude but it's not like there isn't room for discussion here. I'm not saying he's the worst QB ever. Hell I'm not even saying that he is BAD. All I'm trying to get across is that if we pay him to be the only thing worth note on the squad next year, he needs to play like it and there is room on both sides for argument. 

 

It's easy pickings but I refer to the last game of the season. He shouldnt have lost that game for us. He did. I have worries. That's really all I'm saying when I say he needs to win it himself if nothing else will work. 

And I can't believe yall think him saying on radio that he wants to be here actually ruins a contract for him lol. That's the most absurd thing that you could possibly argue hahahaha 

[MisterPinstripe]

13 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

Trent Dilfer, Jeff Hostetler and Jim Mcmahon wouldnt agree with this post. Oh and Peyton last year as well.

You got me. 2 guys from a long time ago and Trent Dilfer who had the greatest defense to ever play the game and was still almost 2 decades ago.

 

Peyton definitely doesnt fit that argument because as he didnt have much of an arm anymore, playing QB isnt just about throwing the ball. Its about calling protection, reading the defense, hot reads, audibles, getting into the right play against that defense, maybe switching what part of the defense you are attacking with the run.

 

Peyton had a big impact on that team, his arm may have been gone but his mind was not.

[ShredSkins]

Okay, so I know if Kirk is franchised another team has to give up picks if they want him. Now these picks are already predetermined aren't they via the tag? Secondly is this still the case if Kirk refuses to sign?

[MisterPinstripe]

6 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Look, I get that you want to defend the dude but it's not like there isn't room for discussion here. I'm not saying he's the worst QB ever. Hell I'm not even saying that he is BAD. All I'm trying to get across is that if we pay him to be the only thing worth note on the squad next year, he needs to play like it and there is room on both sides for argument. 

 

It's easy pickings but I refer to the last game of the season. He shouldnt have lost that game for us. He did. I have worries. That's really all I'm saying when I say he needs to win it himself if nothing else will work. 

You said that hes not able to put the team on his back and win a game. But my point was that he has actually account for half of our wins by doing just that. And in the other ones he just straight up blew out the other team like the Packers and Bears. We have over 60 million in cap space next year, I think we will be fun in that department especially with how much the cap moves up.

 

I have no issue with you not feeling comfortable with the last game of the season, was pretty bad for the offense. I personally put it more on very bad play calling more than Kirk but Kirk also has control of the offense.

 

I understand having worries based on that, I just see a lot of false information thrown out by many different posters as fact when its just not. We can all disagree and have valid reasons for it, Im just tired of seeing over exaggerated or even fabricated points thrown all over the place. And thats not specifically at you, as I assumed you just didnt realize how many games he put together a comeback or GWD.

[goskins10]

7 minutes ago, ShredSkins said:

Okay, so I know if Kirk is franchised another team has to give up picks if they want him. Now these picks are already predetermined aren't they via the tag? Secondly is this still the case if Kirk refuses to sign?

 

They are required to give 2 1st rd picks by the rule. However, the team could agree to take less as long as he does not sign the tag. He could negotiate with a team on a contract then that team would negotiate with the Redskins on compensation. The Skins then have Kirk sign the contract he agreed to with the other team then they trade him to that team. I believe the Packers have done it a few times.

 

At least that's my understanding. Maybe someone else knows better.  

[Wildbunny]

21 hours ago, elkabong82 said:

 

The other Kirk thread has a poll and 90% want him to stay here.

 

Really in that thread and this one it's the same 3 posters just copying and pasting their previous posts over and over again, occasionally rewording them.

Then most of the support are fed up arguing over and over on the same stuff.

Leaving the cons arguing all alone with the same stuff on the thread thinking they won...

 

20 hours ago, RedskinsMayne said:

When can a new contract be signed? March?

 

I get kind of nervous when i hear about how teams like the Rams and the 49ers might make a run at cousins.... 

Season is over, so we've got avery right to sign him anytime soon.

But I doubt it'll happen before the Superbowl and us having a new OC. And we have until a few days before the beginning of FA to franchise him.

 

So we're not really in a hurry, Kirk is probably on holidays, and we're concentrated on getting OC and DC, so we're fine right now.

 

3 hours ago, Taylor 36 said:

We could have gotten something worked out during the season, but we didn't.

 

No we couldn't. When he signed the Franchise Tag, we had until the 15th of july to sign him long term.

Negotiations were forbidden during the season because of it.

[ncr2h]

Where did the narrative that Kirk doesn't elevate his supporting cast come from?  Just curious, as I'm fairly confident that it could be shown that Jordan Reed, Pierre Garcon, Niles Paul, and Vernon Davis all had some of the best years of their careers with Kirk throwing them the ball.  I think Desean Jackson could be argued as well, as in 2014 he averaged 12 yards per target which is far beyond any of his other years (but I would need to look at the gamelogs to verify who threw him which passes).  Roy Helu is another guy whose receiving numbers got a huge boost with Kirk and then fell off the map without him.  In 2014, he was being talked about as explosive like Darren Sproles (Helu led all RBs in 2014 with 10 20+ yard receptions).  We let him go, and I guess Derek Carr couldn't get him back on the level that Kirk had him.  Now we have another guy who gets compared to Sproles (Thompson)...weird.

 

I don't buy the argument that Kirk's supporting cast props him up at all.  We don't have a #1 receiver - we have an elite TE, 3 #2 WRs, and a good backup TE.  On paper, that's a great group.  In practice, the headliner (Jordan Reed) and the best of the receivers (Jackson) have combined for almost a full season of missed games over the past two years.  And when you take those guys out, it's not really all that sexy of a group - Garcon, Crowder, Grant/Harris/Ross, and Vernon Davis would be looked at as a bottom tier receiving corps.  The 9000+ yards that Kirk has racked up over the past two seasons have come despite 13 games missed by Reed and Jackson.  When I look at Seattle, for example, and all we hear about when he throws 5 picks in a game is how Wilson needs help...they've got a better #1 than we do (Baldwin), a better TE (Graham - I think Reed is better but when injuries are factored in I would rather have Graham), #3 WR is a wash (Lockett/Crowder), and I think their advantage at running (Rawls) is at least worth our advantage at #2 WR.  Is Wilson being propped up?

 

[Wildbunny]

43 minutes ago, MisterPinstripe said:

For a few years with Gibbs we had a top 5 defense and a great running game. But we had crap at QB so it didnt matter. You cant win a SB with a crap QB even with those two things, you still need someone at QB that is a difference maker.k

 

Maybe you can't win. But you can reach it without having some HoF QB. Heck, Kaepernick and Grossman went there...

 

So you're not gonna go with a John Beck or stuff like that QB, obviously, but the fact that some teams made it with average joes at QB can makes you feel good at reaching it with Kirk.

 

Sure he wouldn't have much chances against the likes of Rodgers (I know he's in the NFC... just throwing a name out there, don't bash me) or Brady, but against a lesser guy like Flacco or Tannehill? I can see it.

 

It's all about opposition.

[DM72]

20 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

They are required to give 2 1st rd picks by the rule. However, the team could agree to take less as long as he does not sign the tag. He could negotiate with a team on a contract then that team would negotiate with the Redskins on compensation. The Skins then have Kirk sign the contract he agreed to with the other team then they trade him to that team. I believe the Packers have done it a few times.

 

At least that's my understanding. Maybe someone else knows better.  

 

I think that's it. If this does happen, PLEASE let it be either the Browns or SF.

 

And maybe, just maybe, Dallas release Tony Romo and we sign him to a 2 year deal while we groom another QB.

 

 

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, MisterPinstripe said:

You said that hes not able to put the team on his back and win a game. But my point was that he has actually account for half of our wins by doing just that. And in the other ones he just straight up blew out the other team like the Packers and Bears. We have over 60 million in cap space next year, I think we will be fun in that department especially with how much the cap moves up.

 

I have no issue with you not feeling comfortable with the last game of the season, was pretty bad for the offense. I personally put it more on very bad play calling more than Kirk but Kirk also has control of the offense.

 

So those games where he lead us on 4th quarter drives for the win (or tie) those stats can paint alot of pictures if you let them. For examples....

 

In the Giants game, 29-27 -- We get behind early due to inefficiency in the redzone and a piss poor defense. We let them score 21 points in the first half! From then on they score 6 points. I wouldn't say that is Kirk winning it by himself. And i wouldnt say that HE lead us to victory. The D held up and the O did what they had to do to win. Thats a team win if i have ever seen one. Kirk didnt put the squad on his back, he helped us win. Big difference!

 

In the Cleveland game, 20-31 -- Kirk throws for less than 200 yards, but 3 TDs with an Int. We crush in the 1st quarter. Get crushed in the 2nd (int says hi) making it a close game. Again, the D steps up and holds them to just 3 points for the remainder of the game. I mean, its just the browns so i dont know if you can call that stepping it up. But they did what they had to do. Still the O didnt score a single point in the 3rd so the set up for a 4th quarter win was there. Its not like he took over the game. He was just there to help us win it. Which is cool, but far from him putting the squad on his back. 

 

Cincci, 27-27 -- he pretty much put us in position to win. You could still ask for more. With almost 500 yards in the air I expect more than 2 TDs and I dont think that is unreasonable. He also threw a pick. 2 TDs and 1 pick in a tie game. Very meh, BUT he showed up in the 4th and moved the ball. We all know kicker blew it for us. Ill give him semi credit for it. Semi cause we didnt win (but im a pessimist..... and he did his job, so.... credit lol) 

 

Minni, 20-26 -- O struggles early. The D also lets Minni have 20 points in the 2nd (lots of 3 and outs didnt help). After the half, again, the D gets their **** together and holds them scoreless. This would not be the first or last time they do this in the season btw. Kirk moves the ball all second half but throws no TD. All points in the second half come from the kicker. Again, I cant give Kirk super hero status when he cant get a TD in the second half of a contested game that was only really close because of his inability to punch it in. 

 

Finally we have Philty, 27-22 -- Im not going to write much about this one. Pretty so so game from him. 300 yards with a TD and an Int. Defence wasnt really special. Offense wasnt really special. Just beat 'em up NFC East football. 

 

 

My ride is here. Will prof read and finalize my thoughts when I get in the car (yay for technology!!) but im sure you see where im going with this. (sorry if this looks rushed -- it is lol) 

 

Edit - point is, I really don't get the warm and fuzzies when I think of how we may be leaning on him and the offense if we over pay him. I think his price tag puts us in a position where we need him to be better than I described above. And that's just how I see it. 

 

Now, this is all predicated one the idea that we can't pay him enough for him to love the Redskins AND keep his weapons AND build the D. If we can do all of that sign me up baby. I think he's more than good enough. 

 

[markmills67]

Have the Skins started dialogue with the representatives of Cousins? It's going on 3 weeks since our season finished and we could do with this situation being sorted asap.

 

HTTR 

[bobandweave]

53 minutes ago, DM72 said:

 

I think that's it. If this does happen, PLEASE let it be either the Browns or SF.

 

And maybe, just maybe, Dallas release Tony Romo and we sign him to a 2 year deal while we groom another QB.

 

 

 

Oh my, Mr. Glass is going to be 37 years old so we would be getting near 10 years older at QB but worse Tony is three NFL seasons away from any significant playing time. I would absolutely HATE to sign that guy, sorry but we need guys who won't get hurt because we don't have an Offensive line that will keep him clean every single play. Not on board with this sorry

[DM72]

19 minutes ago, bobandweave said:

 

Oh my, Mr. Glass is going to be 37 years old so we would be getting near 10 years older at QB but worse Tony is three NFL seasons away from any significant playing time. I would absolutely HATE to sign that guy, sorry but we need guys who won't get hurt because we don't have an Offensive line that will keep him clean every single play. Not on board with this sorry

 

Lol...I'm not saying long term. If we do, and that's a huge if, non-exclusive franchise tag Cousins and we end up with 2 more 1st rd picks over the next two years, we can draft our QB of the future while we can still be competitive with Romo.

 

I know he's fragile, but it's not as if they'll be breaking the bank on him.

[bigkobe81]

1 hour ago, ncr2h said:

Where did the narrative that Kirk doesn't elevate his supporting cast come from?  Just curious, as I'm fairly confident that it could be shown that Jordan Reed, Pierre Garcon, Niles Paul, and Vernon Davis all had some of the best years of their careers with Kirk throwing them the ball.  I think Desean Jackson could be argued as well, as in 2014 he averaged 12 yards per target which is far beyond any of his other years (but I would need to look at the gamelogs to verify who threw him which passes).  Roy Helu is another guy whose receiving numbers got a huge boost with Kirk and then fell off the map without him.  In 2014, he was being talked about as explosive like Darren Sproles (Helu led all RBs in 2014 with 10 20+ yard receptions).  We let him go, and I guess Derek Carr couldn't get him back on the level that Kirk had him.  Now we have another guy who gets compared to Sproles (Thompson)...weird.

 

I don't buy the argument that Kirk's supporting cast props him up at all.  We don't have a #1 receiver - we have an elite TE, 3 #2 WRs, and a good backup TE.  On paper, that's a great group.  In practice, the headliner (Jordan Reed) and the best of the receivers (Jackson) have combined for almost a full season of missed games over the past two years.  And when you take those guys out, it's not really all that sexy of a group - Garcon, Crowder, Grant/Harris/Ross, and Vernon Davis would be looked at as a bottom tier receiving corps.  The 9000+ yards that Kirk has racked up over the past two seasons have come despite 13 games missed by Reed and Jackson.  When I look at Seattle, for example, and all we hear about when he throws 5 picks in a game is how Wilson needs help...they've got a better #1 than we do (Baldwin), a better TE (Graham - I think Reed is better but when injuries are factored in I would rather have Graham), #3 WR is a wash (Lockett/Crowder), and I think their advantage at running (Rawls) is at least worth our advantage at #2 WR.  Is Wilson being propped up?

 

 

I like Kirk but you cannot make the argument that Kirk made Reed/Garcon/Jackson. Reed has shown to be a top TE even when Griffin was throwing him the ball and Garcon was good in Indy and as well as his time here. Yes not having a #1 receiver hurts, especially in the red zone but the receiving corps we had on the field was better than 90 percent of receiving corps in the NFL. I disagree in that the supporting cast doesn't prop him up. Djax/Crowder got alot of their yardage after the catch. Thats not a bad thing but it does help cousins. Reed being hurt and out a few games completely changed the offense, especially at the end of the year. Kirk is good but I don't really see him elevating the play of our receivers. IMO he's a system QB 

[tomwvr]

1 hour ago, bigkobe81 said:

 

I like Kirk but you cannot make the argument that Kirk made Reed/Garcon/Jackson. Reed has shown to be a top TE even when Griffin was throwing him the ball and Garcon was good in Indy and as well as his time here. Yes not having a #1 receiver hurts, especially in the red zone but the receiving corps we had on the field was better than 90 percent of receiving corps in the NFL. I disagree in that the supporting cast doesn't prop him up. Djax/Crowder got alot of their yardage after the catch. Thats not a bad thing but it does help cousins. Reed being hurt and out a few games completely changed the offense, especially at the end of the year. Kirk is good but I don't really see him elevating the play of our receivers. IMO he's a system QB 

who cares if he is a system guy - if he can run the system an an extremely high level. 

 

Sorry but a top 10-15 QB in the NFL today gets 20 million a year PLUS. 

If we want to not have a top 1/3 of the league QB then let him go. There is no one out there that can run the SYSTEM like he can for a whole season.

Our Back up QB is a 2-3 game a year guy and our 3rd stringer in a mid round draft pick that hasn't had a chance to play because of one of the nice things about KIRK he doesn't get hurt.

 

I think as long as the team does not go over 12-14 percent of the salary cap on Kirk it is a no brainer, its if he wants more then this, or if a team like SF offers us 2-3 first round picks for him including this years 2nd pick, then you really have to take a hard look.

 

 

[wit33]

3 hours ago, Taylor 36 said:

In which category would the defense have come close to top 15 in the league with just 15 more points?  On the flip side, if Kirk was just a few points better in any of several categories he would have been number one in the league for those categories.  As it stands, playing the stats game, he was top eight in most categories, top five in more than half.  Defense crapped the bed in most of the games this season and had their numbers padded by a weak Bears offense and third string QB in week 16.  The Redskins would have easily won at least three more games if it weren't for the defense.

 

 

Please share with me all the games the offense was responsible for winning on its own. The defense was required and had a lot to do with the winning and mid year 6-1-1 mark. Too many look at the culmination of stats and fail to look at each game individually. I dont think the offense was anywhere near dominate or capable of putting the team on its back, or help the unit with a lack of resources by providing any leads. 

 

The NFL is a fickle league from game to game, especially the average teams. 

 

Kirks stats are solid. I think he's a top 15 guy and the teams safest move is to resign him. 

[clskinsfan]

9 minutes ago, wit33 said:

 

Please share with me all the games the offense was responsible for winning on its own. The defense was required and had a lot to do with the winning and mid year 6-1-1 mark. Too many look at the culmination of stats and fail to look at each game individually. I dont think the offense was anywhere near dominate or capable of putting the team on its back, or help the unit with a lack of resources by providing any leads. 

 

The NFL is a fickle league from game to game, especially the average teams. 

 

Kirks stats are solid. I think he's a top 15 guy and the teams safest move is to resign him. 

 

I agree with you. The Offense had plenty of games where they were atrocious in the red zone and the defense had a shutout or allowed very little in the second half. The only thing that got Barry fired was the putrid 3rd and 4th  down defense IMO.

[bigkobe81]

23 minutes ago, tomwvr said:

who cares if he is a system guy - if he can run the system an an extremely high level. 

 

Sorry but a top 10-15 QB in the NFL today gets 20 million a year PLUS. 

If we want to not have a top 1/3 of the league QB then let him go. There is no one out there that can run the SYSTEM like he can for a whole season.

Our Back up QB is a 2-3 game a year guy and our 3rd stringer in a mid round draft pick that hasn't had a chance to play because of one of the nice things about KIRK he doesn't get hurt.

 

I think as long as the team does not go over 12-14 percent of the salary cap on Kirk it is a no brainer, its if he wants more then this, or if a team like SF offers us 2-3 first round picks for him including this years 2nd pick, then you really have to take a hard look.

 

 

That wasn't my argument, I was responding to the whether or not he elevated the play of our receivers. . I understand completely that our options are limited. Responding to you though, it's rumored that he was looking for 12-20 million last year. Whats stopping him from asking for 26-30 mil? Stafford and Carr are rumored to be receiving around that number I believe, and they both led their teams to the playoffs. I honestly think Scott should offer 24-25mil max. Anything more is kind of ridiculous. Scott obviously cares that he's a system guy. Sure, top QB's have to get paid in todays NFL but does that mean making every QB that looks competent the highest paid player in the league? Ala Nick Foles. Don't get me wrong, I think we need to sign Kirk but if he wants to be overpaid then tag and trade him. The Texans screwed the market by giving GarbageWeiler a fat contract and it looks like we unfortunately will be living with the consequences.

[wit33]

4 hours ago, thesubmittedone said:

I feel like the vast majority of you commenting on this topic have never entered into negotiations in your life. 

 

Like, have you ever even signed a lease at least? I mean... there were business locations I absolutely killed for, or wanted to stay in, but the last thing I ever did was let the landlord/broker know that. I'd totally bull**** and act like I had a million other options. "Yeah, I'm going to need you to lower that CAM and I think a 5% increase per year is way too high, I'll only accept 2%. I'm currently talking with another broker about x location who are offering a better package..." (in my mind, I was willing to take their original deal and I certainly wasn't talking with anyone else, lol). 

 

There is a stark contrast to Kirk when he's in negotiation mode versus when he's in team mode during the season. How anyone can't see this is beyond me. Didn't an article come out just last month with Kirk saying how appreciative he is of Scot and Jay. How Scot is the reason he was able to start in this league? 

 

Of course, no mention of that here. Surprise surprise. It's always only what fits the desired narrative, isn't it? 

 

So, yeah, now he'll probably say the complete opposite, lol. And you guys will just run with it. Yes, I'd rather hear him talk about his love for this place and how much he wants to stay, but I totally get why he'd do the complete opposite. And we even have a recent example of another QB doing exactly the same thing in Stafford. 

 

 

3

 

I really don't even care, as I'm on the side of signing Kirk (It's the safest move, whether right or wrong is left to the future), but have you really convinced yourself there isn't any contention between members of the organization and Kirk? Which I can understand from both sides. A QB being franchised and told to prove yourself once more isn't the norm. 

 

 

[tomwvr]

42 minutes ago, bigkobe81 said:

That wasn't my argument, I was responding to the whether or not he elevated the play of our receivers. . I understand completely that our options are limited. Responding to you though, it's rumored that he was looking for 12-20 million last year. Whats stopping him from asking for 26-30 mil? Stafford and Carr are rumored to be receiving around that number I believe, and they both led their teams to the playoffs. I honestly think Scott should offer 24-25mil max. Anything more is kind of ridiculous. Scott obviously cares that he's a system guy. Sure, top QB's have to get paid in todays NFL but does that mean making every QB that looks competent the highest paid player in the league? Ala Nick Foles. Don't get me wrong, I think we need to sign Kirk but if he wants to be overpaid then tag and trade him. The Texans screwed the market by giving GarbageWeiler a fat contract and it looks like we unfortunately will be living with the consequences.

I agree on the Texans, but if we had done the long term last year at say 18 million I think that would have been reasonable. But now Kirk holds all the cards. I would not go to 25 million the first year. I would say 21, 23,24,26, 28 with about 60 million guaranteed.

[KokoMike]

Two other teams will have coaches who think Cousins is great:  Rams, 49ers.  They are in the same division.  Competition.  The Redskins have an asset other teams will want.  Give Cousins what he wants.  Make other team pay for that grace.